energies

Article An Algorithm for Optimization of Recharging Stops: A Case Study of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations on Canadian’s 401

Andrea Stabile 1, Michela Longo 1,* , Wahiba Yaïci 2 and Federica Foiadelli 1

1 Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano, via La Masa 34, 20156 Milan, Italy; [email protected] (A.S.); [email protected] (F.F.) 2 Buildings and Renewables Group, CanmetENERGY Research Centre, Natural Resources Canada, 1 Haanel Drive, , ON K1A 1M1, Canada; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +39-02-2399-3759

 Received: 6 March 2020; Accepted: 15 April 2020; Published: 20 April 2020 

Abstract: Electric vehicles (EVs), which have become a fundamental part of the automotive industry, were developed as part of concerted worldwide efforts to reduce dependency on fossil fuels due to their devastating effects on the environment. The aim of this study was to analyse a complete trip using an EV from to Ottawa (Canada) along Ontario’s Highway 401, considering that use of conventional vehicles powered by petrol or diesel allow one to make this trip without stops; using EVs, it is necessary to recharge the vehicle. For this purpose, an algorithm was developed for optimizing recharging stops during a complete trip. In particular, the simulations analysed the number of stops and specifically where it is possible to recharge taking into account the actual charging stations (CSs) located along the trip and the time of recharge during the stops as a function of the state of charge (SoC) of the vehicle. Using this approach, it was possible to evaluate the suitable coverage of the CSs on the stretch considered as well as to assess the main parameters that influence performance on the route.

Keywords: electric vehicles (EVs); charging stations (CSs); highway; type of charging station; optimization

1. Introduction A network of highways has become a common feature in modern cities. Throughout the day, these highways facilitate the transportation of people and goods that enable the sustenance of lifestyles. When thinking of the word “” today, it is common to have a mental picture of busy, congested lines of traffic and long commutes [1–3]. Perhaps one also thinks of potholes and falling shoulders. If one lives in a location that has well-maintained or little-used , perhaps one thinks of a peaceful two- road winding through the trees between distant cities [4]. For many people, roads are a resource reluctantly used nearly daily to move from a position A to a position B. Highways are generally composed of two roads with two going in opposite directions [5]. Conferring to European Union law, highways and main roads have to be endangered by a safety screen barrier located on both faces of the two lines to prevent infiltrations into the asphalt. It is also widespread to get instructive boards providing weather updates and information about the state of roads, accidents, and traffic conditions. The intense collective mandate for enhanced security, accessibility, transportation effectiveness, and environmental sustainability leads to continuous innovations in vehicular technology whilst being mindful of the need for sustainable energy use for future generations. In the automotive industry, compelling challenges in automotive technology are improvements in safety, efficiency, and convenience

Energies 2020, 13, 2055; doi:10.3390/en13082055 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies Energies 2020, 13, 2055 2 of 19 and reduction in harmful environmental impacts [6–8]. Modern transportation systems are confronted by many limitations, especially the inconvenience of safety gadgets, environmental impact of emissions, and congestion. Happily, these are solvable with determined efforts and strategic implementations of technological innovations. These technological innovations that support secure and accessible transportability centred on improved propelling environments have been built by utilizing vehicular transmission [9,10]. The equipment for communication coupled with vehicles that have the capacity to connect to this equipment has to be a fact for effective and secure utilization of forthcoming road. Exploiting automotive connectivity and automatic vehicle technologies to produce an intelligent vehicular system with consideration for security, outputs, and necessary accessibilities requires one to connect a central task of intelligent transportation system (ITS) judicious scheduling and execution [11]. ITS refers to the use of sensing, analysis, control, and communication technologies to a vehicular system for the purpose of enhancing protection, traffic, and efficacy. ITS comprises a comprehensive variety of tools that analyse and communicate data to simplicity jamming, develop circulation controlling, reduce negative ecological impacts, and improve the advantages of transport services to business operators and the community all together [12,13]. ITS is a component of the Internet of Things and includes vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) technologies. It combines both wireless and wired communication-based data and electronic equipment. Wireless technology can be deployed to link a vehicle to other vehicles (to share information and location) and to local and remote infrastructure in the cloud [14]. ITS has the ability to profoundly influence many applications. Some of these include: electronic fee collect, ridge meters, transit-signal synchronization, traffic-signal priority, traffic-light cameras, and information systems for travellers. The implementation of ITS is anticipated to rise in functions such as tolling management, fleet monitoring, transportation pricing, ticket controlling, and traffic flow monitoring [15–17]. Travellers, businesses, and transportation agencies will benefit from the ITS safety improvements as well as the availability of real-time data and analytics [18,19]. The establishment of information technologies in actual-time monitoring of highways will allow a reduction in maintenance costs and is anticipated to significantly decrease circulation accidents. There are other difficulties occasioned in assessing new applications and implementing the technology within vehicle fleets and regions when possible. For example, if temperature along a highway can be determined, that information could assist in preventing asphalt from freezing, since salt could be spread where and when it is needed. With that information, costs can be lowered by decreasing the quantity of salt to be distributed and preserving the asphalt, as this is corroded by salt [20–22]. Furthermore, safety can be improved by lowering the speed maximum based on the condition of the asphalt through alive information displayed in informational boards. Another example is the wire fence. For safety motives, it is essential to maintain wired barrier in a satisfactory condition. If, for instance, the barrier collapses and a wild animal enters the road, it could cause a crash. In conformity with the laws in some European Member States, it is required to verify the safety wire barrier at a minimum once each day. If that security fence can be monitored in an automated and real-time manner, security would be enhanced, and there would simultaneously be reduced maintenance costs [23,24]. Technological improvements to transportation and mobility are affecting the designs and the build of vehicles by manufacturing companies. Electric vehicles give bigger incentive for lower energy financing at lower emission intensities. EVs emit fewer greenhouse gases that affect the climate than nearly all comparable gasoline and hybrid [25,26]. The environmental benefits of EVs continue to grow. Innovative and weightless materials help vehicle manufacturers to decrease overall vehicle mass without jeopardizing traveller security. It is estimated that, by 2022, there will be over 250 million connected vehicles [27,28]. This turns in huge data collection by a ’s sensor sets on wheels that can be exploited for future development and to generate cutting-edge comprehensive models on many factors, for instance, circulation stream or precise route maps. Envision a map displaying all the deep holes on the street and the capability to evaluate each hole live, such that the highway groundwork would be rapidly repaired. Imagine that all cars are connected and have integrated communication technology to offer helpful aids to car users. Vehicles equipped with electronic control components and Energies 2020, 13, 2055 3 of 19 sensors that support V2V and V2I communications can effectively recommend re-directing to escape path dangers as well as request for help in the occurrence of an accident. In the last few years, a novel mobility concept emerged as a paradigm of personal mobility consumption founded on pay-per-use and is diffused among the younger generation. Surely, there could not be a smart city without smart mobility, and no smart mobility is conceivable excluding smart roads. As indicated in the literature, numerous feasibility, simulation, and optimization studies were accomplished on EV charging stations powered by energy sources, including renewable energy sources as well [29–43]. The interpretation drawn is that it appears that no algorithm for optimization of recharging stops or other similar work has been performed on such EVs on Canadian’s Ontario Highway 401; thus, the current investigation is an original research proposal and a certain contribution to knowledge. As mentioned earlier, this study aims to develop an algorithm that would optimize recharging stops during a complete trip from Toronto to Ottawa (Canada) along Ontario’s Highway 401. Through the analysis of simulation data, this paper examines the difference in time between selected electric vehicles and standard petrol/diesel vehicles; the latter are in most cases able to complete the trip with a complete fuel tank. The rest of the article is organised along these lines: Section2 gives thoroughly various typology of charging stations taking into account the diverse recharging methods. Section3 defines the case study, whereas Section4 provides the algorithm’s design incorporating the modelling technique and a detailed description of the method. In Section5, features of the simulation outcomes are presented and supported by their analyses. Lastly, Section6 provides the key conclusions obtained in this work.

2. EV Charging Stations The transportation sector currently relies on liquid fossil fuels originated from petroleum oil for 95% of the total fleet, which suggests that 50% of the petroleum oil production is consumed simply for transportation. Electric or hybrid vehicles present a viable and attractive solution to the many problems caused by dependency on liquid fossil fuels [44,45]. Importantly, the energy storage systems of electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles and their connection to renewable energy sources via recharging stations are a significant benefit for the central grid [46]. As mentioned in the previous section, EV charging stations located along the highway in an even distribution are a fundamental feature of a smart highway [47–49]. An outline of diverse sorts of charging stations and different charging modes is discussed below.

2.1. Types of Charging Stations Charging stations are constructed by numerous companies in a range of arrangements and may be either installed on poles, built on walls, portable, or in columns. They can too include diverse approval selections. Presently, the predominant routine way to open the socket of the charging station and start charging the vehicle is the radio-frequency identification card. According to the appropriate area of use, the charging columns require one to satisfy several specifications. They may commonly be distributed into two principal types: Private charging stations: These are commonly used in the private sector. Depending on the • situations, these could or could not be available to the community. They are often used in family homes, shops, hotels, car dealerships with repair shops, shopping malls, restaurants, banks/insurance companies, and company car parks. Public charging stations: These are often mounted on public infrastructures or in public car • parking lots situated in railway stations, aerodromes, or further unrestricted spaces. There is need to clarify the distinction between charging stations and charging points. Certain charging stations are supplied with two or more cables or connectors and have the capability to load two or additional vehicles simultaneously. Each connector is usually represented as a charging point, and this expression is usually employed when relating charging accessibility. Otherwise stated, a Energies 2020, 13, 2055 4 of 19

station with a single cord is considered as one charging point, and a station with two cords and the capacity to charge two vehicles at one period is regarded as two charging points. This assists to evaluate the accessibility of charging points further precisely than totalling the stations themselves.

EV charging machines consist principally of electronic components, which can be either on or off board. They supply electricity for the vehicle storage system along with the present equipment for power supply. Generally, home chargers and public chargers (excluding fast-charging stations) provide AC current, but an electric-vehicle battery can only accept direct current (DC) current. Therefore, the on-board charger, which converts AC to DC to charge the battery, is required. Standard on-board chargers decrease the charging power due to their weight, size, and price restrictions (modern on-board chargers have a max power output ranging between 3 and 22 kW), and they are commonly employed to charge battery banks that require an extended charging time.

2.2. Charging Methods The charging apparatus for plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) and battery electric vehicles (BEV) are categorised by the rate at which the batteries are charged. The duration of the charging mode (usually ranging between 15 min and 10 h) depends on the capacity of the battery that is installed on-board, the type of the electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), and the initial state of charge (SoC). The European Standard IEC 62196 establishes four diverse charging types in accordance with different power-charging levels, safeguard systems, and connector types [50,51]. The four charging modes are briefly described below:

Mode 1: In Mode 1 charging, the EV is connected to an alternating current (AC) supply network • by means of a non-specialised domestic plug. The limit current does not surpass 16 A, and the limit voltage does not exceed 250 V for a single-phase AC network or 480 V for a three-phase AC network. Mode 1 necessitates both an over-current safety device and shielding earth conductors. A circuit breaker (CB) is used for over-current protection, and a ground fault interrupter (GFI) for switching off the circuit at any time the electric current is unbalanced within the energized conductor and the return neutral conductor. The use of a surge limiter is advised. IEC 61851-1 does not demand the use of any control pins for Mode 1 connectors. However, Mode 1 charging is not allowed in several nations, including the US. Mode 2: The connection of an EV to an AC supply network is described as Mode 2 charging. In • this case, the limit current does not surpass 32 A, and the limit voltage is lower than 250 V for single-phase or less than 480 V for three-phase networks. Mode 2 charging needs over-current safety, a shielding earth, and a residual current protective mechanism for isolation from electric shocks. A charging control system is combined by means of an aligned unit in the charging cable. Therefore, Mode 2 couplers involve a control pin (defined in IEC 61851-1) on the vehicle side. However, the network side of the cable does not necessitate a control pin, as the control module is embedded in the charging cable. Mode 3: With Mode 3 charging, the EV is connected to a charging equipment, which is always • hooked up to either a single-phase or a three-phase AC network. The functioning of the charging control pilot is controlled by the on-board charger in the EV as well as the electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) control package in the off-board installation. Mode 3 charging needs surge current protection and a ground fault interrupter inside the charging station. A surge arrester is recommended to insulate components from high DV/DT voltage surges. IEC 61851-1 requires the implementation of several controls and signal pins in the coupler. A pilot pin in the plug on the side of the charging station regulates the circuit breaker, which switches off the charging station when no vehicle is connected. Mode 4: In charging Mode 4, the EV is connected to a single-phase or a three-phase AC grid • with an AC/DC converter. An external EV charger is deployed to allow fast charging. Mode 4 DC fast charging tolerates currents not exceeding 400 A. The vehicle is hooked up with an IEC Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 20

side of the charging station regulates the circuit breaker, which switches off the charging station when no vehicle is connected. ● Mode 4: In charging Mode 4, the EV is connected to a single-phase or a three-phase AC grid with an AC/DC converter. An external EV charger is deployed to allow fast charging. Mode 4 DC fast Energiescharging2020, 13 ,tolerates 2055 currents not exceeding 400 A. The vehicle is hooked up with an IEC 621965 of 19 standardized connector on the vehicle side (every mode allowed) and with an IEC 62196 Mode 3 connector62196 standardized on the side connector of the charging on the vehiclestation. sideMode (every 4 charging mode allowed)stations must and withintegrate an IEC AC/DC 62196- sensitiveMode 3 connectorGFIs and ondistinct the side surge of theprotection charging instruments station. Mode for 4AC charging and DC. stations The control must integrate and the AC/DC-sensitive GFIs and distinct surge protection instruments for AC and DC. The control and signal pins of a Mode 4 connector are analogous to those of Mode 3 connectors in conformity to the signal pins of a Mode 4 connector are analogous to those of Mode 3 connectors in conformity IECto IEC 61851 61851-1.-1.

3. Case Case Study: From From Toronto Toronto to Ottawa (Canada) through ON ON-401-401 King'sKing’s Highway Highway 401 401 is is currently currently the the main main across across itinerary itinerary through through Southern, Southern, Central, Central and Eastern, and EasternOntario fromOntario Windsor from to Windsor the to the border Quebec (stretching border across (stretching 817.9 acrosskm). Millions 817.9 km). of travellers Millions use of travellersthe highway. use the In particular, highway. In nearly particular half a, millionnearly half vehicles a million pass vehicles through pass the busiestthrough part the ofbusiest the route part (Torontoof the route , (Toronto shown bypass, in Figure shown1 below) in Figure daily, 1 below) along sixteendaily, along lanes sixteen of tra ffilanesc. It of is traffic. also utilised It is also by utilisedthousands by of thousands transport of trucks transport daily, trucks which carrydaily, merchandise which carry tomerchandise and from Ontario to and producers from Ontario and producerscustomers and [52]. customers The economic [52]. The motion economic facilitated motion by Highwayfacilitated 401 by isHighway immense. 401 Thisis immense. highway This has highwaybeen instrumental has been toinstrumental Ontario’s wealth to Ontario's over many wealth years. over Theremany existyears. 19 There Service exist Centres 19 Service located Centres along locatedHighway along 401. These Highway centres 401. are Thes opene aroundcentres the are clock open and around recommend the clock drivers and accessible recommend entrance drivers to accessibleservices including entrance refuelling, to services eating including places, refuelling, and rest eating stops. places The displayed, and rest speed stops. limit The displayed on Highway speed 401 limitis 100 on km Highway/h (60 mph). 401 is 100 km/h (60 mph).

FigureFigure 1. 1. GreaterGreater Toronto Toronto Area collector collector-express-express lane configuration.configuration.

As stated earlier, the aim of this paper was to analyse the difference in time between an internal As stated earlier, the aim of this paper was to analyse the difference in time between an internal ccombustionombustion e enginengine (ICE) vehicle and an EV during a complete trip from Toronto to Ottawa. Figure 22 indicates thatthat thethe totaltotal distance distance from from Toronto Toronto to to Ottawa Ottawa is approximatelyis approximately 435 435 km. km. The The first first part part of this of thisroute route involves involves ON401 ON from 401 thefrom Greater the Greater Toronto Toronto Area (GTA) Area up(GTA) to the up Prescott to the area,Prescott then area, 416 Highwaythen 416 Highwayleads to Ottawa. leads to A Ottawa. quasi-ideal A quasi condition-ideal wascondition employed was employed as a model as development a model development and for analysis and for of analfinalysis results. of final As results. illustration, As illustration, for traffic information,for traffic information, it used the it “Typical used the Tra “Typicalffic” function Traffic” of function Maps. Ultimately, Google applies a mining process on collected data and runs prediction algorithm to provide “Typical Traffic”. To estimate the total travel time from Toronto to Ottawa for a normal vehicle, a midweek morning (Wednesday) starting at 09:00 was chosen. The total time for a complete trip is about 4 h and 20 min. Taking into account a normal-sized petrol/diesel vehicle, it can complete the trip without stops or at least with only one brief refuelling stop lasting for a few minutes. Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 20 of Google Maps. Ultimately, Google applies a mining process on collected data and runs prediction algorithm to provide “Typical Traffic”. To estimate the total travel time from Toronto to Ottawa for a normal vehicle, a midweek morning (Wednesday) starting at 09:00 was chosen. The total time for a complete trip is about 4 h and 20 min. Taking into account a normal-sized petrol/diesel vehicle, it can completeEnergies 2020 the, 13 ,trip 2055 without stops or at least with only one brief refuelling stop lasting for a few minutes.6 of 19

Figure 2. Itinerary Toronto-Ottawa. Figure 2. Itinerary Toronto-Ottawa. 3.1. EV Charging Stations 3.1. EV Charging Stations This section analyses the current state of EV charging stations en route between Toronto and Ottawa.This While section gas analyses stations canthe commonlycurrent state be foundof EV alongcharging the way,stations commercial en route electric between vehicle Toronto charging and Ottawa.stations are While still gas fewer stations in number can commonly and less than be the found demand along for the them. way, Luckily, commercial getting electric from one vehicle end chargingof Highway stations 401to are another still fewer is easier in number for owners and less of electricthan the cars demand because for ofthem. the availabilityLuckily, getting of several from onestations. end of As Highway shown in401 Figure to another3, along is easier the route for owners from Toronto of electric to Ottawa,cars because there of are the many availability Level of 2 severalcharging stations. stations. As Level shown 2 charging in Figure (240 3, along V AC) the can route be placed from Toronto within the to inexpensiveOttawa, there Level are many 1 and costlyLevel 2DC charging fast charging stations. stations. Level 2 Level charging 2 chargers (240 V spanAC) can from be chargers placed within set up inthe end-user inexpensive garages Level to 1 fairly and costly DC fast charging stations. Level 2 chargers span from chargers set up in end-user garages to slowEnergies public 2018, chargers11, x FOR PEER [53,54 REVIEW]. 7 of 20 fairly slow public chargers [53,54].

FigureFigure 3.3. LevelLevel 2 charging stations.

Unfortunately, they are able to charge an electric car battery in about 4–6 hours. Despite the numerous Level 2 charging stations, from now on, we considered only DC charging stations. The reasoning is easy to follow looking at charging time (4–6 hours exceeds the total time needed for a complete trip). Figure 4 shows, respectively, the Tesla Supercharger and the CHAdeMO charging stations. A great difference in numerical terms can be seen between Level 2 chargers and DC fast chargers. This is because there is a peripheral charger that makes the AC/DC conversion much larger, weightier, further complicated, and more costly than an on-board charger.

(a)

Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 20

Energies 2020, 13, 2055 7 of 19 Figure 3. Level 2 charging stations.

Unfortunately,Unfortunately, they they are are able able to chargeto charge an electrican electric car car battery battery in about in abou 4–6t h.4–6 Despite hours. theDespite numerous the Levelnumerous 2 charging Level stations, 2 charging from stations, now on, from we considered now on, we only consider DC charginged only stations. DC charging The reasoning stations. isThe easy toreasoning follow looking is easy at to charging follow looking time (4–6 at charging h exceeds time the total(4–6 hours time needed exceeds for the a total complete time needed trip). Figure for a 4 shows,complete respectively, trip). Figure the Tesla4 shows Supercharger, respectively and, the the Tesla CHAdeMO Supercharger charging and stations. the CHAdeMO A great di chargingfference in numericalstations. termsA great can difference be seen betweenin numerical Level terms 2 chargers can be and seen DC between fast chargers. Level 2 This charger is becauses and DC there fast is a peripheralchargers.charger This is because that makes there the is a AC peripheral/DC conversion charger muchthat makes larger, the weightier, AC/DC conversion further complicated, much larger, and moreweightier, costly thanfurther an complicated on-board charger., and more costly than an on-board charger.

Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 20 (a)

(b)

FigureFigure 4.4. ((aa)) TeslaTesla Supercharger;Supercharger; ( (b)) CHAdeMO CHAdeMO charging charging stations. stations.

3.2. EV Comparison Recall that the aim of this paper was a comparison between EV and ICE vehicles during a travel from Toronto to Ottawa. To further enable this discussion, the vehicle’s characteristics were studied. For the model construction, official ratings were required. The kilometre ranges of selected vehicles were calculated using Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) energy consumption related to a highways use. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is the governmental agency responsible for testing electric cars and rating their energy efficiency and, specifically, their operating range on a charge. Those ratings are not infallible, but when compared to other ratings around the world, they are easily achievable and more accurate. These are not exactly correct and vary depending on multiple factors. It is well known that EV efficiency is dependent on several elements, including battery, SOC, kW of charging station (CS), and charging time. It is similar to the fuel gauge in conventional internal combustion cars. In order to advance to more practical aspects, five BEVs were selected from among best-selling EVs of Ontario in Q3 of 2018. It is noted that highway cycle range is expressed in miles per gallon gasoline equivalent (MPGe). MPGe is a measure of the average distance travelled per unit of energy consumed. MPGe is employed by the United States EPA to evaluate energy consumption of electric vehicles with the energy consumption of conventional internal combustion vehicles rated in miles per US gallon [55, 56]. In particular:

푚𝑖 푘푚 1 푀푃퐺푒 ≈ 0.03 ≈ 0.05 (1) 푘푊ℎ 푘푊ℎ

From this value, the highway kilometre range of all five cars can be calculated. Table 1 summarises the main selected vehicles, which are those of 2018 model cars. The major characteristics are: battery capacity, range (km), charging time, and MPGe.

Energies 2020, 13, 2055 8 of 19

3.2. EV Comparison Recall that the aim of this paper was a comparison between EV and ICE vehicles during a travel from Toronto to Ottawa. To further enable this discussion, the vehicle’s characteristics were studied. For the model construction, official ratings were required. The kilometre ranges of selected vehicles were calculated using Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) energy consumption related to a highways use. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is the governmental agency responsible for testing electric cars and rating their energy efficiency and, specifically, their operating range on a charge. Those ratings are not infallible, but when compared to other ratings around the world, they are easily achievable and more accurate. These are not exactly correct and vary depending on multiple factors. It is well known that EV efficiency is dependent on several elements, including battery, SOC, kW of charging station (CS), and charging time. It is similar to the fuel gauge in conventional internal combustion cars. In order to advance to more practical aspects, five BEVs were selected from among best-selling EVs of Ontario in Q3 of 2018. It is noted that highway cycle range is expressed in miles per gallon gasoline equivalent (MPGe). MPGe is a measure of the average distance travelled per unit of energy consumed. MPGe is employed by the United States EPA to evaluate energy consumption of electric vehicles with the energy consumption of conventional internal combustion vehicles rated in miles per US gallon [55,56]. In particular:

mi km 1 MPGe 0.03 0.05 (1) ≈ kWh ≈ kWh

From this value, the highway kilometre range of all five cars can be calculated. 1 Table 1. Selected vehicle’s main data. 1 Table 1. Selected vehicle’s main data. 1 Table1 summarises the mainTable 1. selected Selected vehicle’s vehicles, main data which. are those of 2018 model cars. The major 1 Table 1. Selected vehicle’sBattery main dataEPA. 1characteristics are: battery capacity,Table 1. Selected range vehicle’sBatteryBattery (km), main charging dataEPAEPA. time,Range and MPGe.Charging Model of EVs Capacity Range RangeRange ChargingCharging Model of EVs CapacityBattery RangeEPA Model of EVs BatteryCapacity EPARange Range(km) TimeCharging (min ) (kWh) (MPGe) (km(km) ) TimeTime ( min(min) ) Model of EVs Table 1.Capacity(SelectedkWh) vehicle’s(MPGeRange ) mainRange data. Charging Model of EVs Capacity(kWh) Range(MPGe ) (km) Time (min) (kWh) (MPGe) (km) Time (min) Model of EVs Battery(kWh Capacity) (kWh)(MPGe) EPA Range (MPGe) Range (km) Charging Time (min) Kia Soul 30 93 133.36 44:00 KiaKia Soul Soul 3030 9393 133.36133.36 44:0044:00 Kia Soul 30 93 133.36 44:00 KiaKia Soul Soul 30 3093 133.36 93 44:00 133.36 44:00

Nissan NissanNissan 62 97 287.54 60:00 62 97 287.54 60:00 NissanLeaf 62 97 287.54 60:00 NissanLeafLeaf Leaf Nissan 62 6297 287.54 97 60:00 287.54 60:00 Leaf 62 97 287.54 60:00 Leaf

Tesla TeslaTesla 75 112 401 57:00 TeslaModel Model 3 3 7575 75112112 401401 112 57:0057:00 401 57:00 ModelTesla 3 ModelTesla 3 75 112 401 57:00 Model 3 75 112 401 57:00 Model 3

BMWBMW i3 i3 42.5 42.5102 205.5 102 60:00 205.5 60:00 BMWBMW i3 i3 42.542.5 102102 205.5205.5 60:0060:00

BMW i3 42.5 102 205.5 60:00 BMW i3 42.5 102 205.5 60:00

Tesla TeslaTesla ModelTesla S 100 100107 487.6 107 65:00 487.6 65:00 Model S 100100 107107 487.6487.6 65:0065:00 ModelTesla S ModelTesla S 100 107 487.6 65:00

Model S 100 107 487.6 65:00 2 EPA:Model Environmental S Protection Agency;EPA: Environmental EV: electric vehicle. Protection Agency; EV: electric vehicle. 22 EPA:EPA: Environmental Environmental Protection Protection Agency; Agency; EV: EV: electric electric vehicle. vehicle. 2 EPA: Environmental Protection Agency; EV: electric vehicle. 234. OptimizationEPA:4. Optimization Environmental Algorithm Algorithm Protection Agency; EV: electric vehicle. 33 4.4. Optimization Optimization Algorithm Algorithm 34 4. OptimizationThis section Algorithm reviews the realised JavaScript tool. It is conventionally employed to simplify 434 4. ThisOptimizationThisThis section section section Algorithm reviews reviews the the the realised realised realised JavaScript JavaScript JavaScript tool. tool. It Ittool. is is conventionally conventionally It is conventionally employed employed to employedto simplify simplify to simplify analyses 5 analyses in a case study. As written in the previous section, this analysis was performed by reference 455 analysesanalysesThis in sectionin a acase case study. reviews study. As As the written written realised in in the the JavaScript previous previous tool.section, section, It isthis this conventionally analysis analysis wa was sperformed employedperformed by toby reference simplifyreference 46in ato case idealThis study. conditions. section As reviews Note written that the realised the in the energy JavaScriptprevious consumption tool. section, It of is EVs conventionally this was analysis variable employed and was dependent performed to simplify on a by reference to ideal 566 analysestoto ideal ideal conditions.in conditions. a case study. Note Note As that thatwritten the the energyin energy the previous consumption consumption section, of ofthis EVs EVs analysis wa was s variable variable was performed and and dependent dependent by reference on on a a 57conditions. analysesnumber in of aexternalNote case study. that factors As the written such energy asin the road previous consumption topology, section, traffic this of density, analysis EVs was drivingwas performed variable style, and by and reference ambient dependent on a number 677 tonumbernumber ideal conditions. of of external external Note factors factors that such such the asenergy as road road consumption topology, topology, traffic traffic of EVs density, density, was variable driving driving and style, style, dependent and and ambient ambient on a 68 totemperature. ideal conditions. The parameters Note that related the energy to EV consumptionenergy consumption of EVs andwas charging variable time and we dependentre taken from on a 78of8 externalnumbertemperature.temperature. of factors external The The parameters parameters factorssuch as suchrelated related road as to to road EVtopology, EV en topology,energyergy consumption consumption tra trafficffic density, density, and and charging charging driving driving time time style, we we style,re andre taken taken ambient and from from ambient temperature. 79 numberdifferent ofEV externaltesting societies, factors suchthus they as road could topology, differ a little traffic from density, the real driving one. In style,particular, and the ambient EPA 899 temperature.differentdifferent EV EV testingThe testing parameters societies, societies, relatedthus thus they they to EVc ouldcould en ergydiffer differ consumption a alittle little from from andthe the realcharging real one. one. Intime In particular, particular, were taken the the fromEPA EPA 108The temperature.highway parameters range The wa relatedparameterss factored to into related EV calculations. energy to EV energy consumption consumption and charging charging time timewere taken were from taken from different EV 10109 differenthighwayhighway EVrange range testing wa was sfactoredsocieties, factored into thusinto calculations. calculations.they could differ a little from the real one. In particular, the EPA 119 differentThe assumptionEV testing societies, was that thusall charging they could stations differ are a allittleways from available. the real First, one. variables In particular, and formulasthe EPA 101111 highwayTheThe assumptionrange assumption was factored wa was sthat that into all all chargingcalculations. charging stations stations are are al alwaysways available. available. First, First, variables variables and and formulas formulas 1012 highwayworked into range the wa algorithms factored are into defined calculations. below. For the sake of simplicity, all the EV charging stations 111212 workedworkedThe into assumptioninto the the algorithm algorithm was that are are alldefined defined charging below. below. stations For For theare the sakeal sakeways of of simplicityavailable. simplicity ,First, all, all the thevariables EV EV charging charging and formulas stations stations 1113 wereThe considered assumption available was that at the all momentcharging of stations need. are always available. First, variables and formulas 121313 workedwewerere considered considered into the algorithmavailable available atare at the thedefined moment moment below. of of need. need. For the sake of simplicity, all the EV charging stations 1214 workedBefore into examiningthe algorithm the are algorithm’s defined below. specifications, For the sake the of following simplicity assumptions, all the EV charging were made: stations a) 131414 wereBefore consideredBefore examining examining available the the at algorithm’s the algorithm’s moment specifications, of specifications, need. the the following following assumptions assumptions we werere made: made: a) a) 1315 weavailabilityre considered of EV available charging at station; the moment b) constant of need. charging time; c) ideal EPA range; d) vehicles are 141515 availabilityavailabilityBefore of examiningof EV EV charging charging the algorithm’sstation; station; b) b) constant constant specifications, charging charging the time; time; following c) c) ideal ideal assumptions EPA EPA range; range; wed) d) revehicles vehicles made: are are a) 1416 chargedBefore up to examining 80% at each the stop; algorithm’s e) SoC percentage specifications, is consistently the following maintained assumptions at over 20%;were f) made: vehicles a) 151616 availabilitychargedcharged up up toof to 80%EV 80% chargingat at each each stop; stop;station; e) e) SoC SoCb) percentageconstant percentage charging is is consistently consistently time; c) m midealaintainedaintained EPA at range;at over over 20%;d) 20%; vehicles f) f) vehicles vehicles are 1517 availabilityarrive at Ottawa of EV with charging 30% SoC station; remaining; b) constant g) if SoC charging is under time; 30%, c) warningideal EPA message range; isd) displayed; vehicles are h) 161717 chargedarrivearrive at at upOttawa Ottawa to 80% with with at each 30% 30% stop;SoC SoC remaining;e) remaining; SoC percentage g) g) if if SoC SoC is isconsistently is under under 30%, 30%, m warning aintainedwarning message messageat over is20%; is displayed; displayed; f) vehicles h) h) 1618 chargedonly DC upfast to charge 80% at is each considered; stop; e) SoCi) experiment percentage is isat consistentlystandard temperature; maintained j) at 120 over kW 20%; Supercharger; f) vehicles 171818 arriveonlyonly DC DCat fastOttawa fast charge charge with is is 30%considered; considered; SoC remaining; i) i) experiment experiment g) if SoC is is at atis standard standardunder 30%, temperature; temperature; warning messagej) j) 120 120 kW kW is Supercharger; displayed;Supercharger; h) 1719 arrivek) 50 kW at OttawaCHAdeMO. with 30% SoC remaining; g) if SoC is under 30%, warning message is displayed; h) 181919 onlyk)k) 50 50 DCkW kW fastCHAdeMO. CHAdeMO. charge is considered; i) experiment is at standard temperature; j) 120 kW Supercharger; 18 only DC fast charge is considered; i) experiment is at standard temperature; j) 120 kW Supercharger; 19 k) 50 kW CHAdeMO. 1920 k)4.1. 50 EV kW Variables CHAdeMO. and Parameters 2020 4.1.4.1. EV EV Variables Variables and and Parameters Parameters 2021 4.1. EVFirst, Variables all variables and Parameters of the optimization algorithm were introduced. Some of them required 212021 4.1. EVFirst,First, Variables all all variables variablesand Parameters of of the the optimization optimization algorithm algorithm we werere introduced. introduced. Some Some of of them them require requiredd 22 calculations and a specific coding. 212222 calculationscalculationsFirst, all and and variables a aspecific specific of coding. thecoding. optimization algorithm were introduced. Some of them required 21 First, all variables of the optimization algorithm were introduced. Some of them required 22 calculations and a specific coding. 22 calculationsEnergies 2018, 11 and, x; doi: a specific FOR PEER coding. REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/energies EnergiesEnergies 2018 2018, 11, 11, x, ;x doi:; doi: FOR FOR PEER PEER REVIEW REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/www.mdpi.com/journal/energiesenergies Energies 2018, 11, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/energies Energies 2018, 11, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/energies Energies 2020, 13, 2055 9 of 19 testing societies, thus they could differ a little from the real one. In particular, the EPA highway range was factored into calculations. The assumption was that all charging stations are always available. First, variables and formulas worked into the algorithm are defined below. For the sake of simplicity, all the EV charging stations were considered available at the moment of need. Before examining the algorithm’s specifications, the following assumptions were made: (a) availability of EV charging station; (b) constant charging time; (c) ideal EPA range; (d) vehicles are charged up to 80% at each stop; (e) SoC percentage is consistently maintained at over 20%; (f) vehicles arrive at Ottawa with 30% SoC remaining; (g) if SoC is under 30%, warning message is displayed; (h) only DC fast charge is considered; (i) experiment is at standard temperature; (j) 120 kW Supercharger; (k) 50 kW CHAdeMO.

4.1. EV Variables and Parameters First, all variables of the optimization algorithm were introduced. Some of them required calculations and a specific coding.

SoC: It is an input value. It indicates the percentage point of the battery pack of EV (0% = empty; • 100% = full). The starting SoC must be greater than 20%, otherwise errors will occur, and a warning is displayed. Range: It is the total kilometres that the vehicles can travel. The values considered in the equations • are reported in Table1. Charging Time (Ct): It is a manufacturer’s data (an ideal value and not a real one). It differs for • each EV considered. Actual Starting point (dc): It is value that is updated whenever a car arrives at a new charging point. • Maximum allowed distance (x): It is a simple sum of current range and actual starting point. • Current Range (A1): It is calculated starting from two input data, SoC and car’s ideal range • (manufacturer data). It represents the maximum range (in km) allowed up to 20% of SoC:

(SoC 20) A1 = − range (2) 100 ·

Remaining Charge (CR): It represents the percentage of charge remaining when the vehicle arrives • at the charging station: ! (x dc) CR = − 100 + 20 (3) range ·

Current Charging Time (CCT): Time spent to recharge vehicle at stop number n: • ! (SOC CR) CCT = − Ct (4) 60 ·

Final Charge (FC): Percentage of charging at final point (arrive): • ! (A1 d) FC = − 100 + 20 (5) range ·

4.2. EV Comparison The algorithm received the following as input data: departure point, arrival point, type of EV, and percentage of starting SoC. Depending on EV and level of SoC selected, the range and the ideal charging time were automatically derived. Figure5 represents the algorithm used in the work. First of all, the level of SoC was considered. If it was below 20%, an alert message appeared. If the starting Energies 2020, 13, 2055 10 of 19

SoC was more than 20%, distance and current range were calculated. While the current range was lower than the distance, an EV had to be recharged in one of the charging stations located at a point before the maximum allowed range. This cycle ended when a final point was reached. The algorithm ensured that EVs arrived at their destination point with 30% of SoC as quickly as possible. It gave an alert if the percentage of SoC at final destination was less than 30%. Ultimately, software output showed a list of recommended stops. As said in the previous section only, DC fast chargers were taken into account due to the extensive time required for charging Level 2 chargers. At each stop, the following information was displayed: address, charging time, and percentage of battery recharged. Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 20 Total number of stops and total charging time were also displayed.

53 Figure 5. Developed algorithm overview. 54 Figure 5. Developed algorithm overview. As shown in Figure6a, a user may insert input values using the drag and drop menu. It shows 55 detailedAs shown visualization in Figure of6a, the a user four may input insert values—origin, input values using destination, the drag type and of drop vehicle menu. used It shows in the trip, 56 detailedand state visualization of charge. Theof the user four can input choose values a starting—origin, point destination, from a list type of citiesof vehicle situated used between in the trip Toronto, 57 and state of charge. The user can choose a starting point from a list of cities situated between Toronto 58 and Ottawa (Figure 6b). Arrival and destination times must be chosen after the starting point along 59 the way, otherwise a warning will be displayed. One of four EVs can be selected (Figure 6e). Finally, 60 the user can indicate starting SoC percentage (Figure 6d). Users can select departure/arrival input 61 values from the following list of cities situated between of Toronto and Ottawa along Ontario-401 62 Highway (Figures 6b and 6c). 63 After all the input parameters are selected and submitted, the algorithm produces an output. 64 Output is divided into two parts. The first part is characterised by recommended stops. The second 65 part is the sum of total number of stops and total charging time.

Energies 2020, 13, 2055 11 of 19 and Ottawa (Figure6b). Arrival and destination times must be chosen after the starting point along the way, otherwise a warning will be displayed. One of four EVs can be selected (Figure6e). Finally, the user can indicate starting SoC percentage (Figure6d). Users can select departure /arrival input values from the following list of cities situated between of Toronto and Ottawa along Ontario-401 Highway (Figure6b,c). After all the input parameters are selected and submitted, the algorithm produces an output. Output is divided into two parts. The first part is characterised by recommended stops. The second partEnergies is the 2018 sum, 11, x ofFOR total PEER number REVIEW of stops and total charging time. 4 of 20

(a)

(b)

Figure 6. Cont.

EnergiesEnergies2020 2018,,13 11,, 2055x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 20 12 of 19

(c)

(d)

(e)

66 FigureFigure 6.6. AppApp interface interface:: (a) general (a) general description description and details, and details, in particular in particular (b) departure (b)–o departure–origin,rigin, (c) 67 (ca)rriv arrival–destination,al–destination, (d) s (tated) state of charge of charge of the of vehicle the vehicle,, and (e) and type (e of) typeelectric of electricvehicle using vehicle in the using trip. in the trip.

5. Results and Discussion For all the selected EVs, two tests were carried out; the first one was with a 100% initial SoC,

and the second one was with an initial SoC equal to 50%. At the end of simulations, Javascript tool returned the total number of stops, the addresses of stops, and the total charging time during a complete trip from Toronto to Ottawa. Figure7 shows the results obtained for the algorithm taking into account different states of charge and considering as a type of electric vehicle the BMWi. In particular, there were

68 5. Results and Discussion 69 For all the selected EVs, two tests were carried out; the first one was with a 100% initial SoC, and 70 the second one was with an initial SoC equal to 50%. At the end of simulations, Javascript tool 71 returned the total number of stops, the addresses of stops, and the total charging time during a Energies 2020, 13, 2055 13 of 19 72 complete trip from Toronto to Ottawa. Figure 7 shows the results obtained for the algorithm taking 73 into account different states of charge and considering as a type of electric vehicle the BMWi. In 74 particular, there were different situations reported considering a differrent state of charge of the different situations reported considering a differrent state of charge of the vehicle in the departure, 75 vehicle in the departure, for example, when SOC was equal to 100% (Figure 7a) and SOC was equal 76 forto example, 50% (Figure when 7b). SOC was equal to 100% (Figure7a) and SOC was equal to 50% (Figure7b).

(a)

Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 20

Energies 2018, 11, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

(b)

Figure 7. BMW i3: (a) 100%; (b) 50% initial state of charge (SoC) test. 77 Figure 7. BMW i3: (a) 100%; (b) 50% initial state of charge (SoC) test.

78 5.1. 100% Initial SoC Tests

79 Assuming that a car starts with a fully charged SoC, both Tesla cars can complete a full trip from 80 Toronto to Ottawa, each with only one stop lasting for 35 minutes and 20 minutes, respectively. The 81 case is different with a Nissan Leaf E+ vehicle. It needs two stops, with the first one happening after 82 204 km and the second one after 341 km from Toronto, and a total charging time of more than one 83 hour. The BMW i3 requires three stops to get Ottawa. Considerably worse are the results of Kia Soul. 84 It needs at least five stops with a total charging time of two and a half hours. Figure 8 represents the 85 number of stops as a function of kilometres travelled considering different types of vehicles with 86 100% SoC.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

87 Figure 8. Number of stops as a function of kilometres travelled for different types of vehicles with 88 100% SoC: (a) Kia Soul; (b) BMWi3; (c) Nissan Leaf; (d) Tesla Model 3S.

Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 20

(b)

Energies 2020, 13, 2055 14 of 19 77 Figure 7. BMW i3: (a) 100%; (b) 50% initial state of charge (SoC) test.

78 5.1.5.1. 100% 100% Initial Initial SoCSoC TestsTests

79 AssumingAssuming that that aa carcar starts with a a fully fully charged charged SoC, SoC, both both Tesla Tesla cars cars can can complete complete a full a full trip trip from from 80 TorontoToronto to to Ottawa, Ottawa, eacheach with only one one stop stop lasting lasting for for 35 35 minutes min and and 20 20 min, minutes respectively., respectively. The The case is 81 dicasefferent is different with a Nissanwith a Nissan Leaf E +Leafvehicle. E+ vehicle. It needs It needs two two stops, stops, with with the the first first one one happening happening after after 204 82 km204 and km theand second the second one afterone after 341 km341 fromkm from Toronto, Toronto, and and a total a total charging charging time time of of more more than than one one hour. 83 Thehour. BMW The i3 BMW requires i3 requires three stops three to stops get Ottawa.to get Ottawa. Considerably Considerably worse worse are the are results the results of Kia of Soul. Kia Soul. It needs 84 atIt least needs five at stopsleast five with stops a total with charging a total charging time of two time and of two a half and hours. a half Figure hours.8 Figurerepresents 8 represents the number the of 85 stopsnumber as a of function stops as of a kilometres function of travelled kilometres considering travelled considering different types different of vehicles types withof ve 100%hicles SoC.with 86 100% SoC.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

87 FigureFigure 8. 8.Number Number of of stops stops as as a a function function of of kilometres kilometres travelled travelled for for di differentfferent types types of of vehicles vehicles with with 100% 88 SoC:100% (a SoC:) Kia ( Soul;a) Kia ( bSoul;) BMWi3; (b) BMWi3; (c) Nissan (c) Nissan Leaf; Leaf; (d) Tesla (d) Tesla Model Model 3S. 3S. 5.2. 50% Iniatil SoC Tests Assuming that a car starts with 50% SoC, results change a bit. Both Tesla cars need at least two stops at 90 km and 242 km from Toronto with a total charging time of 1 h and 6 min for Tesla Model 3 and 1 h and 9 min for Tesla model S. In addition, the other two cars need an additional stop more than before. Nissan Leaf needs three stops with about 2 h of total charging time. Figure9 represents the number of stops per kilometre considering different types of vehicles with 100% SoC. Analysing final results, it is observed that, with a starting SoC of 100%, there is little difference in time between a Tesla car and a standard petrol/diesel vehicle (considering that during a trip everyone needs some stops). With a fully charged SoC at the start, there is need for only one stop. It is noteworthy that we were working on the assumption of an ideal situation where charging points are always available and ready to use. With a starting SoC of 50%, total travel time increases by 10% with respect to total travel time of a standard diesel or petrol car. Considering Nissan Leaf results with a starting SoC of 100%, they are almost acceptable. Total travel time is less than 6 h in ideal conditions. Unfortunately, both tests (with 100% starting SoC and 50% starting SoC) are not acceptable for Kia Soul. BMW i3 results are comparable with KIA Soul one. Figure 10 represents charging time comparisons for different type of vehicles (blue bar is 100% SoC, and orange bar is 50% SoC). Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 20

89 5.2. 50% Iniatil SoC Tests 90 Assuming that a car starts with 50% SoC, results change a bit. Both Tesla cars need at least two 91 stops at 90 km and 242 km from Toronto with a total charging time of 1 hour and 6 minutes for Tesla 92 Model 3 and 1 hour and 9 minutes for Tesla model S. In addition, the other two cars need an 93 additional stop more than before. Nissan Leaf needs three stops with about 2 hours of total charging 94 Energiestime. Figure2020, 13 9, 2055represents the number of stops per kilometre considering different types of vehicles15 of 19 95 with 100% SoC.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

96 Figure 9. Number of of stops as a function of kilometres travelled for for different different types types of of vehicles with with 50% 97 50% SoC: (a) Kia Soul; (b) BMWi3; (c) Nissan Leaf; (d) Tesla Model 3S. EnergiesSoC: 2018 (a) Kia, 11, x Soul; FOR (PEERb) BMWi3; REVIEW (c ) Nissan Leaf; (d) Tesla Model 3S. 4 of 20

98 Analysing final results, it is observed that, with a starting SoC of 100%, there is little difference 99 in time between a Tesla car and a standard petrol/diesel vehicle (considering that during a trip 100 everyone needs some stops). With a fully charged SoC at the start, there is need for only one stop. It 101 is noteworthy that we were working on the assumption of an ideal situation where charging points 102 are always available and ready to use. With a starting SoC of 50%, total travel time increases by 10% 103 with respect to total travel time of a standard diesel or petrol car. Considering Nissan Leaf results 104 with a starting SoC of 100%, they are almost acceptable. Total travel time is less than 6 hours in ideal 105 conditions. Unfortunately, both tests (with 100% starting SoC and 50% starting SoC) are not 106 acceptable for Kia Soul. BMW i3 results are comparable with KIA Soul one. Figure 10 represents 107 charging time comparisons for different type of vehicles (blue bar is 100% SoC, and orange bar is 50% 108 SoC).

109 Figure 10. Charging time comparison for different types of vehicles and SoC: blue bars for 100% SoC 110 Figure 10. Charging time comparison for different types of vehicles and SoC: blue bars for 100% SoC case; orange bars for 50% SoC case. 111 case; orange bars for 50% SoC case. This result is continuously changing. It is instructive to imagine a new configuration of architectural 112 This result is continuously changing. It is instructive to imagine a new configuration of design of Tesla Supercharger v3 that will take peak rates of up to 250 kW per vehicle. At this rate, 113 architectural design of Tesla Supercharger v3 that will take peak rates of up to 250 kW per vehicle. a Model 3 long range operating at peak efficiency can recuperate up to 120.7 km (75 miles) of charge 114 At this rate, a Model 3 long range operating at peak efficiency can recuperate up to 120.7 km (75 115 inmiles) 5 min andof charge charge in at 5 rates minutes of up and to charge 1609.34 at km rates/h (1000 of up miles to 1609.34 per hour). km/h Following (1000 miles from per the hour). great 116 varietyFollowing of designs from the and great options variety evolving of designs in and the options market, evolving it is accurate in the market, to state it that is accurate use of theto state EV is 117 that use of the EV is continuously growing around the world with a potential for even more growth, 118 variety, and versatility in the coming years.

119 6. Conclusions 120 The objective of this work was to develop an algorithm for optimizing recharging stops during 121 a complete trip in an EV from Toronto to Ottawa (Canada) along Ontario’s Highway 401. Through 122 simulations and analysis of data, this paper investigated the difference in terms of times between 123 selected EVs, namely BMWi3, Kia Soul, Nissan Leaf, and Tesla Model 3S. The study considered a 124 smart highway focalizing on the actual distribution of the charging stations (CSs). The results 125 confirmed the possibility to make this trip using EVs. Obviously, considering different types of 126 vehicles, it is necessary for the vehicle to arrive at the destination. It was found, for example, that the 127 Tesla EV required making only one stop, and the charging time was typical of such a long journey. 128 Times and number of stops along the trip were found to vary for the different vehicles, for instance, 129 for the Kia soul EV, the situation was different compared to the Tesla EV in that it required more 130 stops. In addition, the defined methodology and the developed algorithm can be applied to any case 131 study and may serve as an effective tool for both simulation and optimization of recharging stops, 132 making the most of the charging stations presented in the specific area. Furthermore, the tool could 133 be utilised to evaluate the possibility of strategically adding new charging columns where it is 134 needed.

135 Author Contributions: A.S. and M.L. proposed the core idea, developed the models. A.S. and M.L. performed 136 the simulations, exported the results and analysed the data. W.Y. and F.F. revised the paper. M.L. and W.Y. 137 contributed to the design of the models and the writing of this manuscript.

138 Funding: This research received no external funding

139 Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Energies 2020, 13, 2055 16 of 19 continuously growing around the world with a potential for even more growth, variety, and versatility in the coming years.

6. Conclusions The objective of this work was to develop an algorithm for optimizing recharging stops during a complete trip in an EV from Toronto to Ottawa (Canada) along Ontario’s Highway 401. Through simulations and analysis of data, this paper investigated the difference in terms of times between selected EVs, namely BMWi3, Kia Soul, Nissan Leaf, and Tesla Model 3S. The study considered a smart highway focalizing on the actual distribution of the charging stations (CSs). The results confirmed the possibility to make this trip using EVs. Obviously, considering different types of vehicles, it is necessary for the vehicle to arrive at the destination. It was found, for example, that the Tesla EV required making only one stop, and the charging time was typical of such a long journey. Times and number of stops along the trip were found to vary for the different vehicles, for instance, for the Kia soul EV, the situation was different compared to the Tesla EV in that it required more stops. In addition, the defined methodology and the developed algorithm can be applied to any case study and may serve as an effective tool for both simulation and optimization of recharging stops, making the most of the charging stations presented in the specific area. Furthermore, the tool could be utilised to evaluate the possibility of strategically adding new charging columns where it is needed.

Author Contributions: A.S. and M.L. proposed the core idea, developed the models. A.S. and M.L. performed the simulations, exported the results and analysed the data. W.Y. and F.F. revised the paper. M.L. and W.Y. contributed to the design of the models and the writing of this manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Smart Mobility: A Tool for Smart and Sustainable City. Available online: https://www.geospatialworld.net/ blogs/smart-mobility-smartsustainable-city/ (accessed on 16 January 2020). 2. Villanueva, F.; Albusac, J.; Jimenez, L.; Villa, D.; Lopez, J.C. Architecture for smart highway real time monitoring. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops (WAINA), Barcelona, Spain, 25–28 March 2013. 3. Guerrero-Ibáñez, J.; Zeadally, S.; Contreras-Castillo, J. Sensor Technologies for Intelligent Transportation Systems. Sensors 2018, 18, 1212. [CrossRef][PubMed] 4. Shankar, P.M.; Kale, R.; Veeranna, S.; Rangaswamy, N. Smart Highway Real Time Monitoring System. IJRASET 2018, 6, 2321–9653. [CrossRef] 5. Franzo, S.; Latilla, V.M.; Longo, M.; Bracco, S. Towards the New Concept of Smart Roads: Regulatory Framework and Emerging Projects Overview. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference of Electrical and Electronic Technologies for Automotive (AUTOMOTIVE), Milan, Italy, 9–18 July 2018. 6. Kansal, P.; Garg, D.; Saxena, A. Extensive Experimental Characterization of Communications in Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks within Different Environments. In Proceedings of the Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2007), Dublin, Ireland, 22–25 April 2007. 7. Jerbi, M.; Senouci, S.; Rasheed, T.; Ghamri-Doudane, Y. Towards Efficient Geographic Routing in Urban Vehicular Networks. IEEE Trans. Vehic. Technol. 2009, 58, 5048–5059. [CrossRef] 8. Weiss, M.; Patel, M.K.; Junginger, M.; Perujo, A.; Bonnel, P.; Van Grootveld, G. On the electrification of road transport—Learning rates and price forecasts for hybrid-electric and battery-electric vehicles. Energy Policy 2012, 48, 374–393. [CrossRef] 9. EU Science Hub. On the Electrification of Road Transportation–A Review of the Environmental, Economic, and Social Performance of Electric Two-Wheelers. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/electrification-road-transportation-review-environmental- economic-and-social-performance-electric (accessed on 30 March 2020). Energies 2020, 13, 2055 17 of 19

10. Weissa, M.; Dekker, P.; Moro, A.; Scholz, H.; Patelc, M.K. On the electrification of road transportation–A review of the environmental, economic, and social performance of electric two-wheelers. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2015, 41, 348–366. [CrossRef] 11. Intelligent Transportation System (ITS). Available online: https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/intelligent- transportation-system (accessed on 15 January 2020). 12. Murali Krishna, V.; Vikram, K. Broadband wireless communication. Int. J. Electron. Commun. Eng. Technol. 2012, 3, 217–226. 13. Zeadally, S.; Hunt, R.; Chen, Y.-S.; Irwin, A.; Hassan, A. Vehicular ad hoc networks (VANETS): Status, results, and challenges. Telecommun. Syst. 2012, 50, 217–241. [CrossRef] 14. Sichitiu, M.L.; Kihl, M. Inter-Vehicle Communication Systems: A Survey. Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2008, 10, 88–105. [CrossRef] 15. Dallinger, D.; Gerda, S.; Wietschel, M. Integration of intermittent renewable power supply using grid-connected vehicles–A 2030 case study for California and Germany. Appl. Energy 2013, 104, 666–682. [CrossRef] 16. Masoum, A.S.; Deilami, S.; Moses, P.S.; Masoum, M.A.S.; Abu-Siada, A. Smart load management of plug-in electric vehicles in distribution and residential networks with charging stations for peak shaving and loss minimisation considering voltage regulation. IET Gen. Transmiss. Distrib. 2011, 5, 877. [CrossRef] 17. Andy, I.; Simon, F.; Elaine, L. Optimization for allocating BEV recharging stations in urban areas by using hierarchical clustering. In Proceedings of the 6th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Information Management and Service (IMS), Seoul, Korea, 30 November–2 December 2010; pp. 460–465. 18. Zsiborács, H.; Baranyai, N.H.; Vincze, A.; Zentkó, L.; Birkner, Z.; Máté, K.; Pintér, G. Intermittent Renewable Energy Sources: The Role of Energy Storage in the European Power System of 2040. Electronics 2019, 8, 729. [CrossRef] 19. Khan, S.U.; Khawaja, K.; Khawaja, K.; Haider, Z.M.; Bukhari, S.B.A.; Lee, S.J.; Rafique, M.K.; Kim, C.H. Energy Management Scheme for an EV Smart Charger V2G/G2V Application with an EV Power Allocation Technique and Voltage Regulation. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 648. [CrossRef] 20. He, F.; Wu, D.; Yin, Y.; Guan, Y. Optimal deployment of public charging stations for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 2013, 47, 87–101. [CrossRef] 21. Liu, X.; Bie, Z. Optimal Allocation Planning for Public EV Charging Station Considering AC and DC Integrated Chargers. Energy Proc. 2019, 382–387. [CrossRef] 22. Wang, G.; Xu, Z.; Wen, F.; Wong, K.P. Traffic-constrained Multi objective planning of electric-vehicle charging stations. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2013, 28, 2363–2372. [CrossRef] 23. Xiang, Y.; Liu, J.; Li, R.; Li, F.; Gu, C.; Tang, S. Economic planning of electric vehicle charging stations considering traffic constraints and load profile templates. Appl. Energy 2016, 178, 647–659. [CrossRef] 24. Hajimiragha, A.; Caizares, C.A.; Fowler, M.W.; Elkamel, A. Optimal Transition to Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles in Ontario, Canada, Considering the Electricity-Grid Limitations. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2010, 57, 690–701. [CrossRef] 25. Liu, G.; Kang, L.; Luan, Z.; Qiu, J.; Zheng, F. Charging Station and Power Network Planning for Integrated Electric Vehicles (EVs). Energies 2019, 12, 2595. [CrossRef] 26. Kontou, E.; Liu, C.; Xie, F.; Wu, X.; Lin, Z. Understanding the linkage between electric vehicle charging network coverage and charging opportunity using gps travel data. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2019, 98, 1–13. [CrossRef] 27. Lam, A.Y.S.; Leung, Y.-W.; Chu, X. Electric vehicle charging station placement: Formulation, complexity, and solutions. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2014, 5, 2846–2856. [CrossRef] 28. Liu, Z.; Wen, F.; Ledwich, G. Optimal planning of electric-vehicle charging stations in distribution systems. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2013, 28, 102–110. [CrossRef] 29. Wu, T.; Ma, L.; Mao, Z.; Ou, X. Setting up charging electric stations within residential communities in current China: Gaming of government agencies and property management companies. Energy Policy 2015, 77, 216–226. [CrossRef] 30. Brenna, M.; Longo, M.; Yaïci, W. Modelling and Simulation of Electric Vehicle Fast Charging Stations Driven by High Speed Railway Systems. Energies 2017, 10, 1268. [CrossRef] 31. Luo, L.; Gu, W.; Zhou, S.; Huang, H.; Gao, S.; Han, J.; Wu, Z.; Dou, X. Optimal planning of electric vehicle charging stations comprising multi-types of charging facilities. Appl. Energy 2018, 226, 1087–1099. [CrossRef] Energies 2020, 13, 2055 18 of 19

32. Bryden, T.S.; Hilton, G.; Cruden, A.; Holton, T. Electric vehicle fast charging station usage and power requirements. Energy 2018, 152, 322–332. [CrossRef] 33. Ma, C.T. System Planning of Grid-Connected Electric Vehicle Charging Stations and Key Technologies: A Review. Energies 2019, 12, 4201. [CrossRef] 34. Diaz-Londono, C.; Colangelo, L.; Ruiz, F.; Patino, D.; Novara, C.; Chicco, G. Optimal Strategy to Exploit the Flexibility of an Electric Vehicle Charging Station. Energies 2019, 12, 3834. [CrossRef] 35. Domínguez-Navarro, J.A.; Dufo-López, R.; Yusta-Loyo, J.M.; Artal-Sevil, J.S.; Bernal-Agustín, J.L. Design of an electric vehicle fast-charging station with integration of renewable energy and storage systems. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2019, 105, 46–58. [CrossRef] 36. Huang, P.; Ma, Z.; Xiao, L.; Sun, Y. Geographic Information System-assisted optimal design of renewable powered electric vehicle charging stations in high-density cities. Appl. Energy 2019, 2551, 113855. [CrossRef] 37. Reddy, P.D.P.; Reddy, V.C.V.; Manohar, T.G. Whale optimization algorithm for optimal sizing of renewable resources for loss reduction in distribution systems. Renew. Wind Water Solar 2017, 4, 3. [CrossRef] 38. Khalid, M.R.; Alam, M.S.; Sarwar, A.; Asghar, M.S.J. A Comprehensive review on electric vehicles charging infrastructures and their impacts on power-quality of the utility grid. eTransportation 2019, 1, 100006. [CrossRef] 39. Bouguerra, S.; Layeb, S.B. Determining optimal deployment of electric vehicles charging stations: Case of Tunis City, Tunisia. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2019, 7, 628–642. [CrossRef] 40. Zhang, H.; Tang, L.; Yang, C.; Lan, S. Locating electric vehicle charging stations with service capacity using the improved whale optimization algorithm. Adv. Eng. Inf. 2019, 41, 100901. [CrossRef] 41. Ren, X.; Zhang, H.; Hu, R.; Qiu, Y. Location of electric vehicle charging stations: A perspective using the grey decision-making model. Energy 2019, 173, 548–553. [CrossRef] 42. Kadri, A.A.; Perrouault, R.; Boujelben, M.K.; Gicquel, C. A multi-stage stochastic integer programming approach for locating electric vehicle charging stations. Comput. Oper. Res. 2020, 117, 104888. [CrossRef] 43. Hayajneh, H.S.; Zhang, X. Evaluation of Electric Vehicle Charging Station Network Planning via a Co-Evolution Approach. Energies 2020, 13, 25. [CrossRef] 44. Singh, K.V.; Bansal, H.O.; Singh, D. A comprehensive review on hybrid electric vehicles: Architectures and components. J. Modern Transp. 2019, 27, 77–107. [CrossRef] 45. Todts, W. Electric, Hybrid and Low-Emission Cars. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/ environment/2019/nov/26/yes-electric-vehicles-really-are-better-than-fossil-fuel-burners (accessed on 30 March 2020). 46. Longo, M.; Foiadelli, F.; Yaici, W. Electric Vehicles Integrated with Renewable Energy Sources for Sustainable Mobility. In New Trend in Electrical Vehicle Powertrains; Ukaew, A., Romeral Martinez, L., Eds.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2018. [CrossRef] 47. Highway 401. Available online: http://www.thekingshighway.ca/Highway401.htm (accessed on 16 January 2020). 48. Spöttle, M.; Jörling, K.; Schimmel, M.; Staats, M.; Grizzel, L.; Jerram, L.; Drier, W.; Gartner, J. Research for TRAN Committee—Charging Infrastructure for Electric Road Vehicles; Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies, European Parliament: Brussels, Belgium, 2018. 49. Alhazmi, Y. Planning Model for Implementing Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure in Distribution System, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. 2016. Available online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/144149564.pdf (accessed on 16 January 2020). 50. Charging Infrastructure and Chargers. Available online: http://ecee.colorado.edu/ (accessed on 16 January 2020). 51. Official US Government Source for Fuel Information. Available online: www.fueleconomy.gov (accessed on 16 January 2020). 52. National Energy Board—. Available online: www.neb-one.gc.ca (accessed on 16 January 2020). 53. Anegawa, T. Safety Design of CHAdeMO Quick Charging System. World Electr. Veh. J. 2010, 4, 2032–6653. [CrossRef] 54. Tesla Motors. Available online: https://www.tesla.com/it_IT (accessed on 16 January 2020). Energies 2020, 13, 2055 19 of 19

55. EPA, OAR, OTAQ, US. Electric Vehicles—Learn More About the New Label. US EPA. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/text-version-electric-vehicle-label (accessed on 31 January 2018). 56. Seredynski, P. Decoding Electric Car MPG: With Kilowatt-Hours, Small Is Beautiful. 21 December 2010. Available online: http://www.edmunds.com (accessed on 17 February 2011).

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).