electronics

Review
An Overview of Electric Vehicle Load Modeling Strategies for
Grid Integration Studies
Anny Huaman-Rivera , Ricardo Calloquispe-Huallpa , Adriana C. Luna Hernandez * and Agustin Irizarry-Rivera

Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez,

Mayaguez, PR 00680, USA; [email protected] (A.H.-R.); [email protected] (R.C.-H.);
[email protected] (A.I.-R.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) has emerged as a solution to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions in the transportation sector, which has motivated the implementation of public policies
to promote their use in several countries. However, the high adoption of EVs poses challenges for
the electricity sector, as it would imply an increase in energy demand and possible impacts on the
power quality (PQ) of the power grid. Therefore, it is important to conduct EV integration studies
in the power grid to determine the amount that can be incorporated without causing problems and
identify the areas of the power sector that will require reinforcements. Accurate EV load patterns
are required for this type of study that, through mathematical modeling, reflect both the dynamic
behavior and the factors that influence the decision to recharge EVs. This article aims to present an
overview of EVs, examine the different factors considered in the literature for modeling EV load
patterns, and review modeling methods. EV load modeling methods are classified into deterministic,
statistical, and machine learning. The article shows that each modeling method has its advantages,
disadvantages, and data requirements, ranging from simple load modeling to more accurate models
requiring large datasets.

Keywords: electric vehicles; load modeling; deterministic; statistical; machine learning

Citation: Huaman-Rivera, A.;
Calloquispe-Huallpa, R.;
Luna Hernandez, A.C.; Irizarry-Rivera,
A. An Overview of Electric Vehicle 1. Introduction
Load Modeling Strategies for Grid
As the Earth experiences a steady rise in temperature due to the accumulation of
Integration Studies. Electronics 2024,
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it has become imperative that we seek solutions to
13, 2259. https://doi.org/10.3390/
reduce emissions of large amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2 ). The transportation sector is
electronics13122259
currently one of the largest contributors to global CO2 emissions [1]. In this context, electric
Academic Editors: Mohsen Ebadpour vehicles (EVs) have emerged as a promising alternative that could lead to a more sustainable
and Naser Vosoughi future. Because, unlike traditional cars that run on internal combustion engines (ICEs) that
Received: 15 April 2024
use fossil fuels, EVs employ electric batteries to store energy and electric motors [2]. For this
Revised: 3 June 2024
reason, several countries are promoting the use of EVs by introducing economic subsidies
Accepted: 6 June 2024 for purchase, the development of charging stations, and other economic instruments [3].
Published: 8 June 2024 For example, in European countries such as Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, and the
United Kingdom, EVs receive purchase subsidies and are exempt from property taxes [4].
In the United States, California has the Zero-Emissions Vehicle Action Plan program, which
includes rebates for EV purchase or lease, as well as access to dedicated lanes, and charging
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. corridors [3].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Despite the various benefits and efforts for EV adoption, the increased adoption of
This article is an open access article EVs poses new challenges to the power sector due to increased power demand, which
distributed under the terms and
could lead to power quality (PQ) problems in the grids [5]. PQ problems can include
conditions of the Creative Commons
the introduction of harmonics, undervoltage, phase unbalance, and increased power loss
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
in the transformer and distribution lines [6]. Moreover, these problems are not only
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
dependent on the level of EV adoption but are also related to factors such as EV charging
4.0/).

Electronics 2024, 13, 2259. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13122259 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/electronics

Electronics 2024, 13, 2259 2 of 23

technology, grid voltage level, charging time and schedule, location of charging stations,
battery state of charge, and driving habits [7]. For example, Ref. [8] analyzes the effect
of EV state of charge on harmonic distortion during the charging process. It was found
that the total harmonic distortion (THD) increases as the EV battery approaches 100%
charge. On the other hand, in [6] they identified that the increased penetration of EVs
at the distribution level in Bangladesh is related to the occurrence of harmonics, voltage
fluctuations, and power losses.
Several studies have combined EV-related factors to establish EV load patterns. This
makes it possible to analyze how the incorporation of EVs into the electric grid can influence
PQ. As an example, in [9], the PQ issues posed by EV charging are studied. During the
analysis, the authors recreate EV load patterns over a day, taking into account factors such as
load current level, harmonic distortion caused by the load, and temperatures in winter and
summer. When comparing the load patterns, a large difference is observed due to the factors
considered. Similarly, in [10] they present load patterns for a commercial, residential, and
public area, showing how the habits of the inhabitants determine these patterns. To identify
and search for solutions to PQ problems, the literature proposes the analysis of the hosting
capacity (HC) of electric vehicles (EVs). HC is generally defined as the amount of new
load or generation that can be connected on a feeder without jeopardizing the reliability or
PQ of the power system [11]. The research conducted in [12,13] presents a comprehensive
review of the various methods for analyzing EV hosting capacity. A methodology for
evaluating EV hosting capacity in a 123-node IEEE system, taking into account EV load
patterns in commercial, residential, and public locations, is shown in [10]. The hosting
capacity study helps elucidate the problems that may arise due to the increase in EV
penetration and proposes solutions based on this. The literature considers solutions ranging
from grid reconfiguration, use of renewable resources such as photovoltaic and wind
systems, and improved EV chargers. For example, in [14], it is proposed to optimize feeder
reconfiguration by using genetic algorithms (GAs) to maximize EV hosting capacity.
In order to carry out all the studies mentioned above, it is essential to understand
and have EV load patterns. As it is known, EVs have a dynamic behavior, influenced by
various factors that determine when an EV is charged. In addition, the driving patterns,
the uncertainty as to the time and place of charging, and the total energy demand of EVs
in a given area are constantly developing in a random manner [15]. Figure 1 shows this
random behavior of EVs interacting with the power grid. To address these problems,
current EV research focuses on model-based impact analyses of load patterns and control
strategies. Therefore, the development of mathematical modeling of EV load patterns
becomes a key aspect that will allow scientists to conduct more realistic studies to forecast
energy demand and propose solutions to problems that may arise [5]. Various methods
for modeling EV charging demand are proposed in the literature, and each of them has
individual characteristics.
For instance, in [16] a modeling approach based on Markov chains and probability
distributions is used with historical vehicle charging data. On the other hand, in [17] they
investigate the performance of static and dynamic charging models used in electrical system
studies for EV load modeling. The results show that static modeling adequately represents
the steady-state load of EVs, while dynamic modeling fails to adequately capture their
behavior in the presence of disturbances. In [18], they investigate how EV charging demand
affects the power grid and examine the factors influencing this demand, considering EV
charging models through the Monte Carlo method, using the 2009 U.S. National Travel
Survey as a database. However, the authors in [5] combine artificial neural networks,
recurrent neural networks, and short- and long-term memories to model EV loads, using a
dataset from a total of 20,562 random transactions at a charging station. Accordingly, each
method requires varied initial data, where different factors can be considered and classified
according to criteria, such as the temporal/spatial dimension or the nature of the input
data, as discussed in [15,19].
Electronics 2024, 13, 2259 3 of 23

Power generation
and transmission
Urban area

EV
Charging stations

Office area
P

Commercial area
EV Charging Center

Figure 1. Interaction of EVs with the power grid.

In this overview, data influencing the modeling of EV load patterns are addressed.
Then, existing EV load modeling methods are reviewed and classified into three main
groups: deterministic, statistical, and machine learning techniques. The rest of the paper is
organized as follows: Section 2 contextualizes EVs, while Section 3 presents the different
input factors used for EV load modeling, and Section 4 classifies, describes, and compares
the different EV load modeling methods. Finally, Section 6 presents the conclusions.

2. Background on EVs
The history of EVs dates to the 19th century, when the first electric automobiles
prototypes emerged thanks to Robert Anderson [3]. However, their use and development
declined with the growing popularity of vehicles powered by ICEs. For much of the 20th
century, EVs were relegated to limited roles, such as golf carts and delivery vehicles [20].
However, in 2010 Nissan Leaf, the first mass-produced electric car, was launched. Tesla,
founded in the same period, marked a major milestone in electric mobility, launching its
Roadster and Model S models, backed by a network of superchargers [3]. Today, EVs have
become an increasingly popular alternative to conventional vehicles, driven by the need to
reduce pollution and lower acquisition costs.
There are four types of EVs on the market, as shown in Figure 2, although only two
of them require a connection to the electric grid for operation. Hybrid electric vehicles
(HEVs) are configured with a combination of an ICE, a battery, and an electric motor [2].
The battery of this type of vehicle is charged by regenerative braking so it does not require
charging. For this reason, these types of vehicles do not generate any negative impact on
the electrical grid [21].
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) have an ICE, a battery, and an electric motor
similar to HEVs. The batteries can be charged in the same way as HEVs or from an external
source [22]. This type of EV usually has a smaller battery, so its impact and ability to
provide grid services is limited [23]. However, higher penetration levels of PHEV charging
may result in PQ impacts.
Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) are fully electric vehicles and have no ICE; they are
propelled by one or more electric motors powered by a series of batteries [21]. The range of
BEVs depends on the capacity of their batteries. Additionally, they can be charged during
EV deceleration and braking [24]. These types of EVs have the largest battery capacity and
their charging can have severe negative impacts on the electrical system. However, their
ability to provide services to the electrical grid is greater than other EVs [25].
Electronics 2024, 13, 2259 4 of 23

Battery Eletric Vehicles Plug-in Hybrid Eletric Vehicles Hybrid Electric Vehicle Full Cell Electric Vehicle
(BEV) (PHEV) (HEV) (FCEV)

ICE ICE
Regenerative Regenerative Regenerative Regenerative
Breking Breking Breking Breking

Electric Electric Electric Electric

Motor Motor Motor Motor

Battery Battery Battery Battery

Hidrogen Fuel
Fuel Tank Oil Oil Fuel Tank H
tank cell

Figure 2. Basic schemes of different types of EVs (modified from [3,21]). Internal combustion
engine (ICE).

Fuel-cell electric vehicles (FCEVs), on the other hand, use hydrogen as fuel. In it,
the hydrogen releases electrons that circulate through fuel cells, thus providing energy
to the engines [2]. This type of EV will not impact the electrical system since it does not
require recharge from the distribution system [21].
PHEVs and BEVs require electric chargers to charge their batteries. Chargers consist
of an AC/DC converter, power factor correction elements, and a DC/DC converter [26].
The most common standard for EV charger classification is the SAE J1772 [27] system,
which defines three charging levels for both AC and DC, levels I, II, and III, as shown in
Table 1. Each of them has different power levels and charging times, making them suitable
for different situations and user needs [28,29].

Table 1. Load-level characteristics according to SAE J1772 [28,29].

Type of Charge Supplied Voltage Range Output Power Level Estimated Charge Time
AC Level I 120 V <1.92 kW 7–17 h
AC Level II 208–240 V <19.2 kW 0.4–7 h
AC Level III 208–240 V <96 kW <0.5 h
DC Level I 200–450 V <36 kW 0.4–1.2 h
DC Level II 200–450 V <90 kW 0.2–0.4 h
DC Level III 200–600 V <240 kW 0.1–0.2 h

The current ratings of all DC charge levels and AC level III are very high (greater than
80 A). Therefore, the current cannot be supplied by the distribution grid. This charging
level is mostly used for public charging stations. AC level I and II charging stations are
suitable for residential applications [24].

3. Input Data Used For EV Load Modeling

This section details the input factors in EV load modeling. The inherent complexity
in EV load modeling stems from the existence of random spatial and temporal input
variables [15]. Figure 3 summarizes these input variables found in the literature for EV
load modeling.
The relevant factors in EV load modeling can be classified into two groups: direct
and indirect factors. The direct factors are intricately linked to electric vehicles, charging
infrastructure, and users [15]. Individual EVs have technological variations, such as EV
model, battery capacity, charging power, and range, among others [20]. These individual EV
particularities directly influence the scale of charging demand. In addition, the charging and
mