1 s2.0 S136403212100993X Am

Version of Record: https://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S136403212100993X
Manuscript_82445845f0001b061cfd6d1bdbfd5cb3
Too much or not enough? Planning electric vehicle charging

infrastructure: A review of modeling options.
Metais, M.O.a,b,∗ , Jouini, O.a , Perez, Y.a , Berrada, J.b and Suomalainen, E.b
a Université Paris-Saclay, CentraleSupélec, Laboratoire de Génie Industriel, 91190 Gif-sur-Yvette, France
b Institut VEDECOM, 23bis Allée des Marronniers, 78000 Versailles, France
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: While the transportation sector is responsible for a growing share of greenhouse gas emissions,
electric vehicle electric vehicles (EVs) offer solutions for greener mobility. The proportion of electric vehicles
charging station in transportation fleets is increasing, but wider adoption will not be possible without an appro-
charging infrastructure planning priate charging infrastructure. The deployment of such infrastructure should follow a strategy
location problem that considers both the environment in which it is deployed and the behavior patterns of electric
sustainable mobility vehicle users. If these aspects are not taken into consideration, there is a risk of failing to meet
users’ needs and generating additional costs. Here we review the literature on location problems
for electric vehicle charging stations. We aim to draw up a comparative overview of approaches
that have been used up to 2020 for optimizing the locations of charging infrastructure. We first
briefly review the issues raised by the deployment of charging infrastructure, namely technical,
economic and user acceptance concerns. We then look at the goals of the infrastructure location
models in the literature. Schematically, those goals fall into two categories: minimizing the cost
of charging infrastructure for a given level of service, or maximizing the service provided for a
given cost. Finally, we focus on the approaches used to achieve these goals. Three categories
of approaches are identified: node, path, and tour- or activity-based approaches. We then dis-
cuss these approaches in relation to technical, economic and user acceptance factors in order to
provide a comprehensive analysis for stakeholders involved in EV charging infrastructure plan-
ning. Directions are given for future research to develop models that better reflect the real-world
picture.
Word count : 8919 words
Abbreviations
AC Alternative Current
DC Direct Current
EV Electric Vehicle
EVSE Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment
FCLM Flow-Capturing Location Model
FRLM Flow-Refueling Location Model
GHG Greenhouse Gas
ICCT International Council on Clean Transportation
ICE Internal Combustion Engine
MCLM Maximum Covering Location Model
PHEV Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle
SCLM Set Covering Location Model
1. Introduction
The climate emergency requires a drastic and rapid reduction in anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,
which are the cause of the fastest global warming ever observed [1]. The transportation sector is responsible for about
∗ Corresponding
author
marc-olivier.metais@centralesupelec.fr (M. M.O.)
ORCID (s):
M.O. Metais et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 1 of 28

© 2021 published by Elsevier. This manuscript is made available under the Elsevier user license
https://www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/
Too much or not enough? Planning EV charging infrastructure: a review of modeling options.
15% of global GHG emissions (27% in the European Union), and this rate is expected to increase in the coming years
[2]. A transition from internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles to greener transportation could be a major lever for
reducing global GHG emissions.
For road transportation and individual mobility, which account for the largest share of transportation-sector emis-
sions, electric vehicles (EVs) emerge as a major alternative to ICE vehicles. Considering the whole lifetime of the
vehicle, EVs have a lower global warming potential than ICE vehicles, especially if they are coupled with low-carbon
electricity production systems [3]. Moreover, EVs have many other benefits, such as no tailpipe emissions—which
could help avoid air pollution and exposure to nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, and carbon monoxide in
urban areas, and reduce particulate matter emissions—and far less noise than ICE vehicles.
Despite all these benefits, large-scale uptake of EVs is bottlenecked by a number of different barriers [4]. A first
major barrier is the high purchase price of EVs compared to ICE vehicles, although the purchase price impact is
expected to diminish shortly. When considering total cost of ownership over the whole life cycle, an EV is already
less expensive than an ICE vehicle in countries such as Norway or France [5]. Moreover, the purchase price of EVs is
projected to drop below that of ICE vehicles by 2025 [6]. The second main barrier for users is tied to range anxiety.
Most EVs have a lower driving range than ICE vehicles. Even though the range offered by a full-charge battery is
sufficient for daily use for a large majority of users, they fear that they will run out of battery before being able to
finish their trips or find a charging point. User anxiety is thus the main problem to address to enable large-scale EV
adoption. The way forward could be to increase battery capacity to improve EV range or to provide an efficient charging
infrastructure to better cover charging needs. However, even with a larger range, the fear of not being able to charge
EVs when the battery is empty is still the same [7], so large-scale EV deployment cannot be achieved without a prior
appropriate charging infrastructure [8]. Furthermore, research shows that investing in charging infrastructure is more
efficient than subsidizing larger batteries as long as the investments in charging infrastructure are not sufficient to cover
the whole territory [9, 10, 11].
However, deploying a charging infrastructure is hugely expensive and comes with several technical and economic
constraints. The Energy Transition for Green Growth act in France sets a target of 7 million EV charging stations
(public and private) by 2030, which corresponds to a minimum cost of around 2 billion euros [12] while an ICCT
report projects an estimated 1 billion dollars in investment over the 2019–2025 period for the USA to fill its public
charging infrastructure gap [13]. These huge costs warrant a proper deployment strategy to efficiently locate and scale
new charging stations in order to favor large-scale EV adoption while avoiding resource waste or underinvestment for
infrastructure investors. This deployment, with the costs it entails, also faces a chicken-and-egg problem: drivers will
be reluctant to buy an EV without adequate infrastructure, while operators will refuse to invest in infrastructure until
there is sufficient demand to make it profitable. To ease this bottleneck, the first step must be taken by operators [14].
Once the first step has been taken, the issue of optimal deployment of a vehicle refueling infrastructure is not a
new challenge. Coverage and location models, such as those of Toregas [15] or Hodgson [16], have been around for
a relatively long time and are perfectly applicable to gas refueling stations. However, EVs have different demands to
ICE vehicles (charging takes longer than refueling), which makes these coverage models incompatible with routine
EV use. Models taking these specificities into account have thus been developed since the end of the 2000s.
Nevertheless, few of them seem to take advantage of the benefits offered by electric vehicle charging, which does
not require the user to be present during charging time. Moreover, the deployment of such an infrastructure does not
happen all at once, partly because of the problem of the development costs it would generate without a guaranteed
return on investment from a demand that will take a long time to come, which brings us back to the previous chicken-
and-egg problem. An incremental and over-time deployment must be considered, considering the early stages of the
infrastructure already present in the territory.
This literature review aims to provide an overview of the timely problem of EV charging infrastructure planning in
terms of the optimization models used to determine optimal locations of charging points, and sizing. It explores and
compares a rapidly growing scientific literature proposing strategies and simulation models for deployment of electric
charging infrastructures, considering the technical, economic and user-side aspects of EVs.
To identify the first relevant articles, the Google Scholar database was searched with combination of keywords :
{EV, electric vehicles, charging infrastructure, charging stations} and {planning, location, model, optimization}. We
kept a sample of 287 articles containing literature reviews and papers on infrastructure optimisation and deployment
models cited as references in this field. The articles cited in these papers and the articles also citing them were then
screened, and we added 63 relevant articles to our review.
The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 explains the different charging technologies and the issues involved in

deploying charging infrastructure. Section 3 presents the objectives and targets of infrastructure deployment. Section
4 then covers the methods for locating and sizing infrastructure in a territory, and Section 5 highlights gaps in the
literature and avenues for future research.
2. Background on charging infrastructure and the allied issues

The issue of deploying charging infrastructure for EVs is set in the following framework: EV users with limited
autonomy travel the road network. Making these trips consumes energy, which in turn decreases the state of charge of
the EV battery and creates a need to charge, which can be met in two ways: either through home/office charging, or
through public (or semi-public) charging infrastructure. This infrastructure needs to stay at a reasonable cost for opera-
tors, who have limited investment capacity, while giving EV users the transportation network coverage they need. The
goal is to enable drivers to use their EVs with less range anxiety, knowing that they can rely on public charging infras-
tructure when they need it. As public charging infrastructure supplies energy from the grid, infrastructure deployment
needs to consider the constraints linked to power grid operation.
Figure 1: Overview of the charging infrastructure framework

In this framework, three main types of issues are to consider when deploying charging infrastructure : technical,
economic and user-centred issues.
2.1. Technical overview of charging devices

Charging devices provide the link between electricity grid and EVs by converting AC power into DC power, which
can charge a battery. They can be on-board or off-board, depending on the type of charging.
The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) defines four charging modes [17]. In the first three modes,
the EV is directly connected to the AC distribution network, and the conversion to DC is done through the vehicle’s
onboard charger. The main difference between these three levels lies in the level of safety and charging control, which
allow the vehicle battery to be charged with more or less power. For example, mode 1, which is used for low-power
charging, is equivalent to plugging the vehicle into an electrical outlet, while mode 3 allows advanced charging control
and higher charging power. The mode 4 is mostly used for fast charging applications. Unlike the three first modes,
here the connection of EVs to the AC grid is not direct: the AC power is converted into DC power in an off-board
charger, and then used to charge the EV’s battery. Figure 2 gives a simplified illustration of EV charging.

