Optimal planning and allocation of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles charging stations using a novel hybrid optimization technique

Ayyappan Subramaniam; Lal Raja Singh Ravi Singh

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0284421

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 31, 2022
15 Dec 2022 Decision Letter - Chen Zonghai, Editor PONE-D-22-29934Optimal Planning and Allocation of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles Charging Stations using a Novel Hybrid Optimization Technique PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Subramaniam, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 29 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Chen Zonghai Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 3. Our internal editors have looked over your manuscript and determined that it is within the scope of our Smart Energy Systems Call for Papers. The Collection will encompass the latest research in smart grid technologies, including information technologies, device integration, distribution methods, and data mining, all towards improving the efficiency of energy supply networks. Additional information can be found on our announcement page: https://collections.plos.org/call-for-papers/smart-energy-systems/. If you would like your manuscript to be considered for this collection, please let us know in your cover letter and we will ensure that your paper is treated as if you were responding to this call. If you would prefer to remove your manuscript from collection consideration, please specify this in the cover letter. 4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. "Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. 6. One of the noted authors is a group or consortium [ KalaignarKarunanidhi Institute of Technology Coimbatore – 641 402]. In addition to naming the author group, please list the individual authors and affiliations within this group in the acknowledgments section of your manuscript. Please also indicate clearly a lead author for this group along with a contact email address. Additional Editor Comments: Based on the comments of reviewers and the current level of the manuscript, it is recommended to make major modifications to the manuscript. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly Reviewer #3: No ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This paper presents the Optimal Planning and Allocation of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles Charging Stations using a Novel Hybrid Optimization Technique. The paper can be accepted by addressing the following issues. 1. Please ensure all the variables have been defined correctly. 2. The reinforcement learning has been widely used for HEV and energy system optimization, e.g., DOI: 10.1109/TIE.2021.3070514; DOI: 10.1109/TII.2020.3014599. Such relevant works can be included for completeness and to enhance the literature review. 3. Please explain more about the validation condition. 4 The figures are not in good quality. Please modify. 5. The conclusion can be improved by giving the primary findings with necessary statistical results. Reviewer #2: This paper offers an effective PHEV charging stations allocation approach for RES applications. The contributions and innovations of this paper are insufficient. Some concerns are listed below for possible further improvement of this paper. 1. The number of relevant literature introductions is relatively small, and half of them are articles published in 2018. It is suggested to add some new articles. 2. The introduction of relevant literature should be classified according to some logic, rather than simply spread out according to time. 3. How to ensure that the power grid can not only withstand the disorderly charging of charging piles but also ensure the charging efficiency? 4. How to calculate cost, VRPindex and Aindex in the objective function. 5. Please analyze the experimental results according to the principles of AT-AQ and other comparison algorithms, and explain why AT-AQ can achieve better experimental results. 6. Can you give the specific regional distribution of charging stations? 7. Noting that this study focuses on PHEV, is the proposed method applicable to EV charging in the future? Reviewer #3: 1- Captions of most figures are inappropriate. Authors should give each figure an independent caption. 2- Grammar errors and typos should be avoided. Many words’ first letter is improperly capitalized. 3- The literature review is suggested to be merged to Section 1. 4- Most figures are of low quality. 5- As it is stated, “the maximum produced power of EM is limited to thirty kilowatts due to battery health.” Why? More detailed explanations should be given. 6- In Eqn. (5), objectives are with different units and magnitude orders. I do not think it is correct to merge them simply. 7- What are the constraints of the EV, AC/DC, and power plant in your system? 8- Comparative results in Section 5 should be fully discussed and analyzed. 9- EVs may leave the station after charging. However, EV arrival distribution during the experimental period is not introduced and considered. 10- In P15, “The analysis was carried out in two different scenarios.” However, in P17, three scenarios are utilized. Moreover, what are the specific differences among these scenarios? ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284421.r001
Revision 1
4 Mar 2023 Author Response RESPONSE TO REVIEWER COMMENTS Manuscript No. - PONE-D-22-29934 Manuscript Title - Optimal Planning and Allocation of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles Charging Stations using a Novel Hybrid Optimization Technique Authors - Ayyappan Subramaniam & Lal Raja Singh Ravi Sing Reviewer #1: This paper presents the Optimal Planning and Allocation of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles Charging Stations using a Novel Hybrid Optimization Technique. The paper can be accepted by addressing the following issues. 1. Please ensure all the variables have been defined correctly. In the revised manuscript, variables are defined as per the comments of the reviewer. 2. The reinforcement learning has been widely used for HEV and energy system optimization, e.g., DOI: 10.1109/TIE.2021.3070514; DOI: 10.1109/TII.2020.3014599. Such relevant works can be included for completeness and to enhance the literature review. Based on the reviewer comments, the specified two literatures have been included in the literature review to enhance the review section. It is included in reference section at Sl.No. 34 & 35. 3. Please explain more about the validation condition. Based on the reviewer comments, the validation condition has been detailed in the revised manuscript at the performance analysis section. 4 The figures are not in good quality. Please modify. In respect of the reviewer comments, the quality of the Figures is improved in the revised manuscript submitted. 5. The conclusion can be improved by giving the primary findings with necessary statistical results. Primary findings are included and the conclusion section is revised as per the reviewer comments. Reviewer #2: Some concerns are listed below for possible further improvement of this paper. 1. The number of relevant literature introductions is relatively small, and half of them are articles published in 2018. It is suggested to add some new articles. With respect to the reviewer comments, new literatures pertaining to 2021 to 2023 has been included in detail in the Introduction section. These are also included in the references from Sl.no. 36 - 49. //The contents included based on reviewer comments are shown in RED colour in the revised manuscript// 2. The introduction of relevant literature should be classified according to some logic, rather than simply spread out according to time. Yes, based on the reviewer comments, the literature section is remodified in section 1 of the revised manuscript. 3. How to ensure that the power grid can not only withstand the disorderly charging of charging piles but also ensure the charging efficiency? This is because the voltage profile will be maintained substantially due to which the losses will be minimized increasing the charging efficiency. The power loss minimization enables to reduce the energy consumption and thereby the efficiency gets increased. 4. How to calculate cost, VRPindex and Aindex in the objective function. Eq (5) in the revised manuscript, is employed to evaluate the necessary parameters. 5. Please analyze the experimental results according to the principles of AT-AQ and other comparison algorithms, and explain why AT-AQ can achieve better experimental results. Based on the reviewer comments, the analysis is detailed in the revised manuscript at the performance analysis section. 6. Can you give the specific regional distribution of charging stations? The dataset employed for testing and validating the proposed optimization model pertains to the usage of electric vehicles within the campus of Georgia Tech, Atlanta, USA and the vehicles were charged at the conference centre parking station and around 150 vehicles were flying around the campus. The average driving distance of the vehicles is 31 km. Thus the regional distribution will be around the campus of Georgia Tech, Atlanta, USA in this research study. 7. Noting that this study focuses on PHEV, is the proposed method applicable to EV charging in the future? Yes, the proposed approach is suitable for both PHEV and EV. The proposed optimization model is generic and shall be applied for both PHEV and EV due to their generalization ability and learning ability. Reviewer #3: 1- Captions of most figures are inappropriate. Authors should give each figure an independent caption. Based on the reviewer comments, the captions of the figures are changed in the revised manuscript. 2- Grammar errors and typos should be avoided. Many words’ first letter is improperly capitalized. Based on reviewer comments, English grammatical corrections are done. 3- The literature review is suggested to be merged to Section 1. Considering the reviewer comments, the literature review section is merged with the Introduction section in the revised manuscript. 4- Most figures are of low quality. In the revised manuscript, the quality of figures are improved. 5- As it is stated, “the maximum produced power of EM is limited to thirty kilowatts due to battery health.” Why? More detailed explanations should be given. This is only for the reparative braking mechanism and the conditions of the battery is primarily important for this scenario. Due to which, for this braking mechanism only the maximum power produced is limited and for other forms of braking employed it can be extended to higher kilowatts. 6- In Eqn. (5), objectives are with different units and magnitude orders. I do not think it is correct to merge them simply. Based on the reviewer comments, in the revised manuscript, Eq (5) provides the complete objective function employed in the proposed technique. 7- What are the constraints of the EV, AC/DC, and power plant in your system? The constraints in respect of the EVs shall be AC power and necessary inverter circuits shall be employed for conversion of AC to DC and the DC power shall be stored in the batteries. Making the EVs into the power grid shall result in voltage drop, energy loss and affecting the peak load of the system. Thus, the constraints in respect of the EVs include, -Cost of installation of the charging stations -Increased distribution system power loss -Difficulty in connecting the EVs for charging directly to the grid -Problem in the source of electrical energy at a unity power factor and the voltage profile not maintained due to the power system module -Increased power losses -Active power loss of the distributed power system network The above are the specific constraints pertaining to the effective location of charging stations for the Electric Vehicles. //The above contents are included in the section 3.1 of the revised manuscript based on the reviewer comments// 8- Comparative results in Section 5 should be fully discussed and analyzed. Based on the reviewer comments, validation is included in the performance analysis section. 9- EVs may leave the station after charging. However, EV arrival distribution during the experimental period is not introduced and considered. EV arrival distribution is always on the first come first serve basis and based on the free charging connectors. And this initialized in the algorithm as the node that arrives will be set to 1 and the charging station shall be allocated for the same. 10- In P15, “The analysis was carried out in two different scenarios.” However, in P17, three scenarios are utilized. Moreover, what are the specific differences among these scenarios? Three scenarios have been employed for this study, the scenarios include, Scenario 1: Optimal placement based on distribution system conjunction with transportation system Scenario 2: Optimal placement based on distribution generators with previous optimal charging load Scenario 3: Allocation of distribution generators and charging station in distribution system optimally based on earlier optimal load The authors than the reviewers and the editor for their valuable comments in improving the quality of the manuscript. Thank you. Sincerely, Authors Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: ResponsetoReviewerComments_PlosOne.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284421.r002
30 Mar 2023 Decision Letter - Chen Zonghai, Editor Optimal Planning and Allocation of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles Charging Stations using a Novel Hybrid Optimization Technique PONE-D-22-29934R1 Dear Dr. Subramaniam, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Chen Zonghai Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Minor Revision Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #2: The author has solved all the problems.The quality of the articles has improved. Recommended acceptance. Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284421.r003
Formally Accepted
4 Apr 2023 Acceptance Letter - Chen Zonghai, Editor PONE-D-22-29934R1 Optimal Planning and Allocation of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles Charging Stations using a Novel Hybrid Optimization Technique Dear Dr. Subramaniam: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Prof. Chen Zonghai Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284421.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .