applied

sciences
Article
Real-Time Power Management Including an Optimization
Problem for PV-Powered Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
Saleh Cheikh-Mohamad, Manuela Sechilariu * and Fabrice Locment

AVENUES, Université de Technologie de Compiègne, Centre Pierre Guillaumat-CS 60 319,

60203 Compiègne, France; [email protected] (S.C.-M.); [email protected] (F.L.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +33-03-4423-7317

Featured Application: This article presents real-time power management including an optimiza-
tion problem, formulated as mixed-integer linear programming, for a microgrid-based intelligent
infrastructure for recharging electric vehicles (EVs). The DC microgrid includes photovoltaic
sources, stationary storage, a power grid connection, and EV batteries as load. The objective of
the optimization problem is to minimize the total energy cost. Simulation and real-time exper-
imental results under different meteorological conditions prove the feasibility of the proposed
control and its superiority over the storage priority strategy.

Abstract: Electric vehicles (EVs) are expanding quickly and widely, and, therefore, EVs can participate
in reducing direct greenhouse gas emissions. The intelligent infrastructure for recharging EVs, which
is microgrid-based, includes photovoltaic (PV) sources, stationary storage, and a grid connection as
power sources. In this article, the energy cost optimization problem is studied, taking into account
the intermittent arrival and departure of EVs. A mixed-integer linear programming is formulated as
an optimization problem in a real-time operation to minimize the total energy cost, taking into con-
sideration the physical limitations of the system. The interaction with the human-machine interface
Citation: Cheikh-Mohamad, S.;
provides EV data in real-time operation, and the prediction only communicates the PV prediction
Sechilariu, M.; Locment, F. Real-Time
Power Management Including an
profile provided by the national meteorological institute in France. The optimization is executed at
Optimization Problem for each EV arrival, with the actualized data in the DC microgrid. Simulation and real-time experimental
PV-Powered Electric Vehicle results of different meteorological conditions show that the EV user demands are satisfied, proving
Charging Stations. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, the feasibility of the proposed optimization problem for real-time power management.
4323. https://doi.org/10.3390/
app12094323 Keywords: charging station; electric vehicle; energy distribution; energy management; human-
machine interface; microgrid; optimization; photovoltaic; real-time experiment
Academic Editor: Alfio Dario Grasso

Received: 31 March 2022

Accepted: 22 April 2022
Published: 25 April 2022 1. Introduction
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral CO2 emissions are the major issue of global warming. The transport sector shares
with regard to jurisdictional claims in 25% of the global energy consumption in the world and therefore contributes to these
published maps and institutional affil- emissions [1,2]. Renewable energies can decrease greenhouse gases and, therefore, CO2
iations. emissions due to pollution from the electrical power plants running on fossil fuels. In
this context, the energy transition promotes the growth of renewable energy sources;
however, this transition can introduce new constraints for grid operators in terms of
reliability and quality [3]. Therefore, microgrids are able to balance local production and
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
consumption of energy and bring benefits to end-user by reducing electricity costs, e.g.,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
reduced transmission cost and distribution cost by lowest energy loss in transmission.
This article is an open access article
Microgrids are based on renewable energy sources such as photovoltaics (PV) and wind,
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
storage devices, and loads and could have a connection to the grid [4]. Electric vehicles
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
(EVs) have been a center of attention worldwide due to their merits: zero tailpipe emissions,
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ noise-free operation, high efficiency of energy use and simple structure [5,6]. The EV market
4.0/). is constantly growing [1,7,8]. However, the increase in EV charging, seen as loads connected

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4323. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12094323 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4323 2 of 33

to the grid, will have a significant impact on the grid and will impose additional difficulties
for grid operators [9,10]. Therefore, managing EV charging will be a critical requirement.

1.1. Literature Review

Recent studies have aimed to design microgrids for EV charging. The authors of [11]
have proposed mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) for an EV charging station in-
tegrated into a DC microgrid to determine the optimal operation planning. They have
focused on optimizing the daily operational costs based on forecasting PV production
and EV operation. A hybrid optimization problem for energy storage management has
been proposed in [12] to minimize the EV charging cost in a PV-integrated EV charging
station using time-of-use wholesale electricity pricing. The authors in [13] have presented
meta-heuristic methods, such as binary particle swarm optimization and binary grey wolf
optimization. They have studied an optimal charging coordination strategy for a random
arrival of plug-in EVs. A MILP optimization has been proposed in [14] to minimize the
microgrid operation cost by having an aggregated EV charging station for an islanded
microgrid and in [15] to minimize the energy generation cost and load shedding consid-
ering various constraints in a microgrid that integrates battery EV charging stations. A
heuristic operation problem has been proposed in [2] for a commercial building microgrid
that integrates EVs and a PV system to study a strategy to acquire data in real-time rather
than forecasting EV charging demand or PV production. A genetic algorithm optimiza-
tion has been studied in [16] for the multi-criteria optimization problem to minimize the
charging costs of the EV, maximize the use of PV and the storage device and minimize the
degradation of the storage device. A MILP optimization has been proposed in [17] to solve
the day-ahead optimization problem and to find the optimal scheduling and operation of
a prosumer who owns renewable energy sources and a plugged-in EV. They have used
a feed-forward artificial neural network for the weather prediction module in the energy
management system. Linear programming and quadratic programming optimization
problems have been addressed in [18] to minimize the total operating costs for building
a microgrid that integrates a heterogeneous fleet of EVs. A multi-objective scheduling
optimization problem based on genetic algorithms has been presented in [19] for microgrids
including EVs to reduce grid loss and charging costs considering various constraints of the
microgrid sources and EV charging characteristics. The authors in [20] have presented an
optimal model for an energy management strategy in a real microgrid, which integrates a
PV system with storage devices, smart buildings and a plug-in EV. They have minimized
the total costs of energy consumption by reducing the power supplied from the grid. A
robust optimization has been described in [21] and compared with stochastic optimization
to minimize the economic and environmental costs of a microgrid, which integrates PV and
EVs. They have proposed a mathematical model to study the uncertainty of EV charging
behavior and PV power. A model predictive control has been depicted in [22] using a smart
charging strategy that takes into account the future EV charging demand. Their goal is to
reduce the peak energy demand for an EV parking lot with PV sources. A multi-objective
evolutionary particle swarm optimization problem has been presented in [23] to minimize
the costs and the overloading for high demands of grid energy for EV scheduling based on
a day-ahead scenario.
A novel convex quadratic objective function has been proposed in [24] to minimize
the power loss of a microgrid in a two-stage optimization method with different pene-
tration levels of plug-in hybrid EVs, studying the behavior of the plug-in hybrid EVs.
The authors of [25] have proposed a stochastic planning model as a convex programming
problem to optimize the component sizes by minimizing the total cost of the EV charg-
ing station considering the uncertainties of PV production, EV charging demand, and
different constraints. An improved optimal sizing methodology of a typical residential
microgrid integrating renewable energy sources and EVs has been proposed in [26] to
lower greenhouse gases emissions and minimize the cost. An annealing mutation particle
swarm optimization problem has been studied in [27] for microgrid optimal dispatching
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4323 3 of 33

to minimize the environmental protection cost and the operation and maintenance cost of
a microgrid in a multi-objective economic dispatch model. A multi-agent particle swarm
optimization problem has been addressed in [28] for a grid-connected PV, energy storage
system and EV charging station to size the PV and the energy storage system and to set
the charging/discharging pattern of the energy storage system. The EV charging station
integrates PV, an energy storage system and a grid connection. A machine learning-based
approach has been proposed in [29] for energy management in a microgrid, taking into
account a reconfigurable structure based on remote switching of ties and sectionalizing.
They have also proposed a new modified optimization problem based on dragonfly due to
the complexity of the problem. An optimal configuration of PV-powered EV charging sta-
tions in [30] has been studied economically and technically under different solar irradiation
profiles in Vietnam using the HOMER Grid program. An optimization model based on a
genetic algorithm has been proposed in [31] to optimize the use and scheduling of energy
sources for an intelligent hybrid energy system, including EVs and a micro-combined heat
and power system. In [32], a bi-level robust optimization has been proposed to optimize
the design of an EV charging station with distributed energy resources. The authors of [33]
have proposed an optimization model for a battery-swapping station to minimize the
charging cost of EVs by optimizing the charging schedule for swapped EV batteries. An
optimal charging profile has been proposed in [34] for EVs to minimize battery degradation
and extend their lifetime.
A robust optimal power management system has been presented in [35] for a stan-
dalone hybrid AC/DC microgrid. The optimization problem, formulated as a MILP
problem, is responsible for supervising the power flow in the hybrid microgrid, with the
objective to satisfy the load demand while maximizing the usage of renewable sources
(PV and wind), minimizing the usage of diesel generation, extending battery life, and
limiting the utilization of the converter between the AC and DC microgrids. An energy
management system for a grid-connected microgrid has been addressed in [36] based on
a MILP problem to minimize the total energy cost over 24 h, taking into account load
demand, grid tariffs, and renewable energy sources production. A long short-term memory
network has been proposed in their paper to deal with the power prediction of the renew-
able energy sources and the load demand, where each hour, it predicts the profiles for the
next 24 h. Then, real-time implementation is enabled by the receding horizon strategy,
which is used to minimize the prediction error and gives commands for the first hour; then,
each hour, the data are actualized. The proposed strategy in [36] proved its cost reduction
in comparison with an offline optimization after conducting simulation tests. In [37], a
novel modular modeling method has been described for an energy management system
for urban multi-energy sources, including cooling, heating and renewable sources, that
allow complex system topologies to be modeled. They have conducted various case studies
with different climate conditions and electrical loads. They have also compared the results
with a rule-based algorithm to compare the annual cost reductions. In [38], the authors
have investigated the technical, economic, and environmental aspects of renewable energy
sources in a microgrid. An equilibrium optimization problem was developed to minimize
the operational cost of the microgrid, which includes PV, wind turbines, and a biomass
generator. The simulation results proved the benefits of using the proposed algorithm
in reducing operational costs and emissions. An equilibrium optimization problem has
been addressed in [39] for optimum PV-storage system integration in a radial distribution
network. Multi-objective functions have been addressed to minimize the cost of invest-
ment in PV and storage system installations, their cost of operation, the cost of energy
not supplied, the power losses in the distribution lines, and the CO2 emissions by the
PV and the grid. The proposed method is compared with various techniques to prove its
effectiveness. In [40], the authors have proposed an equilibrium algorithm to optimally find
the lithium-ion battery parameters, formulated as a nonlinear optimization problem. The
proposed method was compared with various recent techniques to prove its accuracy; also,
it has proved its closeness to the experimental measurement. An artificial hummingbird
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4323 4 of 33

optimization technique has been presented in [41] to find the unknown parameters of
lithium-ion batteries used in EVs. The proposed method is compared with various recent
techniques to prove its value and effectiveness. An experimental test was conducted, and
the proposed technique had the highest degree of precision among the other techniques.

1.2. Research Gaps

In the previously cited references, the optimization was performed knowing the EV
charging prediction profile for the entire day as day-ahead planning. Knowing an EV
charging prediction profile is based on contextual assumptions, e.g., schedule according to
the occupancy of a car park or the average EV autonomy, which are not yet validated in the
real world. In this work, the objective is to perform a real-time control under optimization
for the minimum energy cost and the maximum PV energy for each EV for an intelligent
infrastructure for recharging electric vehicles (IIREVs) considering the intermittent and
random arrival of the EVs, featuring the EV users’ interaction. For the current work, the
optimization is performed more realistically at every random arrival of an EV. Therefore,
when a new EV comes to the station, the state of charge (socS ) of the stationary storage and
the current state of charge of EVs (soc EVv ) in charge are actualized for suitable optimization.

1.3. Contributions
The main contributions of this work are:
1. Proposing EV power profiles, which are based on the EV users’ interaction with the
human-machine interface (HMI);
2. Proposing a new method of real-time power management, including energy cost
and PV energy optimization for the IIREVs considering the intermittent and random
arrival of EVs, where the optimization is performed at each EV arrival;
3. The analysis of the energy distribution by source category for EV charging and the
entire station energy system;
4. The validation of the proposed control in simulation and real-time experimental tests
in different meteorological conditions and random EV power profiles.
This article is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the control system for the
IIREVs, then the MILP optimization problem is detailed with the constraints and the
objective function. Section 3 shows the simulation results and analyses for the different
case studies. Section 4 presents the results obtained by real-time experimental tests. Finally,
the conclusions and further works are presented in Section 5.

2. Supervisory and Control System Based on Real-Time Power Management

Figure 1 shows the DC microgrid, denoted as IIREVs, and includes PV sources, sta-
tionary storage, power grid connection, and EVs as DC loads. Two operation modes exist
for the PV sources: maximum power point tracking (MPPT), where maximum power is
drawn using a perturb and observe algorithm, and PV power limitation, where PV power
is limited in case of a surplus of PV power production [42] because the excess power can
no longer be fully injected into the storage and/or into the grid. The stationary storage
is a backup source acting as an energy reservoir when there is insufficient PV power to
charge the EVs. When there is insufficient PV power to charge the EVs, the grid ensures the
security of the system by injecting power to the EVs if the stationary storage has reached its
lower limits (empty or minimum discharge power). On the other hand, the DC microgrid
can sell power to the grid by injecting it when there is a surplus of PV power production and
the stationary storage has reached its higher limits (full or maximum charging power) [43].
Regarding the EVs charging, they can operate in two modes: fully charging as requested
by their users and EV shedding when it is not possible to fully supply the EVs.
 microgrid can sell power to the grid by injecting it when there is a surplus of PV power
production and the stationary storage has reached its higher limits (full or maximum
charging power) [43]. Regarding the EVs charging, they can operate in two modes: fully
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4323 5 of 33
charging as requested by their users and EV shedding when it is not possible to fully sup-
ply the EVs.

Figure
Figure1.1.Power
Powerflow
flowfor
forthe
theintelligent
intelligentinfrastructure
infrastructurefor
forrecharging
rechargingEVs.
EVs.

Thepower
The powerflow flowfor
forIIREVs
IIREVsisisshown shownininFigure where pPV
Figure1,1,where MPPTisisthe
PV MPPT thePV
PVMPPT
MPPT
power, p is the PV power, p is the PV shed power, p is the grid injection power,
power, pPV PV is the PV power, pPV _ S is the PV shed power, pG _ I is the grid injection
PV_S G_I
pG_S is the grid supply power, pS_C is the stationary storage charging power, pS_D is the
power, pG storage
_ S is the grid supply power, pS _ C is
p I IREVs the stationary storage charging power,
stationary discharging power, D is the IIREVs’ total demand power, p I IREVs
pisS _the
D IIREVs’ total power,
is the stationary storage p I IREVs S is the
and discharging IIREVs’
power, pIIREVs
shedD power. The components
is the IIREVs’ of the
total demand
IIREVs are coupled through their dedicated converters to the
power, pIIREVs is the IIREVs’ total power, and pIIREVs S is the IIREVs’ shed power. Thecommon DC bus. PV sources
are connected to the DC bus through the DC/DC converter to draw the MPPT power. The
components of the IIREVs are coupled through their dedicated converters to the common
stationary storage is connected through a reversible DC/DC converter. The EVs’ batteries,
DC bus. PV sources are connected to the DC bus through the DC/DC converter to draw
as DC loads, are connected through the DC/DC converter. The grid is connected through a
the MPPT power. The stationary storage is connected through a reversible DC/DC con-
three-phase bidirectional AC/DC converter. It is necessary to ensure power at all times
verter. The EVs’ batteries, as DC loads, are connected through the DC/DC converter. The
and mitigate the power difference between the power production and the EVs’ demand.
grid is connected through a three-phase bidirectional AC/DC converter. It is necessary to
The supervisory control system for the IIREVs is shown in Figure 2. The supervisory
ensure power at all times and mitigate the power difference between the power produc-
and control system consists of four layers: prediction, energy cost optimization, operation,
tion and the EVs’ demand.
and HMI. The design and implementation of the IIREVs’ control are based on the interaction
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEWbetweenThe supervisory
the EV userscontrol
and DC system for theEnergy
microgrid. IIREVscost is shown in Figureand
optimization 2. The supervisory
operation 6layers
of 36
and control system consists of four layers: prediction,
form the control block that should keep the power balanced. energy cost optimization, operation,
and HMI. The design and implementation of the IIREVs’ control are based on the interac-
tion between the EV users and DC microgrid. Energy cost optimization and operation
layers form the control block that should keep the power balanced.
The prediction layer is based on weather forecasts. The energy cost optimization is
based on the production prediction and consumption profile. They are calculated based
on data from the prediction layer and the interaction with the HMI. From the prediction
layer, messages from the smart grid about energy system limits, grid power limits, and
dynamic energy pricing are communicated. From the interaction with the HMI, the EV
users choose their charging mode ( M v ), desired state of charge of their EV at departure (
SOCEV _ desv ) in real-time, and get the state of charge of their EV at arrival ( SOCEV _ arrv ).
MILP optimization is used for the technical-economic dispatching of the microgrid
sources and load. This supervisory control has the advantage of interacting with the EV
users to perform the optimization; however, if the choices of the EV users are not feasible,
they have to change them in order to perform the optimization [44].

Figure
Figure2.2.Supervisory
Supervisorycontrol
controlsystem
systemfor
forthe
theIIREVs.
IIREVs.

The main challenge lies in dealing with the discrete events coming from the HMI.
The optimization results communicate the predictive control settings to the operation
layer and update the smart grid about the power references of the stationary storage and
the power grid. The operation layer holds the algorithm that keeps the power balanced
with respect to the constraints of the system and its physical limits [4]; it sets the PV power
limitation and performs EV shedding if needed.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4323 6 of 33

The prediction layer is based on weather forecasts. The energy cost optimization is
based on the production prediction and consumption profile. They are calculated based
on data from the prediction layer and the interaction with the HMI. From the prediction
layer, messages from the smart grid about energy system limits, grid power limits, and
dynamic energy pricing are communicated. From the interaction with the HMI, the EV
users choose their charging mode (Mv ), desired state of charge of their EV at departure
(SOCEV_desv ) in real-time, and get the state of charge of their EV at arrival (SOCEV_arrv ).
MILP optimization is used for the technical-economic dispatching of the microgrid sources
and load. This supervisory control has the advantage of interacting with the EV users to
perform the optimization; however, if the choices of the EV users are not feasible, they have
to change them in order to perform the optimization [44].
The main challenge lies in dealing with the discrete events coming from the HMI. The
optimization results communicate the predictive control settings to the operation layer and
update the smart grid about the power references of the stationary storage and the power
grid. The operation layer holds the algorithm that keeps the power balanced with respect
to the constraints of the system and its physical limits [4]; it sets the PV power limitation
and performs EV shedding if needed.

2.1. Prediction Layer

Météo France provides hourly predictions allowing the calculation of PV power
prediction, which is based on solar irradiation (g) and ambient temperature (Tamb ) forecast
data [45]. The PV power prediction p PV MPPT pred is calculated in MPPT mode for each
time instant ti [46] as given in following equations:

g ( ti )
p PV = PPV_STC · 1000
MPPT pred ( ti ) · [1 + γ · ( TPV (ti ) − 25)] · NPV
(1)
with ti = {t0 , t0 + ∆t, t0 + 2∆t, . . . , t F },

NOCT − Tair−test
TPV (ti ) = Tamb (ti ) + g(ti ) · , (2)
Gtest
where PPV_STC is the PV power under standard test conditions (STC), γ is the power
temperature coefficient (−0.29%/◦ C), TPV is the PV cell temperature, NPV is the number
of PV panels, t0 , ∆t, and t F are the initial time instant, time interval between two samples,
and time instant at the end of time operation, respectively, NOCT is the nominal operating
cell temperature (41 ◦ C), Tair−test is the fixed air temperature (20 ◦ C), and Gtest is the fixed
solar irradiation (800 W/m2 ).

2.2. Human-Machine Interface

As for the EVs, it is possible to charge them in three modes: slow, average, and fast. All
EVs can handle up to fast mode, and they are considered to have the same energy capacity.
The HMI allows the EV users to set their SOCEV_arrv , Mv , and SOCEV_desv , and, therefore,
the estimated charging time, test_ch v , which is the required time to reach SOCEV_desv , is
calculated as given in (3):

(SOCEV_desv − SOCEV_arrv ) · E
test_chv = , (3)
PEV_maxv

where E is the EV’s battery capacity, and PEV_maxv is the maximum charging power based
on the charging mode set by the EV user. The HMI for the IIREVs is shown in Figure 3 and
is well explained in detail in [47].
 v

( SOC EV_desv − SOC EV_arrv ) ⋅ E

test_chv = , (3)
PEV_maxv
where E is the EV’s battery capacity, and PEV _ maxv is the maximum charging power
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4323 7 of 33
based on the charging mode set by the EV user. The HMI for the IIREVs is shown in Figure
3 and is well explained in detail in [47].

Figure 3. Human-machine interface for the IIREVs.

Figure 3. Human-machine interface for the IIREVs.
2.3.Energy
2.3. EnergyCost
CostOptimization
Optimization
The energy cost optimization layer interacts with the prediction layer and the HMI
The energy cost optimization layer interacts with the prediction layer and the HMI to
to run the optimization. The objective of the optimization is to find the lowest energy cost
run the optimization. The objective of the optimization is to find the lowest energy cost and
and the maximum PV power for each EV. The sharing power between the stationary stor-
the maximum PV power for each EV. The sharing power between the stationary storage and
age and the grid is represented by the power distribution coefficient k that is calculated
the grid is represented by the power distribution coefficient k D that isDcalculated from this
fromusing
layer this layer using references
the power the powerobtained
referencesin obtained in the optimization.
the optimization. The benefitsThe benefits of
of optimization
optimization lie in many aspects: reducing the grid peak power consumption,
lie in many aspects: reducing the grid peak power consumption, minimizing the energy minimizing
the energy
cost, deciding cost, deciding
which of thewhich of thestorage
stationary stationary storage
or grid mayor gridthe
have may havecontribution,
better the better con-and
avoiding EV and PV shedding. The communication with the smart grid informssmart
tribution, and avoiding EV and PV shedding. The communication with the grid
the system
informs
about gridthe system
power about
limits forgrid powerand
injection limits for injection
supply, which areandsetsupply, which with
by a contract are set
thebygrid
a
contract with the grid operators, and the energy pricing in real-time. Additionally,
operators, and the energy pricing in real-time. Additionally, stationary storage physical sta-
tionary
limits storage
should physical The
be known. limits should isbetoknown.
objective minimize Thethe
objective is to minimize
total energy cost with the totalto
respect
energy cost
different with respect
constraints [45]. to different constraints [45].
The constraints and the objective function are represented in the following subsections.

2.3.1. PV Sources
The two operation modes for the PV are MPPT and limited power. The PV power that
must be shed is noted as p PV_S . Therefore, p PV is calculated [45] as given by (4):

p PV (ti ) = p PV MPPT ( ti ) − p PV_S (ti ), (4)

where p PV_S = 0 is in MPPT mode; it should not be negative in power limitation mode.
Thus, constraints are added as follows:

p PV (ti ) ≥ 0, (5)

0 ≤ p PV_S (ti ) ≤ p PV MPPT ( ti ). (6)

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4323 8 of 33

2.3.2. Stationary Storage

The stationary storage, represented by lithium-ion batteries, must be protected from
overcharging and over-discharging; thus the maximum storage power PS_max and the
maximum and minimum state of charge of the storage SOCS_max and SOCS_min must be
respected to extend the storage lifetime [45,48] as given by (7) and (8). The simplified
state of the charge of the storage socS evolution [43] is given by (9) for simplicity, where
self-discharge and temperature are not considered:

− PS_max ≤ pS (ti ) ≤ PS_max , (7)

SOCS_min ≤ socS (ti ) ≤ SOCS_max , (8)

Z t
1
socS (ti ) = SOCS0 + pS (ti )dt, (9)
3600 · EBat t0

where SOCS0 is the initial socS , and EBat is the storage energy capacity (kWh) and the storage
power pS (ti ) = pS_C (ti ) − pS_D (ti ). The PV power should not be limited if SOCS_max is not
reached; this constraint is given by (10):

p PV_S (ti ) = 0 i f SOCS (ti ) < SOCS_max . (10)

2.3.3. Grid Connection

The smart grid transmits messages to IIREVs to respect the maximum grid supply
PG_S_max and injection PG_I_max limits set by the grid [45], as in (11), where pG (ti ) =
pG_I (ti ) − pG_S (ti ):
− PG_S_max ≤ pG (ti ) ≤ PG_I_max . (11)

2.3.4. Electric Vehicles

EV batteries, seen as the entire microgrid’s load, can be shed, p I IREVs_S , when p I IREVs D
cannot be fully supplied due to deficient in power, e.g., the storage and grid have reached
their limits [45]. Hence, p I IREVs is given by Equation (12), and knowing that p I IREVs_S
should not be negative, thus, constraints Equations (13) and (14) are added as follows:

p I IREVs (ti ) = p I IREVs D (ti ) − p I IREVs S (ti ), (12)

p I IREVs (ti ) ≥ 0, (13)

0 ≤ p I IREVs_S (ti ) ≤ p I IREVs D (ti ). (14)
No PV shedding power is required when PV power can be fully used, and no EV
shedding power is imposed when EVs can be fully charged. Thus, the constraints of
Equations (15) and (16) must be respected.

 p I IREVs S (ti ) = 0
i f p PV MPPT ( ti ) ≥ p I IREVs D ( ti ) then p G ( ti ) ≥ 0 , (15)
p S ( ti ) ≥ 0



 p PV_S (ti ) = 0
i f p PV (
MPPT it ) ≤ p (
I IREVs D it ) then p G ( ti ) ≤ 0 . (16)
p S ( ti ) ≤ 0

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4323 9 of 33

The EV users can select their charging mode and other choices that are expressed in
the IIREVs’ interface. The following EV constraints given in (17)–(31) represent the EV
users’ interaction:
(a) EV charging mode:

i f Mv = 1 then 0 ≤ p EVv (ti ) ≤ PEV_ f ast_max ∀ti ∈ [t arrv , tdepv ]

(17)
with v = {1, 2, . . . , Nv },

i f Mv = 2 then 0 ≤ p EVv (ti ) ≤ PEV_aver_max ∀ti ∈ [t arrv , tdepv ], (18)

i f Mv = 3 then 0 ≤ p EVv (ti ) ≤ PEV_slow_max ∀ti ∈ [t arrv , tdepv ], (19)
p EVv (ti ) = 0 ∀ti ∈
/ [t arrv , tdepv ], (20)
where v is the index of the EV, p EVv is the EV charging power of v vehicle, t arrv and
tdepv are the arrival and departure time of v vehicle, respectively, and Nv is the total
number of EVs.
(b) Total EV charging power:

Nv
p I IREVs D (ti ) = ∑ pEVv (ti ) ∀ti ∈ [tarrv , tdepv ].; (21)
v

(c) EV state of charge:

SOCEV_min ≤ soc EVv (ti ) ≤ SOCEV_max ∀ti ∈ [t arrv , tdepv ], (22)

soc EVv (ti ) = 0 ∀ti ∈

/ [t arrv , tdepv ], (23)
soc EVv (ti ) = SOCEV_arrv (ti ) ∀ti = t arrv , (24)
SOCEV_arrv (ti ) ≥ SOCEV_min ∀ti = t arrv , (25)
soc EVv (ti ) ≥ SOCEV_arrv (ti ) ∀ti ∈ [t arrv , tdepv ], (26)
SOCEV_depv (ti ) ≤ SOCEV_desv (ti ) ∀ti = tdepv , (27)
p EVv (ti )·∆ti
soc EVv (ti+1 ) = soc EV_arrv (ti ) + ∀ti ∈ [t arrv , tdepv ], (28)
E
SOCEV_depv (ti ) = soc EVv (ti ) ∀ti = tdepv , (29)
where SOCEVv is the state of charge of v vehicle, SOCEV_min , SOCEV_max , and SOCEV_depv
are the minimum, maximum, and departure state of charge of v vehicle, respectively;
(d) Acceptance criteria:
The estimated charging time of the EV set by the user is tchv , given by (30).

tchv = tdepv − t arrv , (30)

(SOCEV_desv − SOCEV_arrv (ti ) )· E

≤ tchv ∀ti ∈ [t arrv , tdepv ]. (31)
p EVv
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4323 10 of 33

If the constraints defined by (30) and (31) are not qualified, then the EV user must
change their choices, e.g., estimated charging time and/or desired soc of EV at the departure
time and charging mode. It is worth mentioning that test_ch v is the minimum charging time
imposed by the IIREVs, which is calculated based on the choices of the EV user. tchv is the
time of the EV spent at the IIREVs, which is set by its user. Therefore, tchv should be equal
to or greater than test_ch v . The dynamic soc evolution of v vehicle, SOCEVv , is given by (28).

2.3.5. Power Balancing

All power signs are assigned positives, and the physical law of power balancing [45]
can be given by (30):

p PV (ti ) + pS_D (ti ) + pG_S (ti ) = p I IREVs (ti ) + pS_C (ti ) + pG_I (ti ). (32)

As previously noted, k D is the coefficient representing the sharing power between the
stationary storage and the grid, given by (33):

pS_C (ti ) + pS_D (ti )

k D ( ti ) = . (33)
pS_C (ti ) + pS_D (ti ) + pG_I (ti ) + pG_S (ti )

2.3.6. Objective Function

The total energy cost, Ctotal , takes into account the cost of the supplied power from the
grid, the profit of injected power into the grid, the cost of the storage degradation when
operating, the penalty cost if the EV at departure has not reached its desired SOC, and
the cost of the PV shedding power, which represents the PV power that has not taken
advantage of it. Therefore, the objective function is to minimize Ctotal , given by Equations
(34)–(38):
Ctotal = CG + CS + CPVS + CEV_penalty , (34)
tF
CG = ∑ [cG (ti ) · ∆t · (− pG_I (ti ) + pG_S (ti ))]
t i = t0 
(35)
cG_NH f or t ∈ normal hours
c G ( ti ) = ,
cG_PH f or t ∈ peak hours
tF
CS = ∑ [cS (ti ) · ∆t · ( pS_C (ti ) + pS_D (ti ))], (36)
t i = t0

tF
CPVS = ∑ [c PVS (ti ) · ∆t · p PVS (ti )], (37)
t i = t0

Nv
CEV_penalty = ∑ [cEV_p · (SOCEV_desv − SOCEV_depv ) · E], (38)
v

where CG , CS , CPVS , and CEV_penalty are the grid, storage, PV shedding energy costs, and
EV penalty cost, respectively, and cG , cS , c PVS , and c EV_p are the grid, storage, PV shedding
energy tariffs, and EV penalty tariff, respectively. Lastly, the final optimization problem is
given by (39):
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4323 11 of 33

min Ctotal = CG + CS + CPVS + CEV_penalty

with respect to :
p PV (ti ) + pS_D (ti ) + pG_S (ti ) = pS_C (ti ) + pG_I (ti ) + p I IREVs (ti )


S ( ti ) = pS_C ( ti ) − pS_D ( ti )



 p

p G ( ti ) = p G_I ( ti ) − p G_S ( ti )




p PV (ti ) = p PV_MPPT (ti ) − p PV_S (ti )




 I IREVs (ti ) = p I IREVs D (ti ) − p I IREVs 
p S ( ti )



p I IREVs S (ti ) = 0



 
i f p PV_MPPT (ti ) ≥ p I IREVs D (ti ) then p G ( ti ) ≥ 0





 p S ( ti ) ≥ 0

 


 p PV_S (ti ) = 0




i f p ( t ) ≤ p ( t ) then p (t ) ≤ 0

PV_MPPT i I IREVs D i
 G i



p S ( ti ) ≤ 0




SOCS_min ≤ socS (ti ) ≤ SOCS_max




Rt


1
pS (ti )∆t

socS (ti ) = SOCS0 + 3600×



 EBat
t0



p PV (ti ) ≥ 0




p I IREVs (ti ) ≥ 0




≤ p I IREVs S (ti ) ≤ p I IREVs D (ti )




 0



 0 ≤ p PV_S (ti ) ≤ p PV_MPPT (ti )
− P G_S_max ≤ p G ( ti ) ≤ PG_I_max



 (39)
− PS_max ≤ pS (ti ) ≤ PS_max


 p PV_S (ti ) = 0 ii SOCS (ti ) ≤ SOCS_max
f Mv = 1 then 0 ≤ p EVv (ti ) ≤ PEV_ f ast_max ∀ti ∈ [t arrv , tdep v ]




 i
i f Mv = 2 then 0 ≤ p EVv (ti ) ≤ PEV_aver_max ∀ti ∈ [t arrv , tdep v ]




i f Mv = 3 then 0 ≤ p EVv (ti ) ≤ PEV_slow_max ∀ti ∈ [t arrv , tdep v ]








 p EVv (ti ) = 0 ∀ti ∈ / [t arrv , tdep v ]

 Nv
p I IREVs D (ti ) = ∑ p EVv (ti ) ∀ti ∈ [t arrv , tdep v ]





 v
 SOCEV_min ≤ soc EVv (ti ) ≤ SOCEV_max ∀ti ∈ [t arrv , tdep v ]



soc EVv (ti ) = 0 ∀ti ∈




 / [t arrv , tdep v ]
soc ( t ) = SOC EV_arrv ( ti ) ∀ ti = t arrv

EVv i



 SOCEV_arrv (ti ) ≥ SOCEV_min ∀ti = t arrv



 soc EVv (ti ) ≥ SOCEV_arrv (ti ) ∀ti ∈ [t arrv , tdep v ]



SOCEV_depv (ti ) ≤ SOCEV_desv ∀ti = tdep v




(ti )·∆t

 p
soc EVv (ti+1 ) = SOCEV_arrv (ti ) + EVv E ∀ti ∈ [t arrv , tdep v ]








 SOCEV_depv (ti ) = soc EVv (ti ) ∀ti = tdep v
tchv = tdep v − t arrv




 (SOCEV_desv −SOCEV_arrv (ti ))· E
≤ tchv ∀ti ∈ [t arrv , tdep v ]


p EVv (ti )



 ti = {t0 , t0 + ∆t, t0 + 2∆t, . . . , t F }




v = {1, 2, . . . , Nv }

The decision variables in this optimization problem are p EVv , p I IREVs S , pG , p PV_S , pS ,
socS , and soc EVv , in which they are continuous variables.

2.4. Operation Layer

The energy optimization layer finds the optimal power flow of the sources and the
EVs based on p PV MPPT pred and p I IREVs D . The coefficient k D is calculated based on the
optimized power flow obtained by CPLEX [49]. This coefficient controls the operational
layer for the IIREVs in real-time operation. The advantage of k D is balancing the power
flows, coupling the energy management easily while respecting all constraints [45].
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4323 12 of 33

The operational layer must consider optimized power flow in real operating conditions,
p PV MPPT and p I IREVs D . In addition, the operation management must ensure robustness
and withstand uncertainties in the forecast data. Then, this layer calculates the power
references and performs PV shedding or EV shedding when necessary. The actual operating
conditions lead to a reference power pre f to stabilize the DC bus voltage, defined by (40)
and (41):
pre f (ti ) = p PV MPPT (ti ) − p I IREVs D (ti ) − CP (Vre f − v DC bus ), (40)
pre f (ti ) = pG_re f (ti ) + pS_re f (ti ), (41)
where CP , Vre f and v DC bus are the proportional controller gain, reference voltage, and the
actual voltage of the DC bus, respectively. The stationary storage power reference can be
calculated as in (42):
pS_re f (ti ) = k D (ti ) · pre f (ti ), (42)
where k D is defined in the interval [0, 1].
The grid power reference pG_re f is calculated taking into account the stationary storage
physical limit, which means pS_re f = 0 if the storage reaches its maximum SOCS_max or
minimum SOCS_min limits or its maximum power PS_max , and the grid power reference
becomes pG_re f = pre f . Figure 4 shows the control algorithm of the power balancing
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 36
strategy for the IIREVs.

Figure 4. Control algorithm for IIREVs.

Figure 4. Control algorithm for IIREVs.
To prove the feasibility of the optimization problem, it is compared with a storage
priority algorithm simulation without optimization “Sim w/o opt”, where k D is one in
this operation mode. Moreover, these operation modes are compared with an ideal case,
“Opt for real conditions”, which is based on real PV MPPT and IIREV powers.

3. Simulation Results and Analyses

A Simulink model is developed to simulate the IIREVs with a step time of 0.01 s,
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4323 13 of 33

To prove the feasibility of the optimization problem, it is compared with a storage

priority algorithm simulation without optimization “Sim w/o opt”, where k D is one in this
operation mode. Moreover, these operation modes are compared with an ideal case, “Opt
for real conditions”, which is based on real PV MPPT and IIREV powers.

3. Simulation Results and Analyses

A Simulink model is developed to simulate the IIREVs with a step time of 0.01 s,
which contains five chargers with three charging modes in real-time operation and balances
the power of DC bus. SOCEV_arrv , SOCEV_desv , t arrv , and Mv are randomly generated.
SOCEV_arrv and SOCEV_desv are generated in the interval (20%, 50%) and (70%, 100%),
respectively. Regarding the EV batteries, lithium-ion batteries were considered, and their
capacities are assumed to be capable of handling up to fast charge. Sunpower SPR X21-
345 with 21% efficiency under STC is considered as PV panels, and the system loss was
estimated at 14%.
Table 1 provides the parameters used for optimization and power balancing control,
and Table 2 provides the options assumed by the EV users, randomly generated in MATLAB,
where five EVs are expected to come for charging. The grid peak hours are arbitrarily
assumed to be 12:00–13:00 and 15:00–16:00. The energy tariffs are chosen arbitrarily in a
way to prioritize the sources used for the EV charging as given by (43).

cS ≤ cG ≤ c PVS ≤ c EV_penalty . (43)

Table 1. Optimization and simulation parameter values.

SOCS_min 20% PG_I_max 50 kW cS 0.01 €/kWh

SOCS_max 80% PG_S_max 50 kW c PVS 1.2 €/kWh
SOCEV_min 20% PS_max 34.5 kW Vre f 400 V
SOCEV_max 100% NPV 84 PV EBat 90 kWh
SOCS0 50% p PV MPPT 28.98 kWp E 50 kWh
PEV_ f ast_max 50 kW cG_NH 0.1 €/kWh
PEV_aver_max 22 kW cG_PH 0.7 €/kWh
PEV_slow_max 7 kW c EV_penalty 2.5 €/kWh

Table 2. Assumed options by the EV users.

EVs SOCEV_arr SOCEV_des tarr test_ch M

EV1 29% 74% 09:10 03:13 Slow
EV2 23% 78% 09:40 01:15 Average
EV3 22% 88% 12:20 04:43 Slow
EV4 32% 78% 14:20 03:18 Slow
EV5 29% 70% 14:30 00:25 Fast

At each event, like EV arrival, the optimization is executed. Then, the corresponding
k D is calculated as in (33) from the optimized power flow for the corresponding EV arrival
event. The obtained k D is then inserted into the Simulink model, which runs in real-
time conditions. At each EV arrival, the desired parameters, socS and soc EVv currently in
charge, are actualized and inserted; then, the supervisory control of the IIREVs executes
the optimization, and the EV starts charging.
The following subsections present different case studies to prove the feasibility of the
optimization problem formulated as MILP under different meteorological conditions.

3.1. Case 1—High Irradiation Profile without Fluctuations

The case of 29 June 2019, in Compiegne, France, is considered. Figure 5 shows
p PV p PV MPPT .
MPPT pred ,
 Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4323 14 of 33
Figure 4. Control algorithm for IIREVs.

Figure
Figure 5.
5. PV
PV MPPT
MPPT real
real and
and predicted
predicted powers—case
powers—case 1.
1.

In this case, the PV power production is considered significant since the weather
is sunny and clear, so the irradiation is high, and there are no fluctuations. The IIREVs
demand power is based on the data given in Table 2. Figure 6 shows the power flow and
storage state of charge for “Sim w/o opt” and simulation with optimization “Sim with
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 ofopt”
13
for case 1, which is based on introducing the k D , which is calculated in the optimization
layer, into the real-time operation algorithm in Simulink.

(a)

(b)
Figure
Figure6.6.Power
Powerflow
flowand
andstorage
storagestate
state of
of charge
charge in (a) “Sim
“Sim w/o
w/o opt” and (b)
(b) “Sim
“Sim with
withopt”—case
opt”—case1.
1.
In Figure 6a, the storage has priority over the grid either to be discharged or to be
charged. However, when EV5 arrives, the IIREVs demand power greater than the PV and
storage powers that they can supply, where the black dotted lines represent the maximum
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 36

In Figure 6a, the storage has priority over the grid either to be discharged or to be
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4323 charged. However, when EV5 arrives, the IIREVs demand power greater than the PV 15 and
of 33
storage powers that they can supply, where the black dotted lines represent the maximum
storage power and the red dotted lines represent the maximum grid power that can be
reached.
storage powerTherefore,
and the
the grid supplies
red dotted power
lines to charge
represent the the EVs. Ongrid
maximum the other
power hand,
that incan Fig-
be
ure 6b, the power flow of the storage and the grid is based on
reached. Therefore, the grid supplies power to charge the EVs. On the other hand, the coefficient k D . Sincein
Figure 6b,
between the power
12:00 flow
and 13:00 is of the storage
considered and the
a peak grid by
period, is based
sellingon the coefficient
energy kDopera-
to the grid . Since
between
tor, 12:00 and
it is possible to 13:00
makeisprofits
considered a peak
and, thus, period,
reduce theby selling
total costenergy to the
of energy. grid operator,
However, after
it is possible to make profits and, thus, reduce the total cost of energy. However,
13:00, the storage can be recharged to be able to charge the future EVs with sufficient stor- after 13:00,
the storage
age energy. can be recharged
Therefore, when EV5 to bearrives,
able tothecharge
PV, the future
storage and EVs
gridwith
cansufficient
together storage
supply
energy.
the EVs.Therefore, when EV5 arrives, the PV, storage and grid can together supply the EVs.
Figure 7 shows
Figure showsthetheEVEVenergy
energydistribution
distribution forfor
“Sim
“Sim w/ow/oopt” andand
opt” “Sim withwith
“Sim opt”.opt”.
The
calculation
The of EV
calculation ofenergy
EV energydistribution is detailed
distribution in [50].
is detailed in [50].

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 7.
7. EV
EV energy
energy distribution
distribution in
in (a)
(a) “Sim
“Sim w/o
w/oopt”
opt”and
and(b)
(b)“Sim
“Simwith
withopt”—case
opt”—case1.1.

EV1,
EV1, EV3,
EV3, and
and EV4EV4 depend
depend mainly
mainly onon PV
PV energy
energy since
since they
they charge
charge inin slow
slow mode.
mode.
EV2
EV2 depends on PV and storage with a slightly equal percentage. EV5 depends on thePV,
depends on PV and storage with a slightly equal percentage. EV5 depends on the PV,
storage
storage and
and grid
grid energy.
energy. The
The percentage
percentage of of grid
grid energy
energy is is significantly
significantly greater
greater than
than the
the
other
other EVs,
EVs, since
since it is charging in fast mode.
Figure
Figure 8a8a shows
shows the the energy system distribution
distribution for “Sim w/o w/oopt”,
opt”,“Sim
“Simwithwithopt”opt”
and
and “Opt
“Opt for
for real conditions”. There
There is no grid injection in the “Sim w/o w/o opt”,
opt”, while
while for
for
the
the
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW “Sim
“Sim with
with opt”
opt” and
and “Opt
“Opt for
for real conditions”,
conditions”, there
there is grid injection, which indicates
indicates
18 of 36
that selling
that selling energy
energy toto the
the grid
grid and
and the
the charging
charging energy
energy ofof the
the storage
storage was
was sufficient
sufficient to to get
get
the best
the best energy
energy distribution for the EVs.
The percentage of accuracy is the ratio of the total cost over the total cost of the “Opt
for real conditions”. The closer the percentage to 100%, the more accurate it is. If the per-
centage is greater than 100%, the Case Grid
total cost Cost Storage
is greater than “OptTotal Cost
for real % of Accuracy
conditions”, while
if the percentage is below Operation
0%, the total cost is the Cost
(c€) opposite
(c€) case(c€)of “Opt for real condi-
tions”. Figure 8b shows theSim energy system 48.22
w/o opt cost, where84.47
the energy costs in “Sim
132.69 with opt”
−11.96%
are closer to the ideal caseSim “Opt for real conditions”,
with opt −1152.69 resulting
43.69 in profits
−1109.01 with 99.95% ac-
99.95%
curacy. Conversely, it is the opposite situation
Opt for real −1152.97 in “Sim w/o
43.44 opt” with
−1109.53 −11.96% accuracy.
-
Thus, this proves the superiority of
conditions the optimization algorithm over the storage priority
algorithm. The negative sign implies that the IIREV operators make a profit in particular
by selling energy to the grid.
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 8.
8. (a)
(a) Energy
Energy system
system distribution
distribution and
and (b)
(b) energy
energy system
system cost—case
cost—case 1.
1.

3.2. Case
The2—Low Irradiation
percentage Profileiswithout
of accuracy Fluctuations
the ratio of the total cost over the total cost of the “Opt
for real
Theconditions”. The closer
case of 5 October 2018, the percentage to
in Compiegne, 100%, isthe
France, more accurate
considered. it is.
Figure If the
9 shows
percentage is greater than
pPV MPPT pred , pPV MPPT . 100%, the total cost is greater than “Opt for real conditions”,
while if the percentage is below 0%, the total cost is the opposite case of “Opt for real
conditions”. Figure 8b shows the energy system cost, where the energy costs in “Sim with
opt” are closer to the ideal case “Opt for real conditions”, resulting in profits with 99.95%
accuracy. Conversely, it is the opposite situation in “Sim w/o opt” with −11.96% accuracy.
 Sim with opt −1152.69 43.69 −1109.01 99.95
Opt for real −1152.97 43.44 −1109.53
Opt for real −1152.97 43.44 −1109.53 -
conditions
conditions

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4323 16 of 33

(a)
(a) (b) (b)
Figure8.8.(a)
Figure (a)Energy
Energy system
system distribution
distribution andand (b) energy
(b) energy system
system cost—case
cost—case 1. 1.
Thus, this proves the superiority of the optimization algorithm over the storage priority
algorithm. The negative sign implies that the IIREV operators make a profit in particular
3.2.
3.2. Case
Case2—Low
by selling 2—Low
energy toIrradiation
grid. Profile
Irradiation
the without
Profile Fluctuations
without Fluctuations
The case of 5 October 2018, in Compiegne, France,
The
3.2. Case caseIrradiation
2—Low of 5 October 2018,Fluctuations
Profile without in Compiegne, is considered.
France, FigureFi9
is considered.
ppPV MPPT pred ,of, p
The case MPPT . 2018,
pOctober
5PV . in Compiegne, France, is considered. Figure 9 shows
PV MPPT pred PV MPPT
p PV MPPT pred , p PV MPPT .

Figure 9. PV MPPT real and predicted powers—case 2.

Figure
Figure 9.9.
PVPV
In this
MPPTMPPT
case, thereal
real and and predicted
predicted
weather
powers—case
is clear, sopowers—case
there are no 2.
2.
fluctuations; however, the PV
production is not
In this case, very high.
the weather The
is clear, so IIREV
there aredemand powerhowever,
no fluctuations; is basedtheon
PV the
powerdata in T
In this
is case,
not verythe weather
high. The is
IIREV clear,
demand so there
power isare
Figure 10 shows the power flow and storage state of charge for “Sim w/o 2.
production no
based fluctuations;
on the data in however,
Table opt” and
Figure 10 shows
production is the
not power
very flow
high. andThestorage
IIREVstatedemand
of charge power
for “Sim is
w/o opt” and
based on the da
lation with optimization “Sim with opt” for case 2.
simulation with optimization “Sim with opt” for case 2.
Figure 10 shows the power flow and storage state of charge for “Sim w/o op
lation with optimization “Sim with opt” for case 2.

(a)
Figure 10. Cont.

(a)
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4323 17 of 33
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 36

(b)
Figure 10. Power flow and storage state of(b)
charge in (a) “Sim w/o opt” and (b) “Sim with opt”—
case 2.
Figure10.
Figure Power flow
10.Power flowand
andstorage statestate
storage of charge in (a) “Sim
of charge w/o
in (a) opt”w/o
“Sim and (b)
opt”“Sim with
and (b)opt”—
“Sim with o
case
case 2. 2.In Figure 10a, the storage always has priority over the grid. However, when EV5
arrives, the grid
In Figure supplies
10a, poweralways
the storage with thehasPVpriority
and theover
storage
the to charge
grid. the EVs,when
However, whereEV5
the
black dotted lines represent the maximum storage power and the
arrives, the grid supplies power with the PV and the storage to charge the EVs, where the red dotted lines repre-
sent the
black maximum
dotted grid power
lines represent that can bestorage
the maximum reached.
powerOn the
andother
the red hand,
dottedin Figure 10b, the
lines represent
power
the flow ofgrid
maximum the power
storagethat andcan
thebegrid is based
reached. On on
thethe coefficient
other k D . Since
hand, in Figure 10b,the
thePV pro-
power
duction is not high, the storage reached its lower limit at the departure
flow of the storage and the grid is based on the coefficient k D . Since the PV production is of EV2. Therefore,
the high,
not storagetheisstorage
required to be its
reached recharged to be
lower limit at able to charge of
the departure theEV2.
future EVs with
Therefore, thesufficient
storage
isstorage energy.
required to beTherefore,
rechargedwhen to beEV5
ablearrives, the PV,
to charge thestorage
future and
EVsgridwithcan togetherstorage
sufficient supply
the EVs.
energy. However,
Therefore, between
when 12:00 and
EV5 arrives, the13:00 is considered
PV, storage and grida can
peak period,supply
together so by selling
the EVs.a
little energy
However, to the grid
between 12:00operator,
and 13:00it is
is considered
possible to make
a peaksmall profits.
period, so byAdditionally,
selling a littlebetween
energy
15:00
to the and
grid16:00 is a peak
operator, period, so
it is possible toin “Simsmall
make with profits.
opt”, theAdditionally,
power flow is better distributed
between 15:00 and
sinceisthe
16:00 storage
a peak is kept
period, so to
in supply
“Sim withpower
opt”,instead
the powerof grid
flowpower,
is betterwhile in “Sim w/o
distributed sinceopt”,
the
storage is kept
the storage to supply
reached powerlimit
its lower instead of grid
before power,
16:00, and thewhile in continued
grid “Sim w/o opt”, the storage
to supply power
reached its lower limit before 16:00, and the grid continued to supply power to the EVs.
to the EVs.
Figure
Figure11 11shows
showsthe theEV EVenergy
energydistribution
distributionfor for“Sim
“Simw/ow/o opt” andand “Sim
“Sim with
with opt”.
opt”.

(a) (b)
Figure 11. EV energy distribution in (a) “Sim w/o opt” and (b) “Sim with opt”—case 2.

Case Grid Cost Storage Total Cost % of Accu

(a) Operation (c€) Cost (c€)
(b) (c€)
Figure11.
Figure 11.EV
EVenergy Sim
energydistribution
distribution in w/o
in(a)
(a) opt
“Sim
“Sim 196.59
w/o opt”
w/o opt” and (b)
and “Sim64.75
(b) “Sim with opt”—case
with opt”—case261.34
2.
2. 164.04%
Sim with opt 97.82 60.49 158.31 99.37%
EV1,EV3,
EV1, EV3,and
andEV4
EV4depend
depend mainly
mainly onon
PVPV energy
energy sincesince
theythey charge
charge in slow
in slow mode.mode.
EV2
Opt for real 102.36 56.94 159.31 -
EV2 depends
depends on PVon PVstorage.
and and storage.
Figure Figure 11 that
11 shows shows that
EV5, EV5,iswhich
which in fastismode,
in fast is mode,
chargedis
from the grid
charged fromwith a high
the grid with conditions
percentage.
a high This will This
percentage. increase
will the charging
increase price for the
the charging priceEV user.
for the
In
EVFigure
user. 11b, EV5 is11b,
In Figure charged
EV5 isfrom the grid
charged fromwith
the agrid
higher percentage
with than in “Sim
a higher percentage w/o
than in
“Sim w/o opt”, while EV3 and EV4 have been charged from the storage with a higher
(a) percentage than in “Sim w/o opt”, based on k D giving a better(b)
energy cost as shown.

Figure 12. (a) Energy system distribution and (b) energy system cost—case 2.
 Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4323 18 of 33

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 36

opt”, while EV3 and EV4 have been charged from the storage with a higher percentage
than in “Sim w/o opt”, based on k D giving a better energy cost as shown.
Figure 12a shows the energy system distribution for “Sim w/o opt” and “Sim with
Figure 12a shows the energy system distribution for “Sim w/o opt” and “Sim with
opt”. There is no grid injection in the “Sim w/o opt”, while for the “Sim with opt”, there
opt”. There is no grid injection in the “Sim w/o opt”, while for the “Sim with opt”,
is a little bit of grid injection, which refers to selling energy to the grid and having approx-
there is a little bit of grid injection, which refers to selling energy to the grid and having
imately the same storage charging energy. Figure 12b shows the energy system cost,
approximately the same storage charging energy. Figure 12b shows the energy system
where the energy costs in “Sim with opt” are closer to the ideal case “Opt for real condi-
cost, where the energy costs in “Sim with opt” are closer to the ideal case “Opt for real
tions”
conditions”99.37%
with accuracy
with 99.37% and lower
accuracy andcost than
lower in “Sim
cost than w/o opt”w/o
in “Sim withopt”
164.04%
withaccuracy
164.04%
(overpriced). In this case,
accuracy (overpriced). the case,
In this PV production is not high;
the PV production is nothowever, selling selling
high; however, a little abit of
little
energy to the grid during the peak time could reduce the total cost of the system. Thus,
bit of energy to the grid during the peak time could reduce the total cost of the system. Thus, it
proves the superiority of the optimization algorithm over the storage priority algorithm.
it proves the superiority of the optimization algorithm over the storage priority algorithm.

Case Grid Cost Storage Total Cost % of Accuracy

Operation (c€) Cost (c€) (c€)
Sim w/o opt 196.59 64.75 261.34 164.04%
Sim with opt 97.82 60.49 158.31 99.37%
Opt for real 102.36 56.94 159.31 -
conditions

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 12.
12. (a)
(a)Energy
Energysystem
systemdistribution
distribution and
and (b)
(b) energy
energy system
system cost—case
cost—case 2.
2.

3.3.
3.3. Case
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW Case3—High
3—HighIrradiation
Irradiation Profile
Profile with
with High
High Fluctuations
Fluctuations
The case
The case of of 12 May 2019, in Compiegne, France, is considered. Figure
Figure 13
13 shows
shows
ppPV
PV MPPT
MPPT pred , , ppPV
pred PVMPPT . .
MPPT

Figure 13. PV MPPT real and predicted powers and IIREV demand power—case 3.

In13.
Figure
Figure this
13.PVcase,
MPPT
PV the
MPPT irradiations
real arepowers
and predicted
real high, powers
and predicted andIIREV
and the and
weather
demand is cloudy,
demandsopower—case
power—case
IIREV 3.there are high
3.
fluctuations. The IIREVs demand power is based on the data in Table 2. Figure 14 shows
In thisflow
the power case,
and thestorage
irradiations arecharge
state of high, for
and“Sim
the weather
w/o opt”isand
cloudy, so there
simulation are opti-
with high
fluctuations. The IIREVs demand
mization “Sim with opt” for case 3. power is based on the data in Table 2. Figure 14 shows the
power flow and storage state of charge for “Sim w/o opt” and simulation with optimization
“Sim with opt” for case 3.
 Figure 13. PV MPPT real and predicted powers and IIREV demand power—case 3.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4323 19 of 33

(a)

(b)
Figure 14. Power
Figure 14. flow andflow
Power storage state of state
and storage chargeof in (a) “Sim
charge w/o
in (a) opt”
“Sim andopt”
w/o (b) “Sim with
and (b) opt”—
“Sim with opt”—
case 3. case 3.

In Figure 14a, the storage always has priority over the grid, either to be discharged
or to be charged. However, when EV5 arrives, the IIREV demand power is greater than
the PV and storage power that can be supplied, where the black dotted lines represent the
maximum storage power and the red dotted lines represent the maximum grid power that
can be reached. Therefore, the grid supplies power to charge the EVs. On the other hand, in
Figure 14b, the power flow of the storage and the grid is based on the coefficient k D . Since
between 12:00 and 13:00 is considered a peak period, by selling energy to the grid operator,
it is possible to make profits. However, after 13:00, the storage can be recharged to be able
to charge the future EVs with sufficient storage energy. Therefore, when EV5 arrives, the
PV, storage and grid can together supply the EVs.
Figure 15 shows the EV energy distribution for “Sim w/o opt” and “Sim with opt”.
EV1, EV3, and EV4 depend mainly on PV energy since they charge in slow mode. EV2
depends on PV and storage with a slightly equal percentage. Figure 15 shows that EV5,
which is in fast mode, is charged from the grid with a high percentage. This will increase the
charging price for the EV user. In Figure 15b, EV3, EV4, andEV5 are charged from the grid
with a higher percentage than in “Sim w/o opt”; due to the high fluctuations, the power
distribution was not as suitable. However, the energy cost obtained from optimization
stays better than in “Sim w/o opt” and returns profits due to selling energy to the grid.
Figure 16a shows the energy system distribution for “Sim w/o opt” and “Sim with
opt”. There is no grid injection in the “Sim w/o opt”, while for the “Sim with opt”,
there is grid injection, which is referred to selling energy to the grid and maintaining a
little storage charging energy. Figure 16b shows the energy system cost; due to the high
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4323 20 of 33

(a) (b)
Figure 15. EV energy distribution in (a) “Sim w/o opt” and (b) “Sim with opt”—case 3.
fluctuations in the real PV profile, the prediction profile was not so accurate. However, the
energy costs in “Sim with opt” are closer to the ideal case “Opt for real conditions” with
EV1, EV3, and EV4 depend mainly on PV energy since they charge in slow mode.
75.45% accuracy and return profits, while it is the opposite situation in “Sim w/o opt” with
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW depends on PV and storage with a slightly equal percentage. Figure 15 shows
EV2 22 that
of 36
−26.46% accuracy. Thus, it proves the superiority of the optimization algorithm over the
EV5, which is in fast mode, is charged from the grid with a high percentage. This will
storage priority algorithm.
increase the charging price for the EV user. In Figure 15b, EV3, EV4, andEV5 are charged
from the grid with a higher percentage than in “Sim w/o opt”; due to the high fluctuations,
the power distribution was not as suitable. However, the energy cost obtained from opti-
mization stays better than in “Sim w/o opt” and returns profits due to selling energy to
the grid.
Figure 16a shows the energy system distribution for “Sim w/o opt” and “Sim with
opt”. There is no grid injection in the “Sim w/o opt”, while for the “Sim with opt”, there
is grid injection, which is referred to selling energy to the grid and maintaining a little
storage charging energy. Figure 16b shows the energy system cost; due to the high fluctu-
ations in the real PV profile, the prediction profile was not so accurate. However, the en-
ergy costs in “Sim with opt” are closer to the ideal case “Opt for real conditions” with
75.45% accuracy and return profits, while it is the opposite situation in “Sim w/o opt” with
−26.46%
(a) accuracy. Thus, it proves the superiority of the (b) optimization algorithm over the
storage priority algorithm.
Figure 15. EV
Figure 15. EV energy
energy distribution in (a)
distribution in (a) “Sim
“Sim w/o
w/o opt”
opt”and
and(b)
(b)“Sim
“Simwith
with opt”—case
opt”—case 3.
3.

EV1, EV3, and EV4 depend mainly on PV energy since they charge in slow mode.
EV2 depends on PV and storage Case with Grid Cost equal
a slightly Storage Total Cost
percentage. Figure %15Accuracy
shows that
EV5, which is in fast mode, Operation
is charged from (c€) the Cost (c€) a high
grid with (c€) percentage. This will
increase the charging price Sim forw/o
theopt
EV user. 81.32
In Figure85.96 15b, EV3,167.29
EV4, andEV5 −26.46%
are charged
from the grid with a higher Sim with opt than
percentage −522.01
in “Sim w/o 45.1opt”; due −476.92
to the high75.45%
fluctuations,
the power distribution was Opt notforasreal
suitable. However,44.4
−676.51 the energy cost obtained -from opti-
−632.12
mization stays better thanconditions in “Sim w/o opt” and returns profits due to selling energy to
the grid.
Figure 16a shows the energy system distribution for “Sim w/o opt” and “Sim with
(a) (b)
opt”. There is no grid injection in the “Sim w/o opt”, while for the “Sim with opt”, there
is grid
Figure
Figure 16.injection,
16.(a)(a)Energy
Energy which
system
systemisdistribution
referred toand
distribution selling
and (b) energy
(b)energy
energy systemto the
system grid and
cost—case
cost—case 3.3. maintaining a little
storage charging energy. Figure 16b shows the energy system cost; due to the high fluctu-
3.4.Discussion
3.4.
ationsDiscussion
in the real PV profile, the prediction profile was not so accurate. However, the en-
ergyInIn
costs
casein
case “Sim
1,1,the
thePV PVwith opt” areisis
production
production closer to
highwithout
high the ideal
without case “OptInIn
fluctuations.
fluctuations. for realwith
“Sim
“Sim conditions”
with opt”,selling
opt”, with
selling
75.45%
energytoaccuracy
energy tothethegrid
gridand return profits,
isispreferred
preferred totomake
makewhile it is the
profits.
profits. oppositecharging
Moreover,
Moreover, situation
chargingthe in
the“Sim w/oaopt”
storage
storage alittle with
little bit
bit
−26.46%
could be accuracy.
interesting Thus,
to getit proves
the same theEVs superiority
energy of the
distribution optimization
could be interesting to get the same EVs energy distribution in “Sim with opt” as in “Sim in “Sim algorithm
with opt” as over
in the
“Sim
storage
w/o
w/o priority algorithm.
opt”.
opt”.
In case 2,2,the
In case the PVPV production
production is low
is low without
without fluctuations.
fluctuations. TheThe
energy energy distribution
distribution es-
especially
pecially for for
EV5EV5 is better
is better in “Simin “Simw/ow/o opt”opt” sincesince
it is itcharged
is charged withwith a lower
a lower percentage
percentage of
of grid
grid energy
energy thanthan in “Sim
in “Sim withwith opt”. opt”.
This This
could could
be be explained
explained by thebyfactthethat
factinthat
“Sim in “Sim
w/o
Case Grid Cost Storage Total Cost % Accuracy
w/o the
opt”, opt”, the storage
storage is always
is always used until it reaches its limits, whilein in “Sim withopt”,
opt”,the the
Operation reaches
used until it (c€) its Costlimits,(c€)while (c€) “Sim with
power flow is based on the coefficient k D to minimize the total cost. Therefore, the total
cost in “Sim with opt” is lower Sim w/o thanopt“Sim81.32 w/o opt”.85.96 Moreover, 167.29
charging the −26.46%
storage is
necessary after the departure Simof with
EV2, opt
since −522.01
the storage45.1 has reached−476.92
its limit. 75.45%
In case 3, the PV production Opt forisreal high with−676.51 44.4
high fluctuations. −632.12
In “Sim with opt”, - selling
conditions
energy to the grid is preferred to make profits. Moreover, charging the storage a little bit
could be interesting to get a closer EV energy distribution in “Sim with opt” as in “Sim
w/o opt”. Since there are high fluctuations, the power distribution is not that accurate;
(a) (b)
however, the total cost for “Sim w/o opt” brings profits to the IIREVs operator, and it is
Figure 16. (a)“Sim
better than Energy w/o system
opt”.distribution and (b) energy system cost—case 3.
To summarize the three cases studied, “Sim with opt” performs better than “Sim w/o
3.4.
opt”Discussion
in minimizing the total cost of the IIREVs with high accuracy in case 1 and case 2,
where Inthey
case are without
1, the fluctuations.
PV production is highForwithout
the EV energy
fluctuations.distribution,
In “Siminwith “Sim with
opt”, opt”,
selling
the results
energy to thearegrid
satisfying in caseto1 make
is preferred as they are approximately
profits. Moreover, charging identical, thewhile in case
storage 2, the
a little bit
could be interesting to get the same EVs energy distribution in “Sim with opt” as in “Sim
w/o opt”.
In case 2, the PV production is low without fluctuations. The energy distribution es-
pecially for EV5 is better in “Sim w/o opt” since it is charged with a lower percentage of
 Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4323 21 of 33

coefficient k D gives better energy distribution for the system to have a lower cost than
“Sim w/o opt” instead of giving a better energy distribution for EVs. Therefore, the EV
user charging in fast mode should be willing to pay a high price. In case 3, due to high
fluctuations, the optimization is not very accurate, as the PV prediction is hourly coming
from Météo France. However, the total cost in “Sim with opt” is still better than “Sim with
opt” due to selling energy to the grid and making profits, yet the EV energy distribution is
not as well distributed in “Sim with opt” as in “Sim with opt”.
In optimization, it is always preferred to sell energy to the grid to make profits.
However, the goal, besides minimizing the total cost, is to have better EV energy distribution
by reducing the grid energy consumed by the EVs. Therefore, it is important to recharge the
storage. For the three cases taken in this study, after the departure of EV2, SOCS decreases,
and in case 2, it has reached the lower limit. It is expected for three more EVs to come for
recharging at the IIREVs, and it is supposed that at least one EV could charge in fast mode.
The average energy demand for each EV is 25 kWh, and so it is 75 kWh for the three EVs
to come. Based on the data from Table 2, the capacity of the storage that can be used is
27 kWh (30% of 90 kWh). After the departure of EV2, if SOCS is 20%, then it is empty, and
if it is 30%, then only 9 kWh with PV and grid energy could be used to charge 75 kWh.
This will result in increasing the energy supplied by the grid to charge the coming EVs.
Thus, after the departure of EV2, if PV power is higher than the IIREV demand power, the
storage should be recharged. Hence, the interest is to minimize the total cost of the IIREVs
and to have the best EV energy distribution.

4. Real-Time Experimental Tests

The real-time experimental tests were done in the testbed presented in Figure 17a that
emulates the IIREVs, having a step time of 1/14 kHz. The chargers are emulated with
two DC emulators having each 6 kW, designated by charging terminals equipped with
multi-electrical outlets as shown in Figure 17b. It is considered that the DC emulator 1
is a charging terminal with two electrical outlets to emulate EV1 and EV2 and the DC
emulator 2 is a charging terminal with three electrical outlets to emulate EV3, EV4, and
EV5. The existing testbed allows the PV power profile to be emulated, which permits
pl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 o
it to repeat the experimental test and compare it in two scenarios, with and without
optimization. SOCEV_arrv , SOCEV_desv , t arrv , and Mv are randomly generated. Table 3
provides the parameters used for “real-time exp” and power balancing control.

(a) (b)
Figure 17. (a)
Figure Testbed
17. (a) Testbedfor
for the IIREVexperimental
the IIREV experimental platform
platform and
and (b) (b) representative
representative image of
image of the
multi-outlet charging terminals.
multi-outlet charging terminals.

Table 3. Real-time experiment parameter values.

SOCS _ min 35% PG _ I _ max 5 kW cS 0.01 €/kWh

SOCS _ max 60% PG _ S _ max 5 kW cPVS 1.2 €/kWh

SOCEV _ min 20% PS _ max 3.45 kW Vref 400 V

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4323 22 of 33

Table 3. Real-time experiment parameter values.

SOCS_min 35% PG_I_max 5 kW cS 0.01 €/kWh

SOCS_max 60% PG_S_max 5 kW c PVS 1.2 €/kWh
SOCEV_min 20% PS_max 3.45 kW Vre f 400 V
SOCEV_max 100% NPV 12 PV EBat 37.44 kWh
SOCS0 50% p PV MPPT 4.14 kWp E 5 kWh
PEV_ f ast_max 5 kW cG_NH 0.1 €/kWh
PEV_aver_max 2.2 kW cG_PH 0.7 €/kWh
PEV_slow_max 0.7 kW c EV_penalty 2.5 €/kWh

The parameter values used in Table 3 were chosen with a scale divided by ten, com-
pared to the simulation, due to the physical limitations of the available sources and equip-
ment. The existing stationary storage had an energy capacity of 37.44 kWh, which is
considered high; therefore, the SOC limits were chosen to be between 60% and 35% instead
of 80% and 20%.
In the real-time experiment, at each EV arrival, the optimization was executed when
the EV user came to the charging station and input their preferences, which were commu-
nicated with the dSPACE. Then, Python read the data from dSPACE and created the files
required to run the optimization in C++, solved by CPLEX. Then, Python calculated k D
and sent it in dSPACE to be read in a real-time experimental model. Figure 18 shows the
flowchart of the optimization solving for the “real-time exp”. The corresponding k D was
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
calculated as in (33) from the optimized power flow for the corresponding EV arrival25event.
of 36
The obtained k D was then updated into the Simulink model.

Figure
Figure 18.
18. Flowchart
Flowchart of
of optimization
optimization solving.
solving.

To
To be specific,
specific, atat the
the start
start of
of the
thereal-time
real-timeexperimental
experimentaltest, test,when
whenthere
therewere
werenonoEVs,
EVs,
the
the optimization algorithm
algorithm was wasexecuted
executedfor forthe
thefirst
firsttime,
time, using
using only
only thethe prediction
prediction of
of PV
power.
PV power.Then,
Then,whenwhenthe the
firstfirst
EV EVarrived at the
arrived station,
at the the the
station, EV EV
datadata
were acknowledged,
were acknowledged, and
the EV
and the user chose
EV user his desired
chose SOCSOC
his desired and andcharging mode.
charging These
mode. datadata
These werewerecommunicated
communi-
instantly
cated by theby
instantly real-time experimental
the real-time modelmodel
experimental and were and sent
werethrough a real-time
sent through target
a real-time
via a fiber
target via aoptic
fibercable
optic that
cableensured communication
that ensured communication with analog input/output
with analog ports.ports.
input/output After
that, dSPACE received the EV data as an analog input; next, Python
After that, dSPACE received the EV data as an analog input; next, Python read these data read these data and
created the files required, including the parameters and the profiles
and created the files required, including the parameters and the profiles of PV predicted of PV predicted power
and EVand
power power profilesprofiles
EV power acquired from the
acquired HMI.
from theLater
HMI. on, Python
Later on, called
PythonC++ to resolve
called C++ to the
re-
optimization
solve problem problem
the optimization using theusingCPLEX thesolver.
CPLEXOnce solver.theOnce
problem was resolved,
the problem Python
was resolved,
calculated
Python k D and ksent
calculated it as analog output to the dSPACE; in turn, it sent it to the real-
D and sent it as analog output to the dSPACE; in turn, it sent it to the
time experimental model.
real-time experimental model. When another
When EV came
another EV cameto the to station, the same
the station, procedure
the same was
procedure
performed with the actualized data of the DC microgrid (thus,
was performed with the actualized data of the DC microgrid (thus, the SOC of the the SOC of the stationary
storage and SOC of the current EVs charging were actualized).
stationary storage and SOC of the current EVs charging were actualized).
The following subsections present two case studies to prove the feasibility of the
The following subsections present two case studies to prove the feasibility of the op-
optimization problem in real-time experimental tests formulated as MILP under different
timization problem in real-time experimental tests formulated as MILP under different
meteorological conditions.
meteorological conditions.

4.1. Experiemntal Test 1

The case of 14 October 2021, in Compiegne, France, is considered. Figure 19 shows
p , p , where the irradiations are intermediate with low fluctuations.
 Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4323 23 of 33

4.1. Experiemntal Test 1

The case of 14 October 2021, in Compiegne, France, is considered. Figure 19 shows
Figure 18. Flowchart
p PV MPPT of optimization solving.
pred , p PV MPPT , where the irradiations are intermediate with low fluctuations.

Figure 19. PV MPPT real and predicted powers and IIREV demand power—experimental
power—experimental test
test 1.
1.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 13
In this case, the irradiations are intermediate, and the weather is a bit cloudy, so there
are low fluctuations. The IIREV demand power is based on the data in Table 2. Figure 20
shows the power flow and storage state of charge for “real-time exp” with opt and the DC
bus voltage—experimental test 1a.

(a)

(b)
FigureFigure
20. Power flow and
20. Power flowstorage state of
and storage charge
state for “real-time
of charge exp” with
for “real-time with(a)
exp” opt optand (b)
(a,b) storage
storage state of
state of charge
charge and
and DCDC bus
bus voltage—experimental
voltage—experimental test
test 1a.1a.
 Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4323 24 of 33

In Figure 20a, the power flow of the storage and the grid is based on the coefficient k D .
From 09:00 until 09:10 and 15:00 until 16:00, the grid is used, but this is not accurate since,
in prediction, PV power is higher than the real PV power, and it is also higher than the
IIREV demand power. However, when EV5 arrives, the IIREV demand power is greater
than the PV and storage power that they can supply. Therefore, the grid supplies power
to charge the EVs. Between 11:00 and 14:20, by selling energy to the grid operator, it is
possible to make profits, especially from 12:00 and 13:00, as it is considered a peak period.
Around 17:00, when there is no PV power and the storage is empty, the grid supplies power,
regardless of the k D value. Figure 20b shows the evolution of the storage SOC, where
the storage discharge energy from 09:10 to 10:50, 14:25 to 14:50 and around 16:20 to 16:50.
Figure 20b also shows the stability of the DC bus voltage even with small fluctuations,
which are due to the switching of DC converters, and spikes of a few voltages happen
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW when each EV starts charging and when it finishes charging. 27 of 36
Figure 21 shows the power flow and storage state of charge for “real-time exp” without
optimization and the DC bus voltage—experimental test 1b.

(a)

(b)
Figure Figure
21. Power
21. flow
Powerandflow
storage
and state of charge
storage state offor “real-time
charge exp” without
for “real-time exp”optimization (a) and (a,b)
without optimization
(b) storage state of charge and DC bus voltage—experimental test
storage state of charge and DC bus voltage—experimental test 1b. 1b.

In Figure
In Figure 21a,
21a, the the storage
storage is alwaysis always prioritized
prioritized to be charged
to be either either charged or discharged.
or discharged.
However, when EV5 arrives, the IIREV demand power is greater
However, when EV5 arrives, the IIREV demand power is greater than the PV and storage than the PV and storage
powerpower thatcan
that they theysupply.
can supply. Therefore,
Therefore, the grid
the grid supplies
supplies power
power to charge
to charge thethe EVs.
EVs. The grid
The
continues
grid continues supplying
supplying power
power toto
thethe IIREVs
IIREVs asas
thethe storage
storage is empty
is empty around
around 17:10.
17:10. Figure 21b
Figure
shows
21b shows thethe evolution
evolution of the
of the storage
storage SOC,SOC, where
where the the storage
storage is recharged
is recharged from from 10:50:10 to
10:50:10
to 14:2514:25
afterafter
beingbeing discharged
discharged and then
and then againagain discharges
discharges energy energy
when when EV5 arrives
EV5 arrives until until
it is empty.
it is empty. FigureFigure
21b also21bshows
also shows the stability
the stability of the ofDCthe
bus DC bus voltage
voltage evensmall
even with with small
fluctuations, which are due to the switching of DC converters, and the spikes of a few
voltages happen when each EV starts charging and when it finishes charging.
Table 4 shows the energy system cost for “real-time exp” with opt, where the energy
costs are low due to selling energy to the grid and are far from the optimal energy cost for
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4323 25 of 33

fluctuations, which are due to the switching of DC converters, and the spikes of a few
voltages happen when each EV starts charging and when it finishes charging.
Table 4 shows the energy system cost for “real-time exp” with opt, where the energy
costs are low due to selling energy to the grid and are far from the optimal energy cost for
real conditions, which is 11.12 c€. For “real-time exp” without optimization, the energy
cost is lower than in optimization due to the storage discharging energy in the peak hour
from 15:00 to 16:00. As shown in Figure 19, the PV power prediction is overestimated and
much higher than the real PV power. Therefore, in “Opt for real conditions”, where the
optimization is performed without uncertainties, it gives the optimal energy cost without
error. It avoids grid supply energy, whereas in “real-time exp” with opt, it predicted falsely
to inject around 12:30 and 15:00 to 16:00, as shown in Figure 20a. Moreover, when EV5
arrives, the storage is discharged to the maximum power and then becomes empty around
17:00. However, in “Opt for real conditions”, the grid supplies its maximum power when
EV5 arrives, and the storage is preserved to discharge at peak hours from 15:00 to 16:00.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
This explains the difference in the grid cost and the total cost for both cases. 28 of 36

Table 4. Energy system cost—experimental test 1.

Table 4. Energy system cost—experimental test 1.
Case Operation Grid Cost (c€) Storage Cost (c€) Total Cost (c€)
Case Operation Grid Cost (c€) Storage Cost (c€) Total Cost (c€)
Real-time exp w/o opt 13.90 8.52 22.73
Real-time exp w/o opt 13.90 8.52 22.73
Real-time exp with opt 59.18 5.68 64.86
Real-time exp with opt 59.18 5.68 64.86
Opt for real conditions 5.51 5.61 11.12
Opt for real conditions 5.51 5.61 11.12

energy distribution
Figure 22 shows the EV energy distribution for
for “real-time
“real-time exp”
exp” with
with and
and without
without opt.
opt.

(a) (b)
Figure 22. EV
Figure 22. EV energy
energydistribution
distributionforfor “real-time
“real-time exp” (a) (a)
exp” without
without opt (b)
opt and (b) opt—experimental
andwith with opt—experi-
mental
test 1. test 1.

In Figure 22, EV1 and EV3 depend mainly on PV energy since they charge in slow
mode. EV2 depends
depends on onstorage
storagemore
morethan
thanPV.
PV. EV5
EV5 depends
depends onon
PV,PV, storage
storage andand
gridgrid en-
energy.
ergy.percentage
The The percentage
of gridof grid energy
energy is significantly
is significantly greater
greater than thethan
otherthe
EVsother
sinceEVs
it issince it is
charging
charging in fast
in fast mode. mode.
Figure 21a Figure
shows a21a shows
better a betterdistribution
EV energy EV energythan
distribution
in Figurethan in Figure
21b, especially
21b, especially
for EV4, where for EV4,
it was where by
charged it was chargedinbythe
the storage thepeak
storage in the
period peak
from period
15:00 from
to 16:00 15:00
and the
grid
to is less
16:00 andused for all
the grid is EVs.
less used for all EVs.

4.2. Experimental
4.2. Experimental TestTest 22
The case
The case of
of 2727 October
October 2021,
2021, in
in Compiegne,
Compiegne, France,
France, is
is considered. Figure 23
considered. Figure 23 shows
shows
ppPV MPPT pred, , pp PV MPPT , where the irradiations are intermediate and the weather is a bit
PV MPPT pred PV MPPT , where the irradiations are intermediate and the weather is a bit
cloudy, so there are low fluctuations. The IIREV demand power is based on the data in
cloudy,
Table 2. so there are low fluctuations. The IIREV demand power is based on the data in
Table 2.
 Appl.
Appl. Sci.Sci.
Appl. 2022,
Sci. 2022,
12, 12,
2022, x12,
FORx4323
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 12 12 ofof 13
of2613 33

Figure
Figure 23. 23.
Figure PVPV
23. PV MPPT
MPPT
MPPT real
realreal and
andand predicted
predicted
predicted powers
powers
powers and
andand IIREV
IIREV
IIREV demand
demand
demand power—experimental
power—experimental
power—experimental testtest
2. 2.

Figure
Figure
Figure 24 shows
24 24 shows
shows thethe
the power
power
power flow
flowflow and
andandstorage
storage
storage state
ofofcharge
state
state ofcharge
charge
forfor “real-time
for exp”
“real-time
“real-time without
exp”
exp” with-
with-
optimization and the DC bus voltage—experimental test 2.
outout optimization
optimization andand
thethe
DCDCbusbus voltage—experimental
voltage—experimental testtest
2. 2.

(a)(a)

(b)(b)
Figure
Figure 24. 24. Power
Power flow
flow andand storage
storage state
state of charge
of charge for for “real-time
“real-time exp”exp” without
without optimization
optimization (a) (a) and
and(a,b)
Figure 24. Power flow and storage state of charge for “real-time exp” without optimization
(b) (b) storage
storage state
state of of charge
charge andand
DC DC
bus bus voltage—experimental
voltage—experimental
storage state of charge and DC bus voltage—experimental test 2.
test
test 2. 2.
 Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4323 27 of 33

In Figure 24a, the storage is always prioritized to be either charged or discharged.

However, after EV5 arrives and around 14:45, the storage is empty. The grid supplies
power, but it is insufficient to fully charge the EVs, and therefore, EV shedding is applied
from 14:45 until the departure of EV5 from the IIREVs at 14:55. After EV50 s departure, the
grid continues supplying power to the IIREVs as the storage is empty. Figure 24b shows
the evolution of the storage SOC, where it is always discharging almost all the time until it
is empty around 14:45, and the stability of the DC bus voltage is present even with small
fluctuations. Spikes of a few voltages happen when each EV starts charging and when it
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW finishes charging. 30 of 36
Figure 25 shows the power flow and storage state of charge for “real-time exp” with
optimization and the DC bus voltage—experimental test 2b.

(a)

(b)
Figure 25. Power
Figure flow and
25. Power flowstorage state of
and storage charge
state for “real-time
of charge exp” with
for “real-time exp”optimization (a) and(a,b) the
with optimization
(b) the storage
storage state
state of of charge
charge andand
DCDCbusbus voltage—experimental
voltage—experimental testtest
2b.2b.

In Figure
In Figure 25a, 25a, the power
the power flowflow ofstorage
of the the storage andgrid
and the the grid is based
is based oncoefficient
on the the coefficient
k
k D . From 12:00 until 14:20, the PV injects little energy to the grid during the peakpeak
D . From 12:00 until 14:20, the PV injects little energy to the grid during the hour,hour,
yet some fluctuations still happen where the grid supplies power. However, when EV5
yet some fluctuations still happen where the grid supplies power. However, when EV5
arrives, the IIREV demand power is greater than the PV and storage power that they can
arrives, the IIREV demand power is greater than the PV and storage power that they can
supply. Therefore, the grid supplies power to charge the EVs with maximum power, and
supply. Therefore, the grid supplies power to charge the EVs with maximum power, and
the storage is preserved. From 15:15 to 16:15, the storage discharges energy until it is empty
the storage is preserved. From 15:15 to 16:15, the storage discharges energy until it is
to avoid the high cost of grid supply power, as it is considered a peak period. After 16:15,
empty to avoid the high cost of grid supply power, as it is considered a peak period. After
the grid supplies power, regardless of the k value. Figure 25b shows the evolution of the
16:15, the grid supplies power, regardless of theD k D value. Figure 25b shows the evolu-
storage SOC, where the storage discharges energy from 09:10 to 10:50, 14:25 to 14:50 and
tion of the storage
around SOC,
15:15 to where
16:15. the25b
Figure storage discharges
also shows energy from
the stability of the09:10
DC busto 10:50, 14:25
voltage towith
even
14:50 and around 15:15 to 16:15. Figure 25b also shows the stability of the DC bus voltage
even with small fluctuations, which are due to the switching of DC converters, and the
spikes of a few voltages happen when each EV starts charging and when it finishes charg-
ing.
Table 5 shows the energy system cost for “real-time exp” without optimization,
where the energy costs are higher than in optimization due to the cost of EV shedding.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4323 28 of 33

small fluctuations, which are due to the switching of DC converters, and the spikes of a
few voltages happen when each EV starts charging and when it finishes charging.
Table 5 shows the energy system cost for “real-time exp” without optimization, where
the energy costs are higher than in optimization due to the cost of EV shedding. The
real-time experiment with optimization is closer to the optimization for real conditions, as
it avoids EV shedding and gives better energy costs of 60.91 c€. In “Opt for real conditions”,
where the optimization is performed without uncertainties, it gives the optimal energy cost
without error, which is 53.37 c€. It avoids EV shedding and grid supply energy, and
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 31 when
of 36
EV5 arrives, the storage is discharged to the maximum power, then becomes empty around
14:45, provoking EV shedding. However, in “Opt for real conditions”, the grid supplies
its maximum power when EV5 arrives, and the storage is preserved to discharge at peak
tions”, the grid
hours from supplies
15:00 to 16:00.itsThis
maximum
explainspower when EV5
the difference arrives,
in the andand
grid cost the the
storage is pre-
total cost for
served to
both cases.discharge at peak hours from 15:00 to 16:00. This explains the difference in the
grid cost and the total cost for both cases.
Table 5. Energy system cost—experimental test 2.
Table 5. Energy system cost—experimental test 2.
Case Operation Grid Cost (c€) Storage Cost (c€) EV Shedding Cost (c€) Total Cost (c€)
Case Operation Grid Cost (c€) Storage Cost (c€) EV Shedding Cost (c€) Total Cost (c€)
Real-time exp w/o opt 109.83 exp w/o opt
Real-time 6.17
109.83 6.17 40.72 40.72 156.73
156.73
Real-time exp with opt 54.88 exp with opt
Real-time 5.73
54.88 5.73 0 0 60.9160.91
Opt for real conditions Opt47.75
for real conditions 5.61
47.75 5.61 0 0 53.3753.37

Figure
Figure 26
26 shows the EV
shows the EVenergy
energydistribution
distributionforfor “real-time
“real-time exp”
exp” with
with andand without
without opti-
optimization.
mization.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure26.
26.EVEV
energy distribution
energy for “real-time
distribution exp” (a)
for “real-time without
exp” optimization
(a) without and (b) and
optimization with (b)
optimi-
with
zation—experimental test 2.
optimization—experimental test 2.

In
InFigure
Figure26,
26,the
theshare
shareof ofPV
PVenergy
energyisisnot
notsignificant
significanteven
evenforforEVs
EVscharging
chargingin inslow
slow
mode.
mode.Thus,
Thus,the
theshare
shareofofstorage
storageenergy
energyisishigh
highfor
forEV1
EV1andandEV2,
EV2,while
whilethe
theshare
shareof ofgrid
grid
energy
energy is
is high
high for EV3,
EV3, EV4,
EV4,and
andEV5EV5asasthe
thestorage
storageis is empty
empty early,
early, around
around 14:45.
14:45. Figure
Figure 26b
26b shows
shows a better
a better EV energy
EV energy distribution
distribution than inthan in Figure
Figure 26a, where
26a, where EV3 and EV3
EV4and EV4
were were
charged
by the storage
charged by the instead
storage of the grid,
instead whereas
of the for EV5, the
grid, whereas storage
for EV5, thewas preserved
storage to discharge
was preserved to
at the peak
discharge athour fromhour
the peak 15:00from
to 16:00, and
15:00 to therefore
16:00, andEV5, charging
therefore EV5,in charging
fast mode,inwas
fastcharged
mode,
mainly
was by the
charged grid. by the grid.
mainly

4.3.Discussion
4.3. Discussion
For“real-time
For “real-timeexp”
exp”with
withoptimization,
optimization,selling
sellingenergy
energyto tothe
thegrid
gridisispreferred
preferredto
tomake
make
profits based
profits based on
on the coefficientk Dk Dto to
thecoefficient minimize thethe
minimize totaltotal
cost.cost.
Thus, withwith
Thus, optimization gives
optimization
better energy cost than without optimization. Furthermore, the EV energy distribution can
gives better energy cost than without optimization. Furthermore, the EV energy distribu-
be considered for “real-time exp” with optimization to be better than without optimization.
tion can be considered for “real-time exp” with optimization to be better than without
To sum up, “with opt” performs better than “w/o opt” in minimizing the total cost of
optimization.
the IIREVs, and for the EV energy distribution, the results are satisfying with optimization,
To sum up, “with opt” performs better than “w/o opt” in minimizing the total cost
of the IIREVs, and for the EV energy distribution, the results are satisfying with optimi-
zation, which is not the case without optimization, as the share of storage and grid ener-
gies are higher than the share of PV energy.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4323 29 of 33

which is not the case without optimization, as the share of storage and grid energies are
higher than the share of PV energy.

5. Conclusions
The simulation and real-time experimental results prove the superiority of the op-
timization problem formulated as MILP and solved by CPLEX over the storage priority
algorithm. The results also show the feasibility of the proposed supervisory control of
the IIREVs, which contains the HMI and the energy management with power balancing
and interacts with the smart grid. The proposed supervisory control executes efficiently
with respect to the constraints and fulfilling the EV user demands. Furthermore, the EVs
that charge in slow mode depend mainly on PV energy, while for average or fast charging,
they depend on the PV, storage and grid power sources. The EV energy distribution is
considered good compared to the storage priority; only in the case with high fluctuations
was the EV energy distribution better in storage priority. In addition, selling energy to the
grid returns profits to the IIREV operator and makes optimization better than the storage
priority algorithm.
The optimization takes into consideration the intermittent arrival and departure of
EVs. Further works will concentrate on realizing optimization taking into consideration
the intermittent arrival and departure of EVs with services such as vehicle-to-grid, vehicle-
to-home, and infrastructure-to-home.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.C.-M., M.S. and F.L.; methodology, S.C.-M., M.S. and
F.L.; software, S.C.-M., M.S. and F.L.; validation, S.C.-M., M.S. and F.L.; formal analysis, S.C.-M., M.S.
and F.L.; investigation, S.C.-M., M.S. and F.L.; resources, S.C.-M., M.S. and F.L.; data curation, S.C.-M.,
M.S. and F.L.; writing—original draft preparation, S.C.-M.; writing—review and editing, M.S. and
F.L.; visualization, S.C.-M., M.S. and F.L.; supervision, M.S.; project administration, M.S.; funding
acquisition, M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by ADEME France, project PV2E_Mobility, grant number
#1905C0043.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations
AC Alternative current
CO2 Carbon dioxide
DC Direct current
EV Electric vehicle
HMI Human-machine interface
IIREVs Intelligent infrastructure for recharging electric vehicles
MPPT Maximum power point tracking
MILP Mixed-integer linear programming
PV Photovoltaic
SOC State of charge
STC Standard test conditions
Constraints
PEV_maxv Maximum charging power of v vehicle
PEV_aver_max Maximum average charging power
PEV_ f ast_max Maximum fast charging power
PEV_slow_max Maximum slow charging power
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4323 30 of 33

PS_max Stationary storage power limit

PG_I_max Maximum grid injection limit
PG_S_max Maximum grid supply limit
SOCEV_max Maximum state of charge of electric vehicle
SOCEV_min Minimum state of charge of electric vehicle
SOCS_max Maximum state of charge of stationary storage
SOCS_min Minimum state of charge of stationary storage
Parameters
∆t Time interval between two samples
γ Power temperature coefficient
c EV_p EV penalty tariff
cG Grid energy tariff
cG_NH Grid energy tariff in normal hours
cG_PH Grid energy tariff in peak hours
cS Storage energy tariff
c PVS PV shedding energy tariff
CP Controller proportional gain
EBat Energy capacity of the stationary storage (kWh)
Ev Energy capacity of the v vehicle (kWh)
Gtest Fixed solar irradiation for testing
Mv Charging mode of vehicle v
NPV Number of PV panels
Nv EVs total number
NOCT Nominal Operating Cell Temperature
PPV_STC PV power under STC
SOCEV_arrv SOC of vehicle v at arrival
SOCEV_depv State of charge of electric vehicle v at departure
SOCEV_desv SOC of vehicle v at departure
SOCS0 Initial SOC of stationary storage
t0 Initial time instant
Tair−test Fixed air temperature
t arrv Arrival time of v vehicle
tch v Estimated charging time of v vehicle set by the user
tdepv Departure time of v vehicle
test_ch v Estimated charging time of vehicle v
tF Time instant at the end of time operation
Vre f Reference voltage of the DC bus
Indices
i Index of time
v Index of EV number
Variables
CEV_penalty EV penalty energy cost
CG Grid energy cost
CS Storage energy cost
CPVS PV shedding energy cost
g Solar irradiation
kD Power distribution coefficient
p EVv EV charging power of v vehicle
pG Grid power
pG_I Grid injection power
pG_S Grid supply power
pG_re f Grid power reference
p I IREVs D IIREVs total demand power
p I IREVs IIREVs total power
p I IREVs S IIREVs shed power
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4323 31 of 33

p PV MPPT PV MPPT power

p PV MPPT pred PV power prediction in MPPT mode
p PV PV power
p PV_S PV shed power
pS Stationary storage power
pS_C Stationary storage charging power
pS_D Stationary storage discharging power
pS_re f Stationary storage power reference
pre f Reference power
soc EVv State of charge of electric vehicle v
socS State of charge of stationary storage
Tamb Ambient temperature
ti Continuous time
TPV PV cell temperature
v DC bus Voltage of the DC bus

References
1. Sechilariu, M.; Locment, F.; Darene, N. Social Acceptance of Microgrids Dedicated to Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. In
Proceedings of the 2018 7th International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Applications (ICRERA), Paris, France,
10–17 October 2018; IEEE: Paris, France, 2018; pp. 1374–1379.
2. Liu, N.; Chen, Q.; Liu, J.; Lu, X.; Li, P.; Lei, J.; Zhang, J. A Heuristic Operation Strategy for Commercial Building Microgrids
Containing EVs and PV System. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2015, 62, 2560–2570. [CrossRef]
3. Honarmand, M.; Zakariazadeh, A.; Jadid, S. Integrated Scheduling of Renewable Generation and Electric Vehicles Parking Lot in
a Smart Microgrid. Energy Convers. Manag. 2014, 86, 745–755. [CrossRef]
4. Sechilariu, M.; Molines, N.; Richard, G.; Martell-Flores, H.; Locment, F.; Baert, J. Electromobility Framework Study: Infrastructure
and Urban Planning for EV Charging Station Empowered by PV-Based Microgrid. IET Electr. Syst. Transp. 2019, 9, 176–185.
[CrossRef]
5. Global EV Outlook 2020—Analysis. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2020 (accessed on
30 October 2020).
6. Wang, Z.; Zhang, Y.; You, S.; Xiao, H.; Cheng, M. An Integrated Power Conversion System for Electric Traction and V2G Operation
in Electric Vehicles With a Small Film Capacitor. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2020, 35, 5066–5077. [CrossRef]
7. Liu, C.; Chau, K.T.; Wu, D.; Gao, S. Opportunities and Challenges of Vehicle-to-Home, Vehicle-to-Vehicle, and Vehicle-to-Grid
Technologies. Proc. IEEE 2013, 101, 2409–2427. [CrossRef]
8. Jin, C.; Tang, J.; Ghosh, P. Optimizing Electric Vehicle Charging: A Customer’s Perspective. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2013, 62,
2919–2927. [CrossRef]
9. Xia, Y.; Hu, B.; Xie, K.; Tang, J.; Tai, H. An EV Charging Demand Model for the Distribution System Using Traffic Property. IEEE
Access 2019, 7, 28089–28099. [CrossRef]
10. Habib, S.; Khan, M.M.; Abbas, F.; Sang, L.; Shahid, M.U.; Tang, H. A Comprehensive Study of Implemented International
Standards, Technical Challenges, Impacts and Prospects for Electric Vehicles. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 13866–13890. [CrossRef]
11. Aluisio, B.; Bruno, S.; De Bellis, L.; Dicorato, M.; Forte, G.; Trovato, M. DC-Microgrid Operation Planning for an Electric Vehicle
Supply Infrastructure. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2687. [CrossRef]
12. Chaudhari, K.; Ukil, A.; Kumar, K.N.; Manandhar, U.; Kollimalla, S.K. Hybrid Optimization for Economic Deployment of ESS in
PV-Integrated EV Charging Stations. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2018, 14, 106–116. [CrossRef]
13. Suyono, H.; Rahman, M.T.; Mokhlis, H.; Othman, M.; Illias, H.A.; Mohamad, H. Optimal Scheduling of Plug-in Electric Vehicle
Charging Including Time-of-Use Tariff to Minimize Cost and System Stress. Energies 2019, 12, 1500. [CrossRef]
14. Deepak Mistry, R.; Eluyemi, F.T.; Masaud, T.M. Impact of Aggregated EVs Charging Station on the Optimal Scheduling of Battery
Storage System in Islanded Microgrid. In Proceedings of the 2017 North American Power Symposium (NAPS), Morgantown, WV,
USA, 17–19 September 2017; pp. 1–5.
15. Davis, N.; Johnson, B.; McJunkin, T.; Scoffield, D.; White, S. Dispatch Control with PEV Charging and Renewables for Multiplayer
Game Application. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Conference on Technologies for Sustainability (SusTech), Phoenix, AZ, USA,
9–11 October 2016; pp. 156–161.
16. Petrusic, A.; Janjic, A. Renewable Energy Tracking and Optimization in a Hybrid Electric Vehicle Charging Station. Appl. Sci.
2021, 11, 245. [CrossRef]
17. Faraji, J.; Abazari, A.; Babaei, M.; Muyeen, S.M.; Benbouzid, M. Day-Ahead Optimization of Prosumer Considering Battery
Depreciation and Weather Prediction for Renewable Energy Sources. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2774. [CrossRef]
18. Bucić, P.; Lešić, V.; Vašak, M. Distributed Optimal Batteries Charging Control for Heterogenous Electric Vehicles Fleet. In
Proceedings of the 2018 26th Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation (MED), Zadar, Croatia, 19–22 June 2018;
pp. 837–842.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4323 32 of 33

19. Xu, T.; Sun, H.; Zhu, B.; Long, Y.; Wang, H.; Li, Z. Economic Optimization Control of Microgrid with Electric Vehicles. In
Proceedings of the 2018 5th International Conference on Information Science and Control Engineering (ICISCE), Zhengzhou,
China, 20–22 July 2018; pp. 733–736.
20. Moya, F.D.; Torres-Moreno, J.L.; Álvarez, J.D. Optimal Model for Energy Management Strategy in Smart Building with Energy
Storage Systems and Electric Vehicles. Energies 2020, 13, 3605. [CrossRef]
21. Shi, R.; Zhang, P.; Zhang, J.; Niu, L.; Han, X. Multidispatch for Microgrid Including Renewable Energy and Electric Vehicles with
Robust Optimization Algorithm. Energies 2020, 13, 2813. [CrossRef]
22. Ghotge, R.; Snow, Y.; Farahani, S.; Lukszo, Z.; van Wijk, A. Optimized Scheduling of EV Charging in Solar Parking Lots for Local
Peak Reduction under EV Demand Uncertainty. Energies 2020, 13, 1275. [CrossRef]
23. Oliveira Farias, H.E.; Sepulveda Rangel, C.A.; Weber Stringini, L.; Neves Canha, L.; Pegoraro Bertineti, D.; da Silva Brignol, W.;
Iensen Nadal, Z. Combined Framework with Heuristic Programming and Rule-Based Strategies for Scheduling and Real Time
Operation in Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. Energies 2021, 14, 1370. [CrossRef]
24. Nafisi, H.; Agah, S.M.M.; Askarian Abyaneh, H.; Abedi, M. Two-Stage Optimization Method for Energy Loss Minimization in
Microgrid Based on Smart Power Management Scheme of PHEVs. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2016, 7, 1268–1276. [CrossRef]
25. Yan, D.; Ma, C. Stochastic Planning of Electric Vehicle Charging Station Integrated with Photovoltaic and Battery Systems. Transm.
Distrib. IET Gener. 2020, 14, 4217–4224. [CrossRef]
26. Akram, U.; Khalid, M.; Shafiq, S. An Improved Optimal Sizing Methodology for Future Autonomous Residential Smart Power
Systems. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 5986–6000. [CrossRef]
27. Jiang, H.; Ning, S.; Ge, Q. Multi-Objective Optimal Dispatching of Microgrid With Large-Scale Electric Vehicles. IEEE Access 2019,
7, 145880–145888. [CrossRef]
28. Dai, Q.; Liu, J.; Wei, Q. Optimal Photovoltaic/Battery Energy Storage/Electric Vehicle Charging Station Design Based on
Multi-Agent Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1973. [CrossRef]
29. Lan, T.; Jermsittiparsert, K.; Alrashood, S.T.; Rezaei, M.; Al-Ghussain, L.; Mohamed, M.A. An Advanced Machine Learning Based
Energy Management of Renewable Microgrids Considering Hybrid Electric Vehicles’ Charging Demand. Energies 2021, 14, 569.
[CrossRef]
30. Minh, P.V.; Le Quang, S.; Pham, M.-H. Technical Economic Analysis of Photovoltaic-Powered Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
under Different Solar Irradiation Conditions in Vietnam. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3528. [CrossRef]
31. Rafique, M.K.; Khan, S.U.; Saeed Uz Zaman, M.; Mehmood, K.K.; Haider, Z.M.; Bukhari, S.B.A.; Kim, C.-H. An Intelligent Hybrid
Energy Management System for a Smart House Considering Bidirectional Power Flow and Various EV Charging Techniques.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1658. [CrossRef]
32. Zeng, B.; Dong, H.; Sioshansi, R.; Xu, F.; Zeng, M. Bilevel Robust Optimization of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations With
Distributed Energy Resources. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2020, 56, 5836–5847. [CrossRef]
33. Wu, H.; Pang, G.K.H.; Choy, K.L.; Lam, H.Y. An Optimization Model for Electric Vehicle Battery Charging at a Battery Swapping
Station. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2018, 67, 881–895. [CrossRef]
34. Chung, C.-H.; Jangra, S.; Lai, Q.; Lin, X. Optimization of Electric Vehicle Charging for Battery Maintenance and Degradation
Management. IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrif. 2020, 6, 958–969. [CrossRef]
35. Hosseinzadeh, M.; Salmasi, F.R. Robust Optimal Power Management System for a Hybrid AC/DC Micro-Grid. IEEE Trans.
Sustain. Energy 2015, 6, 675–687. [CrossRef]
36. Sigalo, M.B.; Pillai, A.C.; Das, S.; Abusara, M. An Energy Management System for the Control of Battery Storage in a Grid-
Connected Microgrid Using Mixed Integer Linear Programming. Energies 2021, 14, 6212. [CrossRef]
37. Moser, A.; Muschick, D.; Gölles, M.; Nageler, P.; Schranzhofer, H.; Mach, T.; Ribas Tugores, C.; Leusbrock, I.; Stark, S.; Lackner,
F.; et al. A MILP-Based Modular Energy Management System for Urban Multi-Energy Systems: Performance and Sensitivity
Analysis. Appl. Energy 2020, 261, 114342. [CrossRef]
38. Abou El-Ela, A.A.; El-Sehiemy, R.A.; Allam, S.M.; Shaheen, A.M.; Nagem, N.A.; Sharaf, A.M. Renewable Energy Micro-Grid
Interfacing: Economic and Environmental Issues. Electronics 2022, 11, 815. [CrossRef]
39. El-Ela, A.A.A.; El-Seheimy, R.A.; Shaheen, A.M.; Wahbi, W.A.; Mouwafi, M.T. PV and Battery Energy Storage Integration in
Distribution Networks Using Equilibrium Algorithm. J. Energy Storage 2021, 42, 103041. [CrossRef]
40. Shaheen, A.M.; Hamida, M.A.; El-Sehiemy, R.A.; Elattar, E.E. Optimal Parameter Identification of Linear and Non-Linear Models
for Li-Ion Battery Cells. Energy Rep. 2021, 7, 7170–7185. [CrossRef]
41. Hamida, M.A.; El-Sehiemy, R.A.; Ginidi, A.R.; Elattar, E.; Shaheen, A.M. Parameter Identification and State of Charge Estimation
of Li-Ion Batteries Used in Electric Vehicles Using Artificial Hummingbird Optimizer. J. Energy Storage 2022, 51, 104535. [CrossRef]
42. Sechilariu, M.; Locment, F. Photovoltaic Source Modeling and Control. In Urban DC Microgrid; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, 2016; pp. 35–91. ISBN 978-0-12-803736-2.
43. Sechilariu, M.; Locment, F. Backup Power Resources for Microgrid. In Urban DC Microgrid; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
2016; pp. 93–132. ISBN 978-0-12-803736-2.
44. Cheikh-Mohamad, S.; Sechilariu, M.; Locment, F. PV-Powered Charging Station: Energy Management and Cost Optimization.
In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE 30th International Symposium on Industrial Electronics (ISIE), Kyoto, Japan, 20–23 June 2021;
pp. 1–6.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4323 33 of 33

45. Sechilariu, M.; Locment, F. Direct Current Microgrid Power Modeling and Control. In Urban DC Microgrid; Elsevier: Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 133–170. ISBN 978-0-12-803736-2.
46. Sechilariu, M.; Locment, F. Experimental Evaluation of Urban Direct Current Microgrid. In Urban DC Microgrid; Elsevier:
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 209–250. ISBN 978-0-12-803736-2.
47. Montaño-Salcedo, C.E.; Sechilariu, M.; Locment, F. Human-System Interfaces for PV-Powered Electric Vehicles Charging Station.
In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE 30th International Symposium on Industrial Electronics (ISIE), Kyoto, Japan, 20–23 June 2021;
pp. 1–6.
48. Marra, F.; Yang, G.Y.; Træholt, C.; Larsen, E.; Rasmussen, C.N.; You, S. Demand Profile Study of Battery Electric Vehicle under
Different Charging Options. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, San Diego, CA, USA,
22–26 July 2012; pp. 1–7.
49. ILOG CPLEX Optimization Studio—Overview. Available online: https://www.ibm.com/products/ilog-cplex-optimization-
studio (accessed on 16 March 2022).
50. Cheikh-Mohamad, S.; Sechilariu, M.; Locment, F.; Krim, Y. PV-Powered Electric Vehicle Charging Stations: Preliminary Require-
ments and Feasibility Conditions. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1770. [CrossRef]