Figure 2: Simplified architecture of EV charging
2.2. Charging infrastructure and EV acceptance

Charging EVs generally requires much more time than filling up an ICE vehicle gas tank. Charging times go from
a few dozen minutes for the fastest chargers up to more than 20 hours for the slow ones [18]. Charging stations thus
have different design and management imperatives to conventional gas stations. EVs have different refueling behaviors
due to different required charge-times and charging locations, especially when taking into account one of the major
conveniences offered by EVs, i.e. that EV batteries can charge while the vehicle is not in use for mobility purposes
(while parked at home, the workplace, in mall parking, etc.). Home EV charging does not require any effort from the
driver other than plugging in the EV. It also does not require any specific installation—at least not for slow charging
[17] - even if the majority of EV drivers install specific equipment to increase charging speed and for safety aspects.
Moreover, in 90% of cases, trips do not exceed 80 km, whereas the typical range for an EV is about 200 km 1 [20, 21].
Thus, home charging should be sufficient for a large majority of users: with a fully charged battery when leaving home,
they could complete their daily trips and charge their EV once back home, ready for the next day.
However, home charging has some limits. First, if trips—or a succession of trips—exceed the EV range, then
drivers need to be able to charge their EV elsewhere than at home. If this is not possible, then EVs will remain as a
second car for the wealthiest percentiles of the population, since users will not be able to use it to make occasional long
journeys and will therefore prefer an ICE vehicle [8]. Moreover, in many countries, a large part of the population do
not have a single-family home with a private parking space where they can install a charging point [22]. This illustrates
that relying solely on home charging for the transition from ICE vehicles to EVs will leave important barriers to the
adoption of electric mobility, justifying the need for an appropriate public charging infrastructure.
The range and charging constraints of EVs make it illusory to envisage the broad diffusion of EVs without sufficient
charging infrastructure. At the same time, if there are not enough EVs on the road, there will not be enough interest in
setting up an expensive, unprofitable charging infrastructure. But without this infrastructure, it is illusory to envisage
the democratization of EVs... The chicken-and-egg problem in this two-sided market has been studied by Delacretaz
et al. [23] who show that an initial infrastructure has little immediate positive effect on EV adoption but that positive
effect does increase over time. They also show a snowball effect: the demand elasticity for EVs relative to charging
infrastructure provision increases with infrastructure development. In other words, the more charging stations there
are, the greater the increase in EV demand with further investment in charging infrastructure.
This raises the question of marginal—or incremental—infrastructure development. An infrastructure is deployed
in a spatial context, but also in a temporal one, and it is unrealistic to consider instantaneous deployment of a complete
set [24]. It is therefore important to define a temporal deployment sequence along with a spatial set of locations to
1 Note : This is valid for the European market, where the population densities are rather high and the distances to be travelled relatively small. In
the case of the US or similar markets, the distances involved may be higher. However, they remain well below 200km, which is already a pessimistic
estimate of the range of a standard electric vehicle. [19]

determine the most cost-effective investments [25]. Otherwise, the risk is to end up with an infrastructure unsuited to
driver needs at the beginning, which would not allow the diffusion of EVs to start and thus discourage additional in-
vestments in infrastructure, and so on (again, a chicken-and-egg paradigm). In addition, even though charging stations
are often deployed without a global vision, they nevertheless already exist in the territory, and it would be a mistake not
to consider this existing resource. We must therefore think about the problem of placing ‘one more charging station’
and the value of this station when there is already a set of operational stations, while almost all the models focus on
optimising the final charging infrastructure without considering the process to get there.
2.3. Economical issues

A naive approach would be to consider the best option is to put fast chargers everywhere, as people value the option
to charge quickly [26]. However, a DC fast charging station costs much more than a slower one. The average cost for a
level 2 public charging station is $3000, while the average cost of a DC fast charging station is nine times more (Table 1).
Table 1: Electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) purchase and installation costs in the U.S. [13]
EVSE Type Average public installation cost Average home installation cost
Level 1 $4000 $400 -$900
Level 2 $6000 $680-$4100
DC Fast Charging (50 kW) $73,000 Not available
Since more expensive infrastructure should lead to more expensive charging service for users, a poor choice of
electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) penalizes not just the consumer but also the operator for whom a charging
station adapted to local needs guarantees a better return on investment. Let us explain this with a simple example.
Suppose a charger able to fully charge an EV in three hours is placed in a site where parking times are usually eight
hours. A person who leaves their EV parked and plugged in will charge for a maximum of three hours but then
unnecessarily occupy the terminal for the remaining time. However, for the same budget, several slower charging
stations could have been installed which would maximize the profit for the operator and the level of service for users.
Finally, it is important in the case of several operators that they coordinate with each other to ensure interoperability
and good global coverage. But it is also important to put in place regulations to prevent the creation of local private
monopolies in public parking areas, which would be harmful to users [27].
2.4. Power grid issues

Another issue in charging station location concerns the power grid. Level 1 infrastructure only requires about 3kW
from the power network, which is no more than common household appliances. This should not have a big impact on
the wider grid, even when several EVs are simultaneously charging, or at least not one that a small tariff incentive could
not solve. However, current fast chargers can require up to 150kW from the grid, which is not necessarily scaled for
that, especially if there are several fast chargers at the same place, as is the case with charging hubs. Placing chargers
requiring too much power in non-adapted locations can stress the existing infrastructure and lead to the need for grid
reinforcement, which can be very expensive [28].
The choice of charging station type and placement can therefore be a source of cost inefficiencies. To control the
total cost of the infrastructure, this choice must be considered in relation to the real needs of users, as well as the
capacity of the power grid.
Charging EVs is not simply a source of grid stress but also a potential source of grid stability if combined with
smart grid management to exploit positive synergy with renewable energy production. Renewable energies are a source
of stress for the electricity grid, as they are not or only partially controllable. Therefore, they sometimes produce too
much energy with respect to the needs, and this surplus of energy has to be used. The batteries of EVs can then store
this surplus energy produced by renewables to smooth out excess power output. Scheduling the charging of vehicles
according to the constraints of the electrical grid is often called "smart charging".
EVs can also provide additional power to the grid during grid stress episodes by injecting electrical power from
their battery into the grid, like a generator [29]. This bi-directional mechanism is commonly called Vehicle-to-Grid
(V2G). Through this mechanism, EVs can notably flatten consumption peaks and play a role in regulating grid incidents
by providing ancillary services to the grid, such as frequency regulation, resource adequacy, network deferral, energy

arbitrage, spinning reserve, etc. [30] They can also directly fast-charge other vehicles, avoiding power demand peaks
from fast charging on the distribution network [31].
2.5. Summary
In summary, the charging infrastructure for EVs needs to address technical issues linked to the technology used
and the constraints it places on existing grid infrastructures. It also meets financial challenges: the costs related to
charging infrastructure are relatively high, so it is important for operators to avoid making unnecessary investments
and to be assured of a return on their investments. Finally, charging infrastructure needs to respond to user demand in
order to garner user acceptance of EVs.
The financial stakes and public acceptance of EVs are closely linked: insufficient coverage of the territory, i.e.
underinvestment or unwise investment, will discourage users from buying and using an EV. This in turn will have
consequences on return on investment, as would prohibitively high utilization cost of the infrastructure. The technical
constraints linked to the charging station energy supply can lead to significant additional costs linked to the electrical
network. Finally, the adoption of EVs requires a charging infrastructure technology that meets users’ expectations.
Users expect to have at their disposal an infrastructure that suits their needs in a convenient way, and that they can rely
on.
3. Overview and scope of planning simulation models

An appropriate EV charging infrastructure has to satisfy technical, economic and acceptability constraints. The
infrastructure must address a threefold issue: its location, i.e. its distribution on the transport network, its capacity, i.e.
the demand it can serve, and its users. In addition, infrastructure deployment can serve different goals depending on
the interests of those deploying it on the transportation network.
To describe a transportation network in a location problem, we decompose it into nodes and paths (or links). The
simplest strategy is to define one in relation to the other: a path or route is a link between two nodes, and a node is the
intersection point of two paths, or can be the end of a path too.
Users make trips in the transportation network, i.e. they travel between two nodes. They also make tours, i.e. series
of trips. During those trips, EV users use energy from their batteries, and sometimes need to charge their EVs with
charging infrastructure in public space.
3.1. Users and charging infrastructure utilization

Location and sizing of the charging infrastructure must meet user demand. The literature mainly focuses on three
types of charging-infrastructure users: buses, taxis, or private vehicles. A classification has been made in the table in
the Appendix A.
Charging infrastructure is easier to design for buses, as buses have fixed tours with (more or less) precise time
schedules, so uncertainties about their state of charge, availability or itinerary is quite low. For this problem, there are
two options. If the buses have enough autonomy to run all day long without being charged, they can simply be charged
at the end of their shift at charging stations installed at the depot. The second option is to place fast charging stations at
bus stops to allow all buses to complete their tours, as described by Wang et al. [32]. The stops at charging points do
not even have to be longer than at other bus stops, as current flash charging technology is able to charge two or three
kWh into bus batteries in a couple of seconds. In this case, the choice could even be made to place a fast charging point
at each bus stop, allowing the buses to be equipped with low-capacity batteries. These two options are not mutually
exclusive, and it is possible to charge buses at night and add charging stations for buses that are unable to complete
their tours.
For taxis, as fuel is a large part of their costs and they mainly make short trips, EVs could be an excellent option,
and taxis could become a good showcase for the usefulness of EVs2 , but the charging infrastructure has to meet specific
requirements. First, electric taxis cannot charge during trips with a customer: they have to charge during idle time.
However, these downtimes must be as short as possible. This is why it is critical here to consider the time spent at
the charging station (waiting time and charging time), as it is idle time for the driver. Taxis already have many idle
time situations, typically when waiting for customers. Charging time should not be an additional heavy constraint.
Ideally, it should be available where and when taxis have idle time. Then, because it is common for taxi drivers to
2 Note:In Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, where there is the largest Tesla taxi fleet, taxis are massively using the free infrastructure provided by
the car company, making it the most intensively used charging infrastructure in the world.

share a vehicle, home charging is not always an option: the charging infrastructure for taxis must allow them to operate
continuously. The fast charging option is therefore often preferred for taxis.
Most of the literature focuses on private vehicles, which account for the biggest share of the vehicle fleet, or at least
considers that an infrastructure can be developed for all light vehicles. Private vehicle owners have a wide variety of
uses for their vehicles depending on their environment (rural, urban), travel habits (distance from their main points of
interest, frequency of travel), and many other factors. The different ways of looking at the case of private vehicles are
detailed in the rest of the paper.
3.2. Optimization goals

The literature has considered several optimization goals to effectively meet user charging demand.
Many studies aim to minimize the infrastructure costs for meeting a given demand, thus taking demand as a con-
straint. Like infrastructure costs, some papers only take the installation costs into account. These can be a simple fixed
cost for any charging station, which can be actualized considering its life-cycle as in Dong et al. [33]. In this case, the
objective narrows down to finding the configuration that allows to have as few stations as possible. The cost of charging
infrastructure can also be made more complex if we consider the different costs of chargers and the construction costs,
land costs as in Mehar et al. [34], or network reinforcement costs as in Rajabi-Ghahnavieh et al. [35]. Others take into
account both investment and operation costs, such as maintenance costs or cost of electricity (Jia et al. [36]).
With a view to achieving profitability, several papers also aim to maximize the utilisation of chargers (Cai et al.
[37], Pevec et al. [38]).
Other studies choose to deal not with the infrastructure cost but with minimizing the user’s costs. User costs are
mainly tied to time spent waiting at charging stations (Hanabusa et al. [39], Tu et al. [40]), and the trip—or the
deviation from their original path—they have to make to charge their vehicle (Ge et al. [41], Xu et al. [42]).
Some papers choose to focus on maximizing the number of EVs that could be charged at the station. In other words,
the objective is to maximize EV flow at the charging station, based on the rationale that the more people have access
to the infrastructure, the more useful it is. Some models only consider a location problem and provide a geographical
coverage of the demand (Wang and Wang [43], Motoaki [44]). In this case, the objective is to have a maximum number
of EVs with access to a potentially available station, and the charging station locations are uncorrelated to the charging
station sizes. Other works consider the availability of the station, by introducing charging time during which the station
is unavailable (Sun et al. [45]), or queuing models (Yang et al. [46]). This allows to address the question of sizing the
infrastructure.
An alternative to maximizing EV flow is to maximize the amount of energy charged by the EVs (Chen et al. [47],
Csizar et al. [48]) or the global distance they can travel (Wang et al. [49]), which is almost the same. This prevents
many vehicles being covered by a single station, as can be the case with the previous objective. However, in this case
charging 10 kWh in a single EV is the same as charging 1 kWh in ten vehicles, regardless of whether the intended trip
is feasible for the vehicles. This is why some papers aim to build a charging infrastructure that minimizes failed—or
maximize feasible—trips (Asamer et al. [50], Micari et al. [51]).
These optimization objectives are implemented using various location methods, as detailed in Section 4.
3.3. Sizing charging infrastructure

With the problem of location comes the problem of sizing the charging stations at the chosen locations. This is
mainly a matter of answering two questions: how many charging points should be placed at a location, and which
charging speed should be chosen. Locations are also dependent on station capacity, i.e. the number of vehicles that
can be served within a certain period. For example, if a station with a large service capacity is installed at one location,
there is limited interest in placing another station near it.
Some studies only focus on the problem of locating charging stations, sometimes considering an infinite capacity
[43, 52] which does not represent a real situation where charging points can only accommodate a limited number of
vehicles. But once locations have been found without considering this limited capacity, charging stations can be sized
according to the demand at each station, as in Micari et al. [51]. The sizing can be done simply with the number
of EVs likely to need each station, or by more sophisticated models such as queuing models that can consider the
randomness of charging demand, as in Zhu et al. [53]. However, not considering the capacity of charging stations in
a first step of charging station location planning can lead to sub-optimal results, as the size of the stations influences
their distribution over a territory.

Some models directly take into account limited capacity of their charging stations as a constraint, like the models
proposed by Upchurch et al. [54] or Gavranovic et al. [55]. By doing so, it is possible to consider disparities in demand
and avoid, for example, an area with a high concentration of demand being covered by only one station that will not
be able to satisfy all the demand in its area. In addition, multiplying the number of stations in areas of high demand
reduces the impact of a failure of one of them, which is important for the reliability of the infrastructure. Unlike the
previous method, however, this approach leaves little flexibility in terms of the size of each station, since this parameter
must be set beforehand.
Sizing the charging infrastructure is not just a matter of deciding the number of vehicles that can be accommodated,
but also the time spent at the station. It is not always inconvenient that the charging process takes several hours, but
this is not always acceptable, such as during long journeys requiring a quick charge to reach the destination. That is
why it is also important to wisely choose the power level of charging stations based on the use case, and many models
incorporate power sizing (You et al. [56], Wang et al. [57]). This sizing can also be done with each type of station
chosen according to the type of targeted route, which allows fast charging stations to be placed where a quick charge
is most useful. Indeed, even if increasing the charging speed of a station also increases its capacity as it serves EVs
faster, slow charging stations are a more cost-effective option to meet the needs of a whole territory (Sun et al. [45]).
Finally, charging stations must be sized by considering grid capacity at the location of the charging points. As
explained earlier, a large number of charging points at the same place or high power charging points cannot be installed
where the electrical grid is too weak, at the risk of causing instabilities due to excessive power demand [58]. Some
studies choose to take the characteristics of the electrical grid as a constraint (Zhu et al. [53], Zhang et al. [59]), and
a few consider the possibility of reinforcing the electrical grid (Sadeghi-Barzani et al. [60], Guo & Zhao [61]). Other
grid-related issues, such as peaks in demand or power quality, may also arise because of charging infrastructure that
does not take the power grid into account [62] or because of a power grid that does not take the charging infrastructure
into account, depending on the point of view.
4. Location methods
Several methods to locate charging infrastructure have been developed, and most can be grouped into three main
categories: node, path, or tour-based approaches [63].
The node-based approach is the most popular method for locating charging stations. It deals with the location
problem as a facility location problem, which has been extensively studied for many applications [64]. The problem to
be solved is formulated as follows. Given candidate locations which are the nodes, the objective is to place facilities,
i.e. the charging stations, to meet the demand at the nodes. Even if it seems a simple formulation, this problem
belongs to the NP-hard class, meaning that we are not able to find exact solutions in a reasonable time because the
corresponding resolution algorithms have an execution time that increases exponentially in the problem dimension.
Heuristic methods are often used to provide approximate solutions in a reasonable computing time. The principle of
the method is illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Simplified principle of a node-based approach

A second approach that has been considered is the path-based approach, introduced by Hodgson [16] and illustrated
in Figure 4. This approach relies on a flow-capturing model: the objective is to place charging stations along paths
with the highest flows of vehicles, considering origin–destination trips, in order to serve as many users as possible. It
considers effects that only emerge from the demand emanating from vehicle flows, whereas the node-based approach

offers a relatively static view of demand.
Figure 4: Simplified principle of a path-based approach

Last, the tour-based approach, illustrated in Figure 5, does not just consider individual origin–destination trips but
the entire activity of an agent and its vehicle during a period. It considers origin, destination, distance traveled, vehicle
paths and dwell times, to choose the best places to put charging infrastructures according to users’ behavior.
Figure 5: Simplified principle of a tour-based approach
4.1. Node-based approach

The Set Covering Location Model (SCLM) is a facility location model that aims to minimize the number of facilities
while covering all the demand from the customers [15]. In this model, facilities are located in such a way that all demand
points are not further from a plant than a certain determined distance. It assures all the consumers that they can find a
facility under this distance, but does not consider the demand: all the demand points have the same weight, they just
have to be covered. Wang and Lin [65] adapted this method and proposed a refueling-station-location model using a
mixed integer programming method based on vehicle-routing logics with the aim of making all transportation network
nodes accessible to each other. Later, Wang and Wang [43] used an SCLM to cover the maximum demand for both
intra- and inter-city trips while minimizing cost, assuming that the capacity of each station is unlimited.
Another node-based approach is the Maximum Covering Location Model (MCLM) [66]. Its objective is to locate
a given number of facilities to maximize coverage of the demand, considering a critical distance as the SCLM does:
a facility covers a demand node if the distance from facility to node is under this critical distance. Unlike the SCLM,
the MCLM allows some demand nodes to not be covered, so can be used when resources are insufficient to cover all
the demand nodes, as is often the case in reality. However, both SCLM and MCLM consider the distance to determine
if the demand node is geographically covered by the facility, without taking into account the impact of that distance:
placing a plant at a demand node or at the node’s critical distance is the same thing. Frade et al. [67] used the MCLM in
a case study in Lisbon, Portugal to determine the locations of charging stations and then sized the stations according to
the demand in each zone covered. Sun et al. [45] used a node-based maximum coverage model to locate slow charging
stations in competition with fast charging stations placed with a flow-capturing model (see later). Wagner et al. [68]
used a maximum coverage optimization and quantified the value of putting a charging station at points of interest such
as schools or stores.
The 𝑝-median model first introduced by S. Hakimi [69] is now one of the most widely-used models in facility
location problems. The objective of a 𝑝-median problem is to determine where to place 𝑝 facilities among candidate

locations to minimize the transportation cost (or weighted distance) between customers and facilities, with each cus-
tomer assigned to a facility. The problem can be capacitated, meaning that the facilities have capacity restrictions on
the amount of demand they can serve, and so the demand from customers assigned to this facility cannot exceed this
capacity. In the case of charging stations, this means that only a limited number of cars can be served within a certain
period, and therefore the availability of the station depends directly on its capacity. Gavranovic et al. [55] used this
model on a subset of potential locations in Turkey, considering the demand and the preferences of local stakeholders.
Jia et al. [70] separated the need for fast and slow charging, and used the 𝑝-median model to locate fast-charging
stations. Jung et al. [71] also used the 𝑝-median in a bi-level problem to locate charging stations for taxis, while mini-
mizing both distance to travel to the station and queue at the station. He et al. [72] estimated charging demand through
socio-demographic data in Beijing and used this estimation as an input for all three node-based models (SCLM, MCLM
and 𝑝-median). They found that the 𝑝-median model outperform SCLM and MCLM, and gives more stable solutions.
An et al. [73] developed a two-stage optimization framework that considers the disruptions that could lead to charging
demand changes.
Table 2 gives an overview of the node-based methods applied to EV charging stations location.
Table 2: Summary of articles using the node-based approach
Method Problem Main optimization goal Paper

Maximize the number of EVs
MCLM Location Frade et al. (2011) [67]
charged
MCLM Location Guo & Zhao (2015) [61]
charged
Location and sizing Maximize the number of EVs
MCLM Wang et al. (2013) [57]
(capacity 3 ) charged
Location and sizing Maximize the number of EVs Gopalakrishnan et al. (2016)
MCLM
(capacity) charged [74]
Location and sizing Minimize the infrastructure cost
MCLM Yang et al. (2017) [46]
(power4 and capacity) for a given demand
Location and sizing Maximize the amount of energy
MCLM Wagner et al. (2013) [68]
(power) charged
Location and sizing Maximize the number of EVs
MCLM Liu, J. (2012) [75]
(power) charged
MCLM Deb et al. (2019) [76]
(power) for a given demand
Minimize the distance (or
p-median Location Xu et al. (2013) [42]
deviation) to a charging station
p-median Location Gavranović et al. (2014) [55]
Minimize the infrastructure cost
p-median Location Jia et al. (2014) [70]
for a given demand
Location and sizing Minimize the distance (or
p-median Ge et al. (2011) [41]
(capacity) deviation) to a charging station
p-median Mehar et al. (2013) [34]
(capacity) for a given demand
Location and sizing Minimize the infrastructure cost Sadeghi-Barzani et al.
p-median
(capacity) for a given demand (2014) [60]
p-median Zhu et al. (2017) [53]
SCLM Location Wang & Lin (2009) [65]
charged
SCLM Location Wang & Wang (2010) [43]
charged

Table 2: Summary of articles using the node-based approach

Location and sizing Maximize the amount of energy
SCLM Csiszár et al. (2019) [48]
(capacity) charged
SCLM Andrenacci et al. (2016) [77]
SCLM Ghamami et al. (2016) [78]
Location and sizing Minimize the infrastructure cost Davidov & Pantoš (2017)
SCLM
(capacity) for a given demand [79]
SCLM Vazifeh et al. (2019) [80]
SCLM Li et al (2011) [81]
Unclassified
Location Maximize charger utilization Pevec et al. (2018) [38]
(node-based)
Unclassified Minimize the infrastructure cost Rajabi-Ghahnavie &
Location
(node-based) for a given demand Sadeghi-Barzani (2017) [35]
Unclassified Location and sizing Maximize the number of EVs
He et al. (2016) [72]
(node-based) (capacity) charged
Unclassified Location and sizing
Maximize the distance traveled Wang et al. (2019) [49]
(node-based) (power)
4.2. Path-based approach

Instead of dealing with demand at nodes, Hodgson [16] introduced a path-based version of the MCLM called the
Flow-Capturing Location Model (FCLM) with the hypothesis that traffic in a network can be served by several facilities
located on common paths. The FCLM considers origin–destination pairs and aims to maximize the flow captured on
the shortest path between origins and destinations. In this model, the path is considered covered if it passes through at
least one node with a charging station.
The FCLM was later extended. Kuby and Lim [82] developed the Flow-Refueling Location Problem (FRLM)
especially for alternative-fuel vehicles that considers the limited range of the vehicles, as a vehicle may have to stop at
more than one refueling station in order to complete a path. They found that placing charging stations only at nodes
would not be sufficient to provide total coverage, and then developed a method to locate stations on links [83]. Then,
with Upchurch [54], they went on to develop the CFRLM, which is a FRLM with capacity constraints on the refueling
stations. Wang et al. [57] used this model to place different kinds of stations, as previous models only take into account
one type of charging stations. Kim and Kuby [84] then devised an optimization model that considers the deviations
from the shortest path that drivers should have to make to refuel their vehicle, and Huang et al. [85] proposed a model
with the possibility of multiple deviation paths. Li et al [25] proposed a ‘multi-period multi-path’ FRLM with the
objective to minimize the total cost of installations while making each trip feasible via at least one path between ori-
gin and destination within a reasonable tolerance compared to the shortest path, and considering the dynamics of the
network over time. Further, Wu and Sioshansi [86] developed a stochastic FCLM model that takes into account the
uncertainty of EV charging demand as soon as the infrastructure is built in anticipation of future EV adoption. Table
3 gives an overview of path-based methods.
Table 3: Summary of articles using the path-based approach

FCLM Location Maximize number of EVs charged He et al. (2018) [87]
3 The sizing in capacity refers to number of EVs that can be served per unit of time
4 The sizing in power refers to charging speed (higher charging power means higher charging speed

Table 3: Summary of articles using the path-based approach

FCLM Location Maximize number of EVs charged Motoaki, Y (2019) [44]
Riemann et al. (2015)
FCLM Location Maximize number of EVs charged
[88]
Wu & Sioshansi
FCLM Location Maximize number of EVs charged
(2017) [86]
FCLM Location Li et al (2016) [25]
for a given demand
Minimize waiting time at the Hanabusa & Horiguchi
FCLM Location
station (2011) [39]
Location and sizing Minimize failed trips (or maximize Micari et al. (2017)
FCLM
(capacity) number of possible trips) [51]
FCLM Dong et al. (2016) [33]
Location and sizing Minimize the infrastructure cost Xiang et al. (2016)
FCLM
(capacity) for a given demand [89]
FRLM Location Maximize number of EVs charged Kuby et al. (2005) [82]
FRLM Location Maximize number of EVs charged Kuby et al. (2007) [83]
Minimize the infrastructure cost Huang et al. (2015)
FRLM Location
for a given demand [85]
Minimize the infrastructure cost Li & Huang (2014)
FRLM Location
Location and sizing Upchurch et al. (2009)
FRLM Maximize number of EVs charged
(capacity) [54]
Location and sizing Zhang et al. (2018)
FRLM Maximize number of EVs charged
(capacity) [59]
Hybrid approach: node Minimize failed trips (or maximize Upchurch & Kuby
Location
and path-based number of possible trips) (2010) [90]
Hybrid approach:
path-based (fast
Minimize the infrastructure cost Huang et al. (2016)
charging) and Location
node-based (slow
charging)
Hybrid approach:
path-based (fast
Location and sizing
charging) and Maximize number of EVs charged Sun et al. (2018) [45]
(power)
node-based (slow
charging)
4.3. Tour-based approach

The third method is the tour-based approach, sometimes also called activity-based. Jia et al. [36] proposed a model
with the estimation of vehicle charging demand based on parking demand, measured in vehicle-hours. They assumed
that the more occupied the parking slots are, the more charging demand there will be, regardless of turnover. Chen et al.
[47] developed a parking-based model that considers the duration of parking time but excludes home parking. Cavadas
et al. [92] also considered the possibility of demand transference between charging sites for users, meaning that the
charging demand on distinct places can be transferred between those sites according to the users’ activities. You et al.
[56] adopted a strategy based on missed trips in tours. Their optimization model tries to minimize the number of tours
that could not be done due to a lack of charging stations. Andrews et al. [93] adopted a similar approach on missed
trips but considering the available charging infrastructure. They developed a ‘user charging model’ that determines
where and how EV users need to charge given the available charging methods. If a vehicle fails its trip due to a lack of
infrastructure, it is taken as an input in an optimization program to place new charging stations. Cai et al. [37] proposed

a data-driven method based on taxi data to put charging stations in existing gas stations. They extracted stop events
to find charging opportunities at the different stations and estimated the potential charging demand for stop points in
gas stations by evaluating state of charge according to previous tours. Shahraki et al. [94] used a similar method but
focused on plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV). They looked at dwelling time between trips and estimated the
state of charge of batteries after each trip, then placed charging stations to minimize the distance traveled by PHEV in
combustion-engine mode. Gonzalez et al. [95] adopted a similar approach from simulation data, with an optimization
concerning vehicles not able to complete their daily trips without modifying their initial behavior to charge their EV
while considering electricity price fluctuations in order to minimize charging cost. He et al. [52] determined a bi-level
tour-based model with traffic network equilibrium considering interactions between trips and charging needs in the
lower level and aiming to maximize social welfare in the upper level. Xi et al. [96] adopted a lower-resolution model,
dividing a region into sub-regions for which the trip data between sub-regions is available. Their aim was to maximize
the number of EVs that charge, or the amount of battery charged, with a trade-off between level 1 and 2 infrastructures
under a budget constraint. They found that the efficiency of privileging level 1 or 2 infrastructure depends on the
objective chosen, but that level 1 chargers are more cost-efficient if sufficient funds are unavailable.
An overview of the tour-based literature is given in Table 4. The tour-based methods are not really categorized, so
the "Method" column does not appear contrary to the two previous tables.
Table 4: Summary of articles using the tour-based approach
Problem Main optimization goal Paper

Location Maximize distance traveled Shahraki et al. (2015) [94]
Location Maximize number of EVs charged He et al. (2015) [52]
Location Andrew et al. (2013) [93]
Minimize failed trips (or maximize
Location Asamer et al. (2016) [50]
number of possible trips)
Location Wang et al. (2017) [32]
for a given demand
Minimize waiting time at the
Location Jung et al. (2014) [71]
station
Location Tu et al. (2016) [40]
station
Location and sizing (capacity) Maximize charger utilization Cai et al. (2014) [37]
Location and sizing (capacity) Maximize number of EVs charged Cavadas et al. (2015) [92]
Location and sizing (capacity) Dong et al. (2012) [97]
the number of possible trips)
Location and sizing (capacity) Han et al. (2016) [98]
for a given demand
Location and sizing (capacity) Jia et al. (2012) [36]
for a given demand
Location and sizing (power and Maximize the amount of energy
Chen et al. (2013) [47]
capacity) charged
Maximize number of EVs charged
Location and sizing (power and
or maximize the amount of energy Xi et al. (2013) [99]
capacity)
charged
Location and sizing (power) You & Hsieh (2014) [56]
number of possible trips)
Location and sizing (power) Kameda & Mukai (2011) [100]
station
Tour-based models often require a lot of data, which is often difficult to access for privacy reasons. Agent-based
models—or multi agent models—can informatively simulate data and analyze traffic dynamics [49]. Chen et al.[101]
used an agent-based model with autonomous EVs to place charging stations. This kind of model can be built from

real travel data (travel surveys, etc.) and be used to compare users’ behaviors among different charging infrastructure
deployment strategies. Agent-based models can also be built to scenarios for study, which can be useful if there is
insufficient data to validate a model principle. This can be valuable in the case of data-greedy tour-based models.
Multi-agent models make it possible to track each agent in a studied population individually, and therefore carry out
analyses in relation to the activities of that population, and provide explicit representations of tours [102]. Moreover,
modeling tools like the MATSim project [103] have been developed to simulate populations’ behavior with regard to
the transport system, and they can be used to model energy demand[104].
4.4. Discussion
To sum up, Figure 6 gives an overview of the methods previously discussed.
Location method
Node-based Tour-based Path-based

approach approach approach
p-median
MCLM FCLM FRLM
SCLM Minimize
Maximize Maximize Maximize
Minimize the the distance
the number the amount the flow and
number of between
of locations of vehicles take into
facilities while demand and
covered for a passing in account the
covering all stations for a
given number front of limited range
the demand given number
of stations stations of vehicles
of stations
Figure 6: Overview of location methods
The main advantage of the node-based approach is that it needs little data, only requiring population density, which is
relatively accessible. This makes the node-based approach an easy first estimate of charging station locations. However,
there are limits to this type of coverage. For instance, the uncapacitated models only deal with coverage without
considering the amount of demand. Second, this resolution pathway offers a static vision of the charging demand,
which is not the case in reality: as previously stated, one of the main advantages of a flow-based model over a nodal
approach is that it can take into account issues that only emerge from the description of vehicle flows. Another issue is
that node-based coverage can lead to a poor representation of charging needs. According to Hodgson [16], the demand
in a network is not always expressed at nodes, as people generally will not make a trip from home to the charging station
just to charge their vehicle. Furthermore, a node-based approach fails to deal with issues emerging from traffic flows
such as cannibalization, meaning that charging stations cut into each other’s coverage areas. In addition, Upchurch et
al. [90] found that the flow-based method is more stable as the number of charging stations to place increases, which
is really important when planning over time. That is why many studies explicitly integrate the effect of flows into the
location of charging stations [25].
However, this flow-based approach is not suitable for all cases. Flow-based methods consider that EV charging will be
done quickly before continuing the trip to the primary destination, just as any ICE vehicle user would do. While this
solution is possible with fast charging stations, which can refuel an EV in a dozen minutes, it is not possible for slow
charging stations where EV batteries can take several hours to charge. Thus, the flow-based approach is not a substitute
for the node-based approach, but complementary to it, depending on objective, territory, type of charging stations, etc.
However, many studies only use one or the other category. Sun et al.[45] used a mixed-method approach, with location
of fast charging stations for vehicle interception and a node-based approach to place slow charging stations in places
where a long charging time is acceptable. However, flow-capturing models often fail to capture the uncertainty of EV
charging demand, which can lead to less robust locations [86].

Given the issues with the flow-based approach, the tour-based approach is based not only on user driving patterns
but more generally on user behaviors. This type of approach is sometimes also referred to as ‘activity-based’. By
considering events around the details of the sequence of trips, it allows a better representation of drivers’ charging
needs than the two previous approaches. By using real and individual data, the tour-based approach captures the
randomness in the behavior of users, and allows to serve all users, which cannot be done with aggregated data, as
illustrated in Figure 7. In this case, both green and yellow paths pass through nodes 1 and 2, and the red path passes
through node 3. If two stations were placed based on aggregated data, they would be at nodes 1 and 2 that have the
most traffic passing through, but the green and yellow vehicles would be served twice and the red one would not be
served at all, which could have been avoided if using individual data.
Figure 7: Example of three paths

However, as noted in most of the tour-based works, this method is often data-driven, with real or at least simulated
data. It requires a large amount of highly detailed data, drilling down to at least the detail of individual trips and stops
for a sufficiently large sample size to make the model realistic. This data can be hard to obtain. The mains points of
comparison between approaches are summarized in Table 5
Table 5: Main points of comparison between location methods

Method Node-based Path-based Tour-based
Criteria
Urban territory + −− ++
Highways − ++ +
Representation of
− /+
+ + ++
charging needs
User behavior − − /+
+ ++
Data requirements Very low Low Very high
To conclude this section, note that many studies have been conducted for the purpose of planning the best possible
charging infrastructure. They have been carried out with different criteria to be optimized according to the desired
objective. However, while it is easy to check whether chosen criteria have been optimized, it is harder to measure the
impact of this model on the population, in other words whether the criteria chosen are the right ones. The high cost
of the infrastructure makes large-scale testing unfeasible. To overcome this problem, multi-agent models can help, as
explained above. However, these models may be subject to simulation bias, and may therefore give an erroneous view
of user behaviour.

5. Conclusion
This paper analyzed models for deploying charging infrastructure and discussed the allied technical, economic, and
user behavior-related issues.
The wide diffusion of EVs is a step towards greener mobility, which is one of today’s big challenges. This transition
from ICE vehicles to EVs cannot take place without infrastructure that greatly reduces early users’ range anxiety and
reassures potential future users that EVs are capable of providing the same services as ICE vehicles. For the time
being, infrastructures have been developed with a limited real coherent overarching strategy. However, the underlying
costs of necessary infrastructure to meet the needs of a large number of EV users, as well as the physical limitations of
the electricity grid, make it imperative to coordinate and optimize the large-scale deployment of an electric charging
infrastructure, failing which there is a risk of wasting valuable resources and of ending up with an infrastructure that
is not adapted to user needs.
The scholarship has used several approaches for optimizing the deployment of charging infrastructure. These ap-
proaches can be collapsed into three categories: node-based, path-based, and tour-based. Although not specific to
EV charging infrastructure planning, these approaches can readily adapt to consider the specificities of EVs instead
of copying the gas station model, and facilitate the transition from ICE vehicles to EVs easier by minimizing the
constraints of using EVs.
The node-based approach is easy to implement and suitable for certain areas such as residential neighborhoods, but it
fails to capture the problems arising from vehicle flows. The path-based approach can address this gap, but it is better
suited for highway use-cases and has the downside of leading to time-consuming infrastructure, which may prove a
barrier for users to make the transition from ICE vehicles to EVs. The tour-based approach requires a lot of data and
is therefore more difficult to implement, but it is able to consider user activities in order to get the best-adapted and
least-restrictive infrastructure possible for users. With data on the activities of users, points of interest can be exploited
to provide charging solutions at locations where there is demand, without users having to change their behavior [105].
The methods adopt different response strategies, regardless of the approach used. Some focus on maximizing served
demand for a fixed budget, which can be expressed in terms of the number of vehicles to be charged, volume of energy to
be charged, time saved or number of feasible trips. Others consider charging demand as the primal condition and try to
minimize the budget needed to satisfy it. While early work focused on the geographical placement of charging stations
to meet charging demand, more recent models now also integrate the service capacity of the stations, introducing
station sizing into the results. Charging speed used is rarely considered: many models consider only one type of
charging station, thus defining only the number (and not quality) of charging points needed.
Few of the models other than node and parking-based models look to take advantage of the benefits offered by EV
charging, which does not require the user to be present during charging time. This key advantage should be considered
in order to plan a charging infrastructure that matches charging opportunities, to make EV use as unrestrictive as
possible and thus encourage EV diffusion .
To conclude, the optimization models reviewed do not consider any temporality in deployment: for a given budget,
the infrastructure is optimized as if all the stations were placed simultaneously. However, this kind an infrastructure
does not get deployed all in one go, partly because of the development costs it would generate without a guaranteed
return on investment from a demand that will take a long time to come. Charging infrastructure deployment will take
place over a period that may last several years, and this factor should now be explored in order to have an infrastructure
that provides acceptable coverage from the very beginning of its deployment, and not just once the last charging points
have been installed. An incremental ‘over-time’ deployment must therefore be considered, factoring in the early-stage
infrastructure already present in the territory, which very few models do (see Appendix A), and the action of ’adding
one more station’.
Acknowledgements
This work was financially supported by Institut VEDECOM, a French Public-Private research institute and one of the
Institutes for the Energy Transition. The authors claim no conflict of interest. The authors thank the Editor in Chief
Dr Foley and three anonymous reviewers for several useful suggestions that helped to improve this paper. The authors
also thank Olivier Massol, Bassem Haidar, Icaro Freitas-Gomes and Felipe Gonzales for their helpful discussions.

References
[1] John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs, and Andrew Skuce.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters, 8(2):024024, may
2013.
[2] European Environment Agency. Greenhouse gas emissions from transport in europe, 2019.
[3] Troy R. Hawkins, Bhawna Singh, Guillaume Majeau-Bettez, and Anders Hammer Strømman. Comparative Environmental Life Cycle
Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 17(1):53–64, 2013.
[4] Nigel Berkeley, David Jarvis, and Andrew Jones. Analysing the take up of battery electric vehicles: An investigation of barriers amongst
drivers in the UK. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 63:466–481, 2018.
[5] Shiyu Yan. The economic and environmental impacts of tax incentives for battery electric vehicles in Europe. Energy Policy, 123(August
2017):53–63, 2018.
[6] Nikolas Soulopoulos. When Will Electric Vehicles be Cheaper than Conventional Vehicles? Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 2017.
[7] International Energy Agency. Global EV Outlook 2019. pages 1–40, 2019.
[8] France Stratégie. Panorama des politiques publiques en faveur des véhicules à très faibles émissions - Note de synthèse. page 140, 2018.
[9] Katalin Springel. Network Externality and Subsidy Structure in Two-Sided Markets : Evidence from Electric Vehicle Incentives Resources.
pages 1–63, 2017.
[10] Yiyi Zhou and Shanjun Li. Technology Adoption and Critical Mass: The Case of the U.S. Electric Vehicle Market. Journal of Industrial
Economics, 66(2):423–480, 2018.
[11] Shanjun Li, Lang Tong, Jianwei Xing, and Yiyi Zhou. The Market for Electric Vehicles: Indirect Network Effects and Policy Impacts. SSRN
Electronic Journal, 4(1), 2014.
[12] Ministère de l’environnement de l’énergie et de la mer. La Loi de Transition Énergétique pour la Croissance Verte. page 4, 2016.
[13] Michael Nicholas. Estimating electric vehicle charging infrastructure costs across major U.S. metropolitan areas. ICCT, 2019.
[14] Marc Melaina and Joel Bremson. Refueling availability for alternative fuel vehicle markets: Sufficient urban station coverage. Energy Policy,
36(8):3233–3241, 2008.
[15] Constantine Toregas, Ralph Swain, Charles ReVelle, and Lawrence Bergman. The Location of Emergency Service Facilities. Operations
Research, 19(6):1363–1373, 1971.
[16] M. John Hodgson. A Flow-Capturing Location-Allocation Model. Geographical Analysis, 22(3):270–279, 1990.
[17] International Electrotechnical Commission. Norme Européenne IEC 61851-1. 33(0), 2014.
[18] Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Vehicle charging. 2020.
[19] Nathaniel S. Pearre, Willett Kempton, Randall L. Guensler, and Vetri V. Elango. Electric vehicles: How much range is required for a day’s
driving? Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 19(6):1171–1184, 2011.
[20] Jimmy Armoogum, Jean-paul Hubert, Sophie Roux, and Thomas Le Jeannic. Enquête Nationale Transports et Déplacement 2008 - In-
troduction. La Revue - Commissariat général au développement durable – Service de l’observation et des statistiques, (Décembre):5–24,
2010.
[21] Guzay Pasaoglu, Alyona Zubaryeva, Davide Fiorello, and Christian Thiel. Analysis of European mobility surveys and their potential to
support studies on the impact of electric vehicles on energy and infrastructure needs in Europe. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 87:41–50, 2014.
[22] Eurostat. Housing statistics. 2020.
[23] Nathan Delacrétaz, Bruno Lanz, and Jeremy Van Dijk. The chicken or the egg: Technology adoption and network infrastructure in the market
for electric vehicles. IRENE Working Papers, 20(08), 2020.
[24] George O. Wesolowsky. Dynamic Facility Location. Management Science, 19(11):1241–1548, 1973.
[25] Shengyin Li, Yongxi Huang, and Scott J. Mason. A multi-period optimization model for the deployment of public electric vehicle charging
stations on network. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 65:128–143, 2016.
[26] Michael Nicholas, Gil Tal, Jamie Davies, and Justin Woodjack. DC Fast as the Only Public Charging Option? Scenario Testing From GPS
Tracked Vehicles. Transportation Research Board Conference, pages 1–20, 2012.
[27] Tomás Gómez San Román, Ilan Momber, Michel Rivier Abbad, and Álvaro Sánchez Miralles. Regulatory framework and business models
for charging plug-in electric vehicles: Infrastructure, agents, and commercial relationships. Energy Policy, 39(10):6360–6375, 2011.
[28] Robert C. Green, Lingfeng Wang, and Mansoor Alam. The impact of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on distribution networks: A review
and outlook. IEEE PES General Meeting, PES 2010, pages 1–8, 2010.
[29] Icaro Silvestre Freitas Gomes, Yannick Perez, and Emilia Suomalainen. Coupling small batteries and PV generation: A review. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 126(March):109835, 2020.
[30] Andrew W Thompson and Yannick Perez. Vehicle-to-Everything ( V2X ) energy services , value streams , and regulatory policy implications.
Energy Policy, 137(July 2019):111136, 2020.
[31] Yacine Sehimi, Emilia Suomalainen, K. Almaksour, and B. Robyns. Mitigating the impact of fast charging on distribution grids using
Vehicle-to-vehicle Power Transfer : a Paris case study. 4th E-Mobility Power Integration Symposium, 2020.
[32] Xiumin Wang, Chau Yuen, Naveed Ul Hassan, Ning An, and Weiwei Wu. Electric Vehicle Charging Station Placement for Urban Public
Bus Systems. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 18(1):128–139, 2017.
[33] Xiaohong Dong, Yunfei Mu, Hongjie Jia, Jianzhong Wu, and Xiaodan Yu. Planning of Fast EV Charging Stations on a Round Freeway.
IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 7(4):1452–1461, 2016.
[34] Sara Mehar, Sara Mehar, and Sidi Mohammed Senouci. An Optimization Location Scheme for Electric Charging Stations. (May), 2013.
[35] Abbas Rajabi-Ghahnavieh and Payam Sadeghi-Barzani. Optimal Zonal Fast-Charging Station Placement Considering Urban Traffic Circu-
lation. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 66(1):45–56, 2017.
[36] Long Jia, Zechun Hu, Yonghua Song, and Zhuowei Luo. Optimal siting and sizing of electric vehicle charging stations. 2012 IEEE Interna-

tional Electric Vehicle COnference, 36(3):54–59, 2012.

[37] Hua Cai, Xiaoping Jia, Anthony S.F. Chiu, Xiaojun Hu, and Ming Xu. Siting public electric vehicle charging stations in Beijing using
big-data informed travel patterns of the taxi fleet. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 33:39–46, 2014.
[38] Dario Pevec, Jurica Babic, Martin A. Kayser, Arthur Carvalho, Yashar Ghiassi-Farrokhfal, and Vedran Podobnik. A data-driven statistical
approach for extending electric vehicle charging infrastructure. International Journal of Energy Research, 42(9):3102–3120, 2018.
[39] Hisatomo Hanabusa and Ryota Horiguchi. A study of the analytical method for the location planning of charging stations for electric vehicles.
Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 6883
LNAI(PART 3):596–605, 2011.
[40] Wei Tu, Qingquan Li, Zhixiang Fang, Shih-lung Shaw, and Baoding Zhou. Optimizing the locations of electric taxi charging stations : A
spatial – temporal demand coverage approach. Transportation Research Part C, 65(3688):172–189, 2016.
[41] Shaoyun Ge, Liang Feng, and Hong Liu. The planning of electric vehicle charging station based on Grid partition method. 2011 International
Conference on Electrical and Control Engineering, ICECE 2011 - Proceedings, pages 2726–2730, 2011.
[42] Hao Xu, Shihong Miao, Chunyong Zhang, and Dongyuan Shi. Optimal placement of charging infrastructures for large-scale integration of
pure electric vehicles into grid. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems, 53(1):159–165, 2013.
[43] Ying Wei Wang and Chuan Ren Wang. Locating passenger vehicle refueling stations. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review, 46(5):791–801, 2010.
[44] Yutaka Motoaki. Location-allocation of electric vehicle fast chargers-research and practice. World Electric Vehicle Journal, 10(1):10–16,
2019.
[45] Zhuo Sun, Wei Gao, Bin Li, and Longlong Wang. Locating charging stations for electric vehicles. Transport Policy, (May):1–7, 2018.
[46] Jie Yang, Jing Dong, and Liang Hu. A data-driven optimization-based approach for siting and sizing of electric taxi charging stations.
Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 77(2):462–477, 2017.
[47] T Donna Chen, Kara M Kockelman, and Moby Khan. The Electric Vehicle Charging Station Location Problem: A Parking-Based Assignment
Method for Seattle. Proceedings of the 92nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board in Washington DC, January 2013, and
forthcoming in Transportation Research Record, page 22, 2013.
[48] Csaba Csiszár, Bálint Csonka, Dávid Földes, Ervin Wirth, and Tamás Lovas. Urban public charging station locating method for electric
vehicles based on land use approach. Journal of Transport Geography, 74(November 2018):173–180, 2019.
[49] Hua Wang, De Zhao, Qiang Meng, Ghim Ping Ong, and Der Horng Lee. A four-step method for electric-vehicle charging facility deployment
in a dense city: An empirical study in Singapore. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 119(July 2018):224–237, 2019.
[50] Johannes Asamer, Martin Reinthaler, Mario Ruthmair, Markus Straub, and Jakob Puchinger. Optimizing charging station locations for urban
taxi providers. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 85:233–246, 2016.
[51] Salvatore Micari, Antonio Polimeni, Giuseppe Napoli, Laura Andaloro, and Vincenzo Antonucci. Electric vehicle charging infrastructure
planning in a road network. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 80(May 2016):98–108, 2017.
[52] Fang He, Yafeng Yin, and Jing Zhou. Deploying public charging stations for electric vehicles on urban road networks. Transportation
Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 2015.
[53] Jie Zhu, Yixin Li, Jun Yang, Xianglong Li, Shuang Zeng, and Yanxie Chen. Planning of electric vehicle charging station based on queuing
theory. The Journal of Engineering, 2017(13):1867–1871, 2017.
[54] Christopher Upchurch, Michael Kuby, and Seow Lim. A model for location of capacitated alternative-fuel stations. Geographical Analysis,
41(1):127–148, 2009.
[55] Haris Gavranović, Alper Barut, Gürdal Ertek, Orkun Berk Yüzbaşioǧlu, Osman Pekpostalci, and Önder Tombuş. Optimizing the electric
charge station network of EŞARJ. Procedia Computer Science, 31:15–21, 2014.
[56] Peng Sheng You and Yi Chih Hsieh. A hybrid heuristic approach to the problem of the location of vehicle charging stations. Computers and
Industrial Engineering, 2014.
[57] Ying Wei Wang and Chuah Chih Lin. Locating multiple types of recharging stations for battery-powered electric vehicle transport. Trans-
portation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 58:76–87, 2013.
[58] C. H. Dharmakeerthi, N. Mithulananthan, and T. K. Saha. Impact of electric vehicle fast charging on power system voltage stability. Inter-
national Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems, 57:241–249, 2014.
[59] Hongcai Zhang, Scott J. Moura, Zechun Hu, and Yonghua Song. PEV Fast-Charging Station Siting and Sizing on Coupled Transportation
and Power Networks. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 9(4):2595–2605, 2018.
[60] Payam Sadeghi-barzani, Abbas Rajabi-ghahnavieh, and Hosein Kazemi-karegar. Optimal fast charging station placing and sizing. Applied
Energy, 125:289–299, 2014.
[61] Sen Guo and Huiru Zhao. Optimal site selection of electric vehicle charging station by using fuzzy TOPSIS based on sustainability perspec-
tive. Applied Energy, 158:390–402, 2015.
[62] Hussain Shareef, Md Mainul Islam, and Azah Mohamed. A review of the stage-of-the-art charging technologies, placement methodologies,
and impacts of electric vehicles. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 64:403–420, 2016.
[63] Sanchari Deb, Kari Tammi, Karuna Kalita, and Pinakeswar Mahanta. Review of recent trends in charging infrastructure planning for electric
vehicles. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, 7(6):1–26, 2018.
[64] Susan Hesse Owen and Mark S. Daskin. Strategic facility location: A review. European Journal of Operational Research, 111(3):423–447,
1998.
[65] Ying Wei Wang and Chuah Chih Lin. Locating road-vehicle refueling stations. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation
Review, 45(5):821–829, 2009.
[66] Richard L. Church and Charles Revelle. The maximal covering location problem. Papers of the Regional Science Association, 32:101–118,
1974.
[67] Inês Frade, Anabela Ribeiro, Gonçalo Gonçalves, and António Antunes. Optimal location of charging stations for electric vehicles in a

neighborhood in Lisbon, Portugal. Transportation Research Record, (2252):91–98, 2011.

[68] Sebastian Wagner, Markus Götzinger, and Dirk Neumann. Optimal location of charging stations in smart cities: A point of interest based
approach. International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2013): Reshaping Society Through Information Systems Design, 3:2838–
2855, 2013.
[69] S. L. Hakimi. Optimum Locations of Switching Centers and the Absolute Centers and Medians of a Graph. Operations Research, 12(3):450–
459, 1964.
[70] Long Jia, Zechun Hu, Wenju Liang, Wenzuo Lang, and Yonghua Song. A novel approach for urban electric vehicle charging facility planning
considering combination of slow and fast charging. POWERCON 2014 - 2014 International Conference on Power System Technology:
Towards Green, Efficient and Smart Power System, Proceedings, (Powercon):3354–3360, 2014.
[71] Jaeyoung Jung, Joseph Y J Chow, R Jayakrishnan, and Ji Young. Stochastic dynamic itinerary interception refueling location problem with
queue delay for electric taxi charging stations. Transportation Research Part C, 40:123–142, 2014.
[72] Sylvia Y. He, Yong Hong Kuo, and Dan Wu. Incorporating institutional and spatial factors in the selection of the optimal locations of public
electric vehicle charging facilities: A case study of Beijing, China. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 2016.
[73] Yu An, Bo Zeng, Yu Zhang, and Long Zhao. Reliable p-median facility location problem: Two-stage robust models and algorithms. Trans-
portation Research Part B: Methodological, 64:54–72, 2014.
[74] Ragavendran Gopalakrishnan, Arpita Biswas, Alefiya Lightwala, Skanda Vasudevan, Partha Dutta, and Abhishek Tripathi. Demand pre-
diction and placement optimization for electric vehicle charging stations. IJCAI International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence,
2016-January:3117–3123, 2016.
[75] Jian Liu. Electric vehicle charging infrastructure assignment and power grid impacts assessment in Beijing. Energy Policy, 51:544–557,
2012.
[76] Sanchari Deb, Kari Tammi, Karuna Kalita, and Pinakeswar Mahanta. Charging Station Placement for Electric Vehicles: A Case Study of
Guwahati City, India. IEEE Access, 7:100270–100282, 2019.
[77] N. Andrenacci, R. Ragona, and G. Valenti. A demand-side approach to the optimal deployment of electric vehicle charging stations in
metropolitan areas. Applied Energy, 182:39–46, 2016.
[78] Mehrnaz Ghamami, Yu (Marco) Nie, and Ali Zockaie. Planning charging infrastructure for plug-in electric vehicles in city centers. Interna-
tional Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 10(4):343–353, 2016.
[79] Sreten Davidov and Miloš Pantoš. Planning of electric vehicle infrastructure based on charging reliability and quality of service. Energy,
118:1156–1167, 2017.
[80] Mohammad M. Vazifeh, Hongmou Zhang, Paolo Santi, and Carlo Ratti. Optimizing the deployment of electric vehicle charging stations
using pervasive mobility data. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 2019.
[81] Yanqing Li, Ling Li, Jing Yong, Yuhai Yao, and Zhiwei Li. Layout Planning of Electrical Vehicle Charging Stations. pages 661–668, 2011.
[82] Michael Kuby and Seow Lim. The flow-refueling location problem for alternative-fuel vehicles. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences,
39(2):125–145, 2005.
[83] Michael Kuby and Seow Lim. Location of alternative-fuel stations using the Flow-Refueling Location Model and dispersion of candidate
sites on Arcs. Networks and Spatial Economics, 7(2):129–152, 2007.
[84] Jong Geun Kim and Michael Kuby. The deviation-flow refueling location model for optimizing a network of refueling stations. International
Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 37(6):5406–5420, 2012.
[85] Yongxi Huang, Shengyin Li, and Zhen Sean Qian. Optimal Deployment of Alternative Fueling Stations on Transportation Networks Con-
sidering Deviation Paths. Networks and Spatial Economics, 15(1):183–204, 2015.
[86] Fei Wu and Ramteen Sioshansi. A stochastic flow-capturing model to optimize the location of fast-charging stations with uncertain electric
vehicle flows. Transportation Research Part D, 53:354–376, 2017.
[87] Jia He, Hai Yang, Tie Qiao Tang, and Hai Jun Huang. An optimal charging station location model with the consideration of electric vehicle’s
driving range. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 86(December 2016):641–654, 2018.
[88] Raffaela Riemann, David Z.W. Wang, and Fritz Busch. Optimal location of wireless charging facilities for electric vehicles: Flow capturing
location model with stochastic user equilibrium. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 58(Part A):1–12, 2015.
[89] Yue Xiang, Junyong Liu, Ran Li, Furong Li, Chenghong Gu, and Shuoya Tang. Economic planning of electric vehicle charging stations
considering traffic constraints and load profile templates. Applied Energy, 178:647–659, 2016.
[90] Christopher Upchurch and Michael Kuby. Comparing the p-median and flow-refueling models for locating alternative-fuel stations. Journal
of Transport Geography, 18(6):750–758, 2010.
[91] Kai Huang, Pavlos Kanaroglou, and Xiaozhou Zhang. The design of electric vehicle charging network. Transportation Research Part D:
Transport and Environment, 49:1–17, 2016.
[92] Joana Cavadas, Gonçalo Homem de Almeida Correia, and João Gouveia. A MIP model for locating slow-charging stations for electric
vehicles in urban areas accounting for driver tours. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 2015.
[93] Matthew Andrew, Mustafa K. Dogru, John D. Hobby, Yue Jin, and Gabriel H. Tucci. Modeling and optimization for electric vehicle charging
infrastructure. 2013.
[94] Narges Shahraki, Hua Cai, Metin Turkay, and Ming Xu. Optimal locations of electric public charging stations using real world vehicle travel
patterns. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 41(2015):165–176, 2015.
[95] Jairo González, Roberto Alvaro, Carlos Gamallo, Manuel Fuentes, Jesús Fraile-Ardanuy, Luk Knapen, and Davy Janssens. Determining
electric vehicle charging point locations considering drivers’ daily activities. Procedia Computer Science, 32:647–654, 2014.
[96] Xiaomin Xi, Ramteen Sioshansi, and Vincenzo Marano. Simulation-optimization model for location of a public electric vehicle charging
infrastructure. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 22:60–69, 2013.
[97] Jing Dong, Changzheng Liu, and Zhenhong Lin. Charging Infrastructure Planning for Promoting All-Electric Vehicle Market: An Activity-
Based Assessment Using Multiday Travel Data Jing Dong (Corresponding author). Phone, (865):946–1308, 2012.

[98] Daehee Han, Yongjun Ahn, Sunkyu Park, and Hwasoo Yeo. Trajectory-interception based method for electric vehicle taxi charging station
problem with real taxi data. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 10(8):671–682, 2016.
[99] Xiaomin Xi, Ramteen Sioshansi, and Vincenzo Marano. Simulation – optimization model for location of a public electric vehicle charging
infrastructure. TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART D, 22:60–69, 2013.
[100] Hisashi Kameda and Naoto Mukai. Optimization of Charging Station Placement by Using Taxi Probe Data for On-Demand. pages 606–615,
2011.
[101] T. Donna Chen, Kara M. Kockelman, and Josiah P. Hanna. Operations of a shared, autonomous, electric vehicle fleet: Implications of vehicle
& charging infrastructure decisions. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 94:243–254, 2016.
[102] J. D. Hunt and K. J. Stefan. Tour-based microsimulation of urban commercial movements. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological,
41(9):981–1013, 2007.
[103] Kay W. Axhausen, Andreas Horni, and Kai Nagel. The Multi-Agent Transport Simulation MATSim. 2016.
[104] T. Novosel, L. Perković, M. Ban, H. Keko, T. Pukšec, G. Krajačić, and N. Duić. Agent based modelling and energy planning - Utilization of
MATSim for transport energy demand modelling. Energy, 92:466–475, 2015.
[105] Rick Wolbertus and Robert Van den Hoed. Electric Vehicle Fast Charging Needs in Cities and along Corridors. World Electric Vehicle
Journal, 10(2):45, jun 2019.
A. Literature Table
Previous
Home
Limited Charging Main Target envi- Electric existing
Paper Approach Problem Use case charging
resources type optimization goal ronment grid aspect infrastruc-
available
ture
Location Minimize failed
Wang & Lin Mixed and sizing Yes trips (or maximize Private Mixed
Mixed Unspecified No No
(2013) [57] approach (power and (constraint) the number of vehicle environment
capacity) possible trips)
Minimize failed
Upchurch & Kuby Node and Yes trips (or maximize Private
Location Unique Highway Unspecified No No
(2010) [90] path-based (constraint) the number of vehicle
possible trips)
Location Maximize the
He et al. (2016) Yes Private Urban Yes, not for
Node-based and sizing Mixed number of EVs No No
[72] (constraint) vehicle environment all
(capacity) charged
Rajabi-Ghahnavie Minimize the
No (budget Fast Private Urban Yes, as a
& Sadeghi-Barzani Node-based Location infrastructure cost Yes, for all No
to optimize) charging vehicle environment parameter
(2017) [? ] for a given demand
Maximize the
Pevec et al. (2018) Yes Private Mixed Yes, not for
Node-based Location Unique charger’s No Yes
[38] (constraint) vehicle environment all
utilization
Location Taxis and
Wang et al. (2019) Yes Maximize the Urban Yes, not for
Node-based and sizing Mixed private No No
[49] (constraint) distance traveled environment all
(power) vehicles
Maximize the
Frade et al. (2011) Node-based Yes Slow Private Urban Yes, not for
Location number of EVs No No
[67] (MCLM) (constraint) charging vehicle environment all
charged
Node-based Yes Private Urban Yes, not for Yes, as a
Liu, J. (2012) [75] and sizing Mixed number of EVs No
(MCLM) (constraint) vehicle environment all constraint
(power) charged
Wagner et al. Node-based Yes Private Semi-urban
and sizing Mixed amount of energy Unspecified No No
(2013) [68] (MCLM) (constraint) vehicle environment
(power) charged
Wang et al. (2013) Node-based Yes Private Yes, as a
and sizing Mixed number of EVs Unspecified Unspecified No
[57] (MCLM) (constraint) vehicle constraint
(capacity) charged
Maximize the
Guo & Zhao Node-based Yes Private Urban Yes, as a
Location Unique number of EVs Unspecified No
(2015) [61] (MCLM) (constraint) vehicle environment parameter
charged
Previous
Home
available
ture
Gopalakrishnan et Node-based Yes Private
and sizing Unique number of EVs Unspecified Unspecified No No
al. (2016) [74] (MCLM) (constraint) vehicle
(capacity) charged
Location
Minimize the
Yang et al. (2017) Node-based and sizing Yes Semi-urban
Unique infrastructure cost Taxi fleet Unspecified No Yes
[46] (MCLM) (power and (constraint) environment
for a given demand
capacity)
Location Minimize the
Deb et al. (2019) Node-based No (budget Private Urban Yes, as a
and sizing Mixed infrastructure cost Unspecified No
[76] (MCLM) to optimize) vehicle environment parameter
Minimize the
Location
Ge et al. (2011) Node-based Yes distance (or the Private Mixed
and sizing Unique Unspecified No No
[41] (p-median) (constraint) deviation) to a vehicle environment
(capacity)
charging station
Minimize the
Xu et al. (2013) Node-based Yes distance (or the Private Urban
Location Unique Unspecified No No
[42] (p-median) (constraint) deviation) to a vehicle environment
charging station
Mehar et al. (2013) Node-based No (budget Private Yes, as a
and sizing Unique infrastructure cost Unspecified Unspecified Yes
[34] (p-median) to optimize) vehicle constraint
Minimize the
Gavranović et al. Node-based Yes distance (or the Private Mixed
Location Unique Unspecified No No
(2014) [55] (p-median) (constraint) deviation) to a vehicle environment
charging station
Private
Minimize the
Jia et al. (2014) Node-based No (budget Fast vehicle with Semi-urban
Location infrastructure cost Yes, for all No No
[70] (p-median) to optimize) charging home environment
for a given demand
charging
Sadeghi-barzani et Node-based No (budget Fast Private Yes, as a
and sizing infrastructure cost Unspecified Unspecified No
al. (2014) [60] (p-median) to optimize) charging vehicle parameter
Zhu et al. (2017) Node-based No (budget Private Yes, as a
and sizing Unique infrastructure cost Unspecified Unspecified No
[53] (p-median) to optimize) vehicle parameter
Previous
Home
available
ture
Maximize the
Wang & Lin Node-based Yes Private
Location Unique number of EVs Unspecified Unspecified No No
(2009) [65] (SCLM) (constraint) vehicle
charged
Maximize the
Wang & Wang Node-based Yes Private
(2010) [43] (SCLM) (constraint) vehicle
charged
Li et al. (2011) Node-based No (budget Private
and sizing Mixed infrastructure cost Unspecified Unspecified No No
[81] (SCLM) to optimize) vehicle
Andrenacci et al. Node-based No (budget Private Semi-urban
and sizing Unique infrastructure cost Yes, for all No No
(2016) [77] (SCLM) to optimize) vehicle environment
Ghamami et al. Node-based No (budget Private Urban
and sizing Unique infrastructure cost No No No
Davidov & Pantoš Node-based No (budget Private
and sizing Unique infrastructure cost Unspecified Unspecified No No
(2017) [79] (SCLM) to optimize) vehicle
Csiszár et al. Node-based Yes Private Yes, not for
and sizing Unique amount of energy Unspecified No No
(2019) [48] (SCLM) (constraint) vehicle all
(capacity) charged
Vazifeh et al. Node-based No (budget Private Semi-urban
and sizing Unique infrastructure cost Yes, for all No No
Path-based
(fast
charging) Minimize the
Huang et al. No (budget Private Semi-urban
and Location Mixed infrastructure cost Unspecified No No
(2016) [91] to optimize) vehicle environment
node-based for a given demand
(slow
charging)
Previous
Home
available
ture
Path-based
(fast
charging) Location Maximize the
Sun et al. (2018) Yes Private Mixed
and and sizing Mixed number of EVs Yes, for all No No
[45] (constraint) vehicle environment
node-based (power) charged
(slow
charging)
Hanabusa & Minimize the
Path-based Yes Private Yes, as a
Horiguchi (2011) Location Unique waiting time at the Unspecified Unspecified No
(FCLM) (constraint) vehicle constraint
[39] station
Maximize the
Riemann et al. Path-based Yes Private Mixed
Location Unique number of EVs Yes, for all No No
(2015) [88] (FCLM) (constraint) vehicle environment
charged
Dong et al. (2016) Path-based No (budget Fast Private
and sizing infrastructure cost Highway Unspecified No No
[33] (FCLM) to optimize) charging vehicle
Minimize the
Li et al. (2016) Path-based No (budget Private Mixed
Location Unique infrastructure cost Yes, for all No Yes
[25] (FCLM) to optimize) vehicle environment
for a given demand
Xiang et al. (2016) Path-based No (budget Private Yes, as a
and sizing Unique infrastructure cost Unspecified Unspecified No
[89] (FCLM) to optimize) vehicle constraint
Maximize the
Wu & Sioshansi Path-based Yes Fast Private Mixed
Location number of EVs Yes, for all No No
(2017) [86] (FCLM) (constraint) charging vehicle environment
charged
Minimize failed
Location
Micari et al. Path-based Yes trips (or maximize Private
and sizing Unique Highway Unspecified No No
(2017) [51] (FCLM) (constraint) the number of vehicle
(capacity)
possible trips)
Maximize the
He et al. (2018) Path-based Yes Fast Private
Location number of EVs Unspecified Yes, for all No No
[87] (FCLM) (constraint) charging vehicle
charged
Maximize the
Motoaki, Y. (2019) Path-based Yes Fast Private Yes, as a
Location number of EVs Unspecified Yes, for all Yes
[44] (FCLM) (constraint) charging vehicle constraint
charged
Previous
Home
available
ture
Maximize the
Kuby et al. (2005) Path-based Yes Private
[82] (FRLM) (constraint) vehicle
charged
Maximize the
Kuby et al. (2007) Path-based Yes Private
[83] (FRLM) (constraint) vehicle
charged
Upchurch et al. Path-based Yes Private
and sizing Unique number of EVs Unspecified Unspecified No No
(2009) [54] (FRLM) (constraint) vehicle
(capacity) charged
Minimize the
Li & Huang (2014) Path-based No (budget Private
Location Unique infrastructure cost Unspecified Yes, for all No No
[11] (FRLM) to optimize) vehicle
for a given demand
Minimize the
Huang et al. Path-based No (budget Private
Location Unique infrastructure cost Unspecified Unspecified No No
(2015) [85] (FRLM) to optimize) vehicle
for a given demand
Zhang et al. (2018) Path-based Yes Fast Private Mixed Yes, as a
and sizing number of EVs Yes, for all No
[59] (FRLM) (constraint) charging vehicle environment constraint
(capacity) charged
Location Minimize the Bus or
Kameda & Mukai Yes Fast Urban
Tour-Based and sizing waiting time at the public No No No
(2011) [100] (constraint) charging environment
(power) station transport
Minimize failed
Location
Dong et al. (2012) Yes trips (or maximize Private Semi-urban
Tour-Based and sizing Mixed Yes, for all No No
[97] (constraint) the number of vehicle environment
(capacity)
possible trips)
Jia et al. (2012) No (budget Fast Private Urban
Tour-Based and sizing infrastructure cost Unspecified No No
[36] to optimize) charging vehicle environment
Location
Maximize the
Chen et al. (2013) and sizing Yes Private Yes, not for
Tour-Based Mixed amount of energy Unspecified No No
[47] (power and (constraint) vehicle all
charged
capacity)
Previous
Home
available
ture
Maximize the
Location Mixed number of EVs
Xi et al. (2013) and sizing Yes (medium charged or Private Mixed
Tour-Based Yes, for all No No
[99] (power and (constraint) and slow maximize the vehicle environment
capacity) charging) amount of energy
charged
Minimize the
Andrew et al. Yes Medium distance (or the Private Semi-urban
Tour-Based Location Yes, for all No No
(2013) [93] (constraint) charging deviation) to a vehicle environment
charging station
Cai et al. (2014) Yes Fast Semi-urban
Tour-Based and sizing charger’s Taxi fleet Yes, for all No No
[37] (constraint) charging environment
(capacity) utilization
Minimize failed
Location
You & Hsieh Yes trips (or maximize Private
Tour-Based and sizing Mixed Unspecified Unspecified No No
(2014) [56] (constraint) the number of vehicle
(power)
possible trips)
Minimize the
Jung et al. (2014) Yes Fast Urban
Tour-Based Location waiting time at the Taxi fleet Unspecified No No
station
Shahraki et al. Yes Maximize the Semi-urban
Tour-Based Location Unique Taxi fleet Yes, for all No No
(2015) [94] (constraint) distance traveled environment
Cavadas et al. Yes Slow Private Urban Yes, not for
Tour-Based and sizing number of EVs No No
(2015) [92] (constraint) charging vehicle environment all
(capacity) charged
Maximize the
He et al. (2015) Yes Medium Private
Tour-Based Location number of EVs Unspecified Yes, for all No No
[52] (constraint) charging vehicle
charged
Mixed Minimize failed
Asamer et al. Yes (medium trips (or maximize Urban
Tour-Based Location Taxi fleet No No No
(2016) [50] (constraint) and fast the number of environment
charging) possible trips)
Han et al. (2016) No (budget Fast Semi-urban
Tour-Based and sizing infrastructure cost Taxi fleet Yes, for all No No
[98] to optimize) charging environment
Previous
Home
available
ture
Minimize the
Tu et al. (2016) Yes Fast Semi-urban
Tour-Based Location waiting time at the Taxi fleet Unspecified No No
station
Minimize the Bus or
Wang et al. (2017) No (budget Fast Urban
Tour-Based Location infrastructure cost public Unspecified No No
[32] to optimize) charging environment
for a given demand transport

1 s2.0 S136403212100993X Am

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S136403212100993X Am

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S136403212100993X Am

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Version of Record: https://www.sciencedirect.

Too much or not enough? Planning electric vehicle charging

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Word count : 8919 words

M.O. Metais et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 1 of 28

M.O. Metais et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 2 of 28

2. Background on charging infrastructure and the allied issues

Figure 1: Overview of the charging infrastructure framework

2.1. Technical overview of charging devices

M.O. Metais et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 3 of 28

Figure 2: Simplified architecture of EV charging

2.2. Charging infrastructure and EV acceptance

M.O. Metais et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 4 of 28

2.3. Economical issues

2.4. Power grid issues

M.O. Metais et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 5 of 28

3. Overview and scope of planning simulation models

3.1. Users and charging infrastructure utilization

M.O. Metais et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 6 of 28

3.2. Optimization goals

3.3. Sizing charging infrastructure

M.O. Metais et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 7 of 28

Figure 3: Simplified principle of a node-based approach

M.O. Metais et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 8 of 28

offers a relatively static view of demand.

Figure 4: Simplified principle of a path-based approach

Figure 5: Simplified principle of a tour-based approach

4.1. Node-based approach

M.O. Metais et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 9 of 28

Table 2: Summary of articles using the node-based approach

Method Problem Main optimization goal Paper

M.O. Metais et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 10 of 28

Table 2: Summary of articles using the node-based approach

Method Problem Main optimization goal Paper

4.2. Path-based approach

Table 3: Summary of articles using the path-based approach

Method Problem Main optimization goal Paper

M.O. Metais et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 11 of 28

Table 3: Summary of articles using the path-based approach

Method Problem Main optimization goal Paper

4.3. Tour-based approach

M.O. Metais et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 12 of 28

Table 4: Summary of articles using the tour-based approach

Problem Main optimization goal Paper

M.O. Metais et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 13 of 28

Node-based Tour-based Path-based

Figure 6: Overview of location methods

M.O. Metais et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 14 of 28

Figure 7: Example of three paths

Table 5: Main points of comparison between location methods

M.O. Metais et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 15 of 28

M.O. Metais et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 16 of 28

M.O. Metais et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 17 of 28

tional Electric Vehicle COnference, 36(3):54–59, 2012.

M.O. Metais et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 18 of 28

neighborhood in Lisbon, Portugal. Transportation Research Record, (2252):91–98, 2011.

M.O. Metais et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 19 of 28

You might also like