2016 IEEE Transportation Electrification Conference and Expo, Asia-Pacific (ITEC)

June 1 -4, 2016, Busan, Korea

Hazard Based Modelling Of Electric Vehicles

Charging Patterns

Nicolo Daina and John W. Polak

Centre for Transport Studies
Imperial College London
London, United Kingdom
n.daina@imperial.ac.uk

A bstract-Understanding and predicting charging behaviour implemented in predictive models is essential, but despite
of electric vehicles' users is essential for the appropriate design of considerable research efforts have been carried out, work
charging services and for the implementation aggregator services towards this goal is still needed. So far charging behaviour
mediating between electric vehicle drivers, electricity markets, research has been mainly either simply descriptive (e.g. [8]),
distribution system operator, and transmission system operator. aimed at testing psychological models unsuitable for
Research into actionable charging behaviour insights to be implementation for quantitative prediction [9, 1 0], or when
implemented in predictive models has so far been modest. The
aimed at charging choice behaviour predictive models reliant
present paper intends to contribute at the development of
on choice experiments based on hypothetical choice situations
predictive models of charging patterns for operational
around future smart charging scenarios (e.g. [1 1 , 1 2]). One
implementation. It proposes hazard-based analysis of the gap
notable exception to this trend is the work by Zoepf et al who
times between charging events model with time dependent
use real word charging and driving data from monitored
covariates in order to investigate which set of potential covariates
that will enable an eventual formulation of short-term predictive
vehicles to estimate mixed logit for charging occurrence at the
model of the timing of charging events. Empirical estimation of
end of a trip, using as explanatory variables the state of charge
the hazard model shows that both monitored vehicle state at the end of a trip and travel patterns 'attributes (e.g., trip
variables (e.g. state of charge, cumulative average driving speed) distance, time to next departure, trip end time) [1 3].
and individual characteristics significantly affect the Additionally, the inclusion of insights from psychological
instantaneous rate of occurrence of charging events. studies of charging behaviour into models for quantitative
prediction is attempted by Daina et ai, who model drivers'
Keywords- electric vehicles, electric vehicles charging typical charging frequency and state of charge (SOC) before
behaviour, charging behaviour prediction, hazards models. charging as function of both their typical travel patterns and
perceived charging motives [1 4].
I. INTRODUCTION

It has long been accepted that deployment of electric

vehicles (EV) powered by electricity from low carbon
emissions grids can provide significant benefits in terms of
reduction of the climate impact from transportation and
reduction of its reliance on oil-based fuels [ 1 ].
However, large penetration of EVs can strain the electric
networks, and requires implementation of effective load
management strategies, but can also represent a resource to
power systems, especially if large shares of intermittent or
fluctuating renewable energy sources exist [2-4], which require
increased storage capacity for preservation of grid' s reliability.
The most explored framework allowing managing EV load,
harnessing the distributed storage capacity of grid connected
EVs and integrating EVs into electricity markets is aggregation
[5]. EV aggregators are mediating agents between EV drivers,
electricity market, distribution system operator, and
transmission system operator [6, 7]. To perform their
mediating action and participate effectively to electricity
markets EV aggregators must understand and reliably predict
charging behaviour of electric vehicles' users.
A. Aim and Objectives
The aim of this paper is to further advance the actionable
understanding of EV users charging behaviour for the
development of short-term predictive models to facilitate the
participation of charging service providers to short term
electricity markets within a smart grid context by providing
prediction of charging event occurrence at the individual
vehicle level. In particular, this study explores the use of
hazard models to estimate the instantaneous charging event
risk for individual vehicles. The specific objectives of the
present paper are: a) to identify the best time-dependent
predictors associated with vehicle use, and b) to test the
residual effect on the hazard of fixed (or slowly varying)
drivers' characteristics.
This analysis will enable informing which instantaneous
information potentially collected remotely from vehicles is
most informative to predict the time to the next recharging
event and to demonstrate whether drivers' characteristics could
provide additional significant information for the same
purpose.

Against these background the achievement of an actionable The rest of the paper is organised as follows. Firstly, a
understanding of charging behaviour, which could be methodological section introduces hazard based models with

978-1-5090-1272-5/16/$31.00 2016 IEEE

479
2016 IEEE Transportation Electrification Conference and Expo, Asia-Pacific (ITEC)
June 1 -4, 2016, Busan, Korea
time dependent covariates and discusses the issues' in applying
them to the problem at hand. I the same session a subsection is
devoted to present the datasets used in the study. Then, a
section presents and discusses the resulting estimates for the
hazard model parameters. Lastly, the paper concludes with a
section summarising the salient points and highlighting the
implications of the results.
II. METHODOLOGY
A. Analytical Approach
In this paper we study the gap times between recurrent
charging events. We define these gap times as the time elapsed
between two start charging times, so that, in principle,
modelling this duration would allow predicting when the next
charging events would take place.
Simplifying, the charging operation process recharging
events could be viewed as a renewal processes, because the
charging operation is a sort of regeneration that return an EV
into its pristine conditions. Renewal processes have the
property that gap times Wij tij - tij-1 (between charging any
=
event i - 1 and i for any individual i in population of EV
drivers) are independent and identically distributed. Under a
renewal process then, the observation of gap times can be
analysed as independent durations from different subjects and
modelled with standard survival analysis and for example the
use of a proportional hazard model would enable incorporating
the effects of covariates on the hazard function [1 5]. In this
way one could test whether higher or lower charging events
hazards (rates of occurrence of charging events) are associated
with specific drivers' characteristics. In order to do so a Cox' s
proportional hazard model could be estimated of the form
h(wlxij) = ho(w)exp (xij'[3)
where ho is an undetermined baseline hazard, xij .is vector
of covariates associated with the interval before the ith
charging event for individual i, and a vector of coefficients.
In fact the assumption that Wij are independent and
identically distributed is not really tenable, because despite
conditioning for drivers' characteristics and vehicle usage
metrics, unobserved factors may cause heterogeneity across
individuals (i.e. within individual; gap times are correlated).
Proportional hazard frailty models can account for this [1 6]. In
such case the conditional hazard function takes the following
form
hij(wlxij) =
UihO(w)exp (xij'[3)
where Ui is an unobserved random effect [1 5].
It is also of interest to consider the effect on the hazard of
the cumulative distance being driven in an inter-charging spell,
the cumulative average speed at which the vehicle is being
driven, or, the state of charge time path over the spell. These
variables are time-varying covariates. Ignoring random
heterogeneity, they can be introduced in the hazard model as
follow:
hij(wIZij(t)) =
ho(w)exp (zij(t)'[3)
978-1-5090-1272-5/16/$31.00 2016 IEEE
480
where Zij(t) is a covariates' vector which also includes time
varying covariates. Note that in this case the gap times between
charging events are no longer identically distributed and the
hazard model is not longer strictly speaking a proportional one.
Modelling both unobserved heterogeneity and time
covariates is problematic when time dependent covariates are
not strictly exogenous [1 7]. The strict exogeneity condition as
expressed by Wooldridge [1 7]. is
Pr[z(t + h)lw t,z(t)] = Pr[z(t + h)lz(t)] \It 0, \lh
>0
constant over the interval of observation. This is usually
obtained breaking a single gap time into multiple ones in which
the time varying covariate is constant: the generated gap times
not ending with an event are effectively treated as right
censored. In our analyses we will consider as vehicle use
variables such cumulative distance, cumulative average speed
and state of charge were constant over the course of a trip (and
updated at the start of a trip or at the occurrence of charging
event).
B. Data
As part of the Low Carbon London, a project led by
London' s distribution network operator UK Power Networks
aiming at investigating the impact of low carbon technologies
on the operation of distribution networks, instrumented Nissan
Leaf vehicles were leased to private individuals and companies
and their used was monitored over the course of one year
between 201 3 and 201 4. We obtained charging-discharging
time histories and vehicle use data for twenty of the private
vehicles and used the last two months of data for the analyses
in the present paper: March and April 201 4. The reason for
analysing only the final two months is to use data coming only
from drivers having gained a considerable familiarity with
using their Leaf in their daily lives.
For each monitored vehicle the data available consisted in a
series of events characterised by: event type (driving, charging
or parking), start time ts end time te, State of charge of the
battery at event start SOC(ts)' in %, state of charge of the
battery at event end SOC(te)in %, distance travelled during the
driving events, d in km, and Average speed during the driving
events s in kmlh.
The original datasets required data pre-processing and
cleaning. In particular because of event type classification
inconsistencies, only the timing, SOC and distance information
was used to indentify charging events for the analyses
presented here. A charging event was identified for vehicle k
as occurring when the following condition was satisfied
SOC(te) > SOC(ti) 1\ (d = 0)
that is when a positive variation in state of charge occurred
when vehicle was stationary. Positive variations in non
stationary events are possible, but they correspond to
regenerative charging events, so they are ignored.
From the available data we calculated the time between
charging events for all vehicles over the two months. These are
the gap times used in the hazard based analyses. Likewise we
extracted cumulative distances, cumulative average speeds and
2016 IEEE Transportation Electrification Conference and Expo, Asia-Pacific (ITEC)
June 1 -4, 2016, Busan, Korea

SOC within these gap times. These are the time dependent distributions of SOC just before charging, distance travelled
explanatory variables whose effect on the instantaneous between charging events and average speed of travel between
charging risk is tested. Fig. 1 shows the distribution of times charging events.
between char in events over our sam Ie as well the

r-

r-
0.5 1.8
r---
r- -
1.6
-
OA
1A -
r- f-- _
1.2

0.3

-
-
0.8 -
0.2
r---
0.6

0.4
0.1

rL
0.2

10 12 14 16 18
"I 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Time elapsed betwenn charging events (gap times) hours SOC at start of charging event

0.Q18
0.06
__ distance ootween charging events(when non zero)

__ average speed(instaces below 10kmlhourare exluded)

0.Q16
__ frt(Burr distribution)
0.05

0.Q14

0.Q12
0.04

0.01

f
0
0.008
f
0
0.03

0.006 0.02

0.004

0.Q1

0.002

140 160 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Distance between charging events km (when non zero) Average speed between charging events kmlhour (intances below 10kmlhour are excluded)

Fig. 1. Distributions of intercharging times and monitored vehicle variables between charing events

From a questionnaire that was administered to the main In the empirical estimation of the hazard model the effects
drivers of the EVs as part of Low carbon London trial a of the following main drivers' attributes were tested: gender,
number of drivers' attributes were available, including: basic age, typical EV use purpose and a range anxiety indicator. Fig.
demographics and information regarding typical EV use 2 shows sununary statistics for these variables.
purposes and well as indicators of their range anxiety level.

978-1-5090-1272-5/16/$31.00 2016 IEEE

481
2016 IEEE Transportation Electrification Conference and Expo, Asia-Pacific (ITEC)
June 1 -4, 2016, Busan, Korea

Drivers' demographics Main non-work purpose of

Use of EVto EVUse
16 Commute

'1
14
12
10

6
8
.Male

Female

o +-........
... ---....-
... ....L,
...
4
2
0+---
26-45 46+
Age

Range Anxiety Indicator

Imagine you have to undertake a journey with your EV
along a FAMILIAR ROUTE and a charging facility is
available ONLY AT DESTINATION. What is the
MINIMUM RANGE you would depart with if the journey
were 20 miles long?
15
!!!
Q)
:o
<v
::l 5
z

o
30-35 36-40 41-50 More

Fig. 2. Distribution of driver's characteritics and their stated typical EV use patterns

III. HAZARD FUNCTION ESTIMATION'S RESUSLTS
We estimate two specifications for the hazard function.
Specification one uses as time dependent variables the
cwnulative driving distance and the cwnulative average speed
over the duration of the time interval between charging events.
Specification two uses the SOC value instead. The reason why
we use separate specifications is that the SOC level is related to
both the previous variables. Indeed cumulative distance and
SOC are significantly albeit not so strongly correlated in our
sample (corr. coefficient -0.6 p value 0.00), whereas the
correlation of SOC with the cumulative average speed is very
small but significantly different from zero (corr. coefficient -
0.2 P value 0.00). Testing the two specifications enables
understanding whether the two driving variables or the
sununary SOC indicator give a better fit. Both specifications
one and specification two include as fixed (i.e. non time
dependent) explanatory variables main drivers characteristics
and typical EV usage patterns as stated by drivers themselves
as well as the range anxiety indicator reported in Fig. 2.
Tables 1 and 2 show the estimates of the covariate effects
on the hazard function for specifications one and two
respectively.

TABLE!. HAZARD FUNCTION - SPECIFICATION ONE

Variable coef exp(coef) st. error (coef) robust st. error (coef) z stat p value
Cum. distance
0.02 1 1.02 1 0.002 0.004 5.743 9.30E-09
Cum. average speed
0.033 1.034 0.003 0.005 6.5 14 7.30E-ll
Main driver female
0.002 1.002 0. 154 0.296 0.006 1.00E+00
Main driver aged <=45
-0.472 0.624 0. 148 0.3 13 - 1.509 l.30E-01
Range Anxiety Ind.
-0.029 0.97 1 0.005 0.008 -3.685 2.30E-04
Use EV to go to work
-0.492 0.6 12 0.09 1 0.233 -2. 1 15 3.40E-02
Use EV to go to School
-0.449 0.639 0.243 0. 187 -2.393 I.70E-02
N. of observations 9 155 (i.e. measurements of the time dependent variables);N. of charging events 600; N. of vehiclesidrivers 20; Likelihood ratio test=429 on 7 df.

978-1-5090-1272-5/16/$31.00 2016 IEEE

482
2016 IEEE Transportation Electrification Conference and Expo, Asia-Pacific (ITEC)
June 1 -4, 2016, Busan, Korea
TABLE IT.
Variable coef exp(coef)
SOC %
-0.065 0.937
Main driver female
0.292 1.339
Main driver aged <=45
- 1.397 0.247
Range Anxiety Ind.
-0.044 0.957
Use EV to go to work
-0.489 0.6 13
Use EV to go to School
-0.474 0.623
N. of observations 9 155 (i.e. measurements of the time dependent variables);N. of charging events 600; N. of vehiclesidrivers 20; Likelihood ratio test=886 on 6 df
From specification one' s estimation result we observe that
both cumulative distance and average speed have significant
effects on the hazard function (i.e. the instantaneous charging
event rate). Amongst the fixed effects included in the
specification above gender and age are not significant.
Specification two more than doubles the likelihood ratio
showing that using SOC instead of distance and speed greatly
increases the goodness of fit. However in specification two the
significance of typical EV use purpose is reduced, while
drivers 'age become significant. The variability in significance
of the drivers' characteristics in the two specifications is
expected given that the sample of drivers is very small (only
20). However it is reassuring to note that the signs of the
effects are stable over the two specifications.
The significant effects (p.value <=0.05) in the two
specifications are more easily interpreted looking at the
exponential of the estimated models' parameters. The
exponential of a coefficient represents the hazard ratio for the
corresponding predictor variable. By subtracting one from this
from this ratio one obtains the relative variation of the hazard
give one unit of change of the predictor. Thus the significant
effects in specification one can be interpreted as flows:
An increase by one unit in travelling distance (i.e. an
increase by 1 km) increases the instantaneous risk of a
charging event by 2%;
An increase by one unit in travelling speed (i.e. an increase
by 1 kmlhour) increases the instantaneous risk of a
charging event by 3%;
An increase by 1 unit of the range anxiety indicator (the
unit of such indicator is miles, see Fig. 2), leads to a 3%
decrease in the instantaneous charging rate.
Habitual EV Commuters have an instantaneous charging
event rate 39% lower than the others;
Those drivers using the EV for education purposes have an
instantaneous charging event rate 36% lower than the
others;
Given that the specification two shows the best fit, we consider
it as our main model and we thus interpret comment more in
depth the corresponding results:
An increase by one unit in the observed SOC level leads to
a 6% decrease in the charging event instantaneous risk of a
charging event occurring;
978-1-5090-1272-5/16/$31.00 2016 IEEE
HAZARD FUNCTION - SPEClFlCATlON TWO
st. error (coef) robust st. error (coef) z stat p value
0.003 0.005 - 12. 167 0.000
0. 166 0.447 0.654 0.5 10
0. 159 0.423 -3.300 0.00 1
0.006 O.ot5 -3.054 0.002
0.094 0.3 19 - 1.537 0. 120
0.247 0.300 - 1.58 1 0. 1 10
Main drivers aged 45 or younger have an instantaneous
charging event rate 75% lower than older drivers;
An increase by 1 unit of the range anxiety indicator (the
unit of such indicator is miles, see Fig. 2), leads to a 4%
decrease in the instantaneous charging rate.
The fust two observations in the list above seem
reasonable, but the last may appear counterintuitive. Indeed
one would expect that having higher battery levels reduces the
risk of occurrence of changing event. We may also expect that
younger people, more prone to errands may charge more
erratically and less frequently than older individuals that are
more likely to have regular patterns enabling them to top-up
their EV battery each night. However, one would expect that
individuals more inclined to rage anxiety would charge more
frequently, not less as these results seem to suggest. One could
speculate that individuals who are more affected by range
anxiety tend to use their vehicle less frequently and charge it
only before they use it. However such hypothesis would need
to be tested further.
In general, the effects of drivers characteristics obtained
here should be interpreted cautiously because of the sample
drivers sample at hand. Rather than consider them conclusive,
one should interpret them as warnings when developing a
predictive model for time-time-to-charging event. Individual
characteristics may play a substantive role and if data regarding
drivers is available in addition to SOC and driving information
feeds from vehicles, their substantive effect should be tested.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
This paper, for the fust time to the authors' knowledge, has
used hazard-based duration analysis with time dependent
covariates to analyse real world charging behaviour with the
aim to identify possible predictors for the dynamic prediction
of time-to charging events. The motivation for working
towards such prediction models lies in the necessity for
charging service providers to be able to reliably predict the
timing of charging demand for effective participation in
electricity markets.
The estimated parameters of the hazard model of gap times
between EV charging events show that the time path of a
vehicle state of charge as well as its cumulative distance and
average speed are strong predictors of the instantaneous rate of
charging events. Drivers characteristics were also found
affecting the risk of charging events.
483
2016 IEEE Transportation Electrification Conference and Expo, Asia-Pacific (ITEC)
June 1 -4, 2016, Busan, Korea

The implication of the findings in this study are that a
predictive system for the "time to charging event" should
ideally capture and use instantaneous vehicles parameters (e.g.
sate of charge and cumulative driving distances) but should not
neglect other "modulating factors", such as drivers'
demographics or range anxiety. In order to test how substantive
are such modulating factors in prediction, larger drivers'
sample need to be adopted. As EVs adoption rates are steadily
increasing, such data will be increasingly easier to obtain
without need of ad hoc electric vehicle trials. As next step of
the present work we intend to investigate how substantively
important individual characteristics are in prediction and thus
whether it is worth investing effort to collect the associated
data in an operational implementation.
approach for charging service provider," Transportation Research
Record, vol. Forthcoming,2015.
[ 13] S. Zoepf,D. MacKenzie, D. Keith, and W. Chernicoff, "Charging
Choices and Fuel Displacement in a Large-Scale Demonstration of
Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles," Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, vol. 2385,
pp. 1- 10, 12/0 11 2013.
[ 14] N. Daina,A. Sivakumar,and 1. Polak, "Patent and latent predictors
of electric vehicle charging behaviour," Transportation Research
Record, vol. Forthcoming,2015.
[ 15] R. J. a. Cook, "The Statistical Analysis of Recurrent Events," in
Statistics for Biology and Health, F. L. a. Jerald and SpringerLink,
Eds.,ed,2007.
[ 16] T. M. Therneau, P. M. Grambsch, and V. S. Pankratz, "Penalized
Survival Models and Frailty," Journal of Computational and
Graphical Statistics, vol. 12,pp. 156- 175,2003.

[ 17] 1. M. Wooldridge, Econometric analysis of cross section and panel

ACKNOWLEDGMENT data, 2nd ed. Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press,2010.

We thank UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research

Council for supporting this work under awards EP/LOO1 03911
and EP/I03883711 and UK Power Networks for providing the
EV charging datasets used for the analysis.

REFERENCES

[ 1] lEA, "Technology Roadmaps. Electric and plug-in hybrid electric

vehicles. Updated 20 1 1.," International Energy Agency20 1 1.
[2] W. Kempton and S. E. Letendre, "Electric vehicles as a new power
source for electric utilities," Transportation Research Part D:
Transport and Environment, vol. 2,pp. 157-175, 1997.

[3] W. Kempton and J. Tomic, "Vehicle-to-grid power

implementation: From stabilizing the grid to supporting large-scale
renewable energy," Journal of Power Sources, vol. 144, pp. 280-
294,2005.
[4] C. Quinn, D. Zimmerle, and T. H. Bradley, "The effect of
communication architecture on the availability, reliability, and
economics of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle-to-grid ancillary
services," Journal of Power Sources, vol. 195, pp. 1500-1509,
2010.
[5] R. 1. Bessa and M. A. Matos, "Economic and technical
management of an aggregation agent for electric vehicles: a
literature survey," European Transactions on Electrical Power,
vol. 22,pp. 334-350,20 12.
[6] R. J. Bessa and M. A. Matos, "Global against divided optimization
for the participation of an EV aggregator in the day-ahead
electricity market. Part I: Theory," Electric Power Systems
Research, 2012.

[7] R. J. Bessa and M. A. Matos, "Global against divided optimization

for the participation of an EV aggregator in the day-ahead
electricity market. Part 11: Numerical analysis," Electric Power
Systems Research, 20 12.

[8] A. P. Robinson, P. T. Blythe, M. C. Bell, Y. HUbner, and G. A.

Hill, "Analysis of electric vehicle driver recharging demand
profiles and subsequent impacts on the carbon content of electric
vehicle trips," Energy Policy, vol. 6 1,pp. 337-348, 101/ 2013.
[9] T. Franke and 1. F. Krems, "Interacting with limited mobility
resources: Psychological range levels in electric vehicle use,"
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 48, pp.
109-122,2013.
[ 10] T. Franke and J. F. Krems, "Understanding charging behaviour of
electric vehicle users," Transportation Research Part F: Traf
f ic
Psychology and Behaviour, vol. 2 1,pp. 75-89, 1 1112013.

[ 1 1] N. Daina, "Modelling electric vehicle use and charging behaviour,"

PhD thesis,Civil and environmental engineering,Imperial College
London,London,2014.
[ 12] c. Latinopoulos, 1. Polak, and A. Sivakumar, "Joint charging and
parking choices of electric vehicle drivers: Decentralized control

978-1-5090-1272-5/16/$31.00 2016 IEEE

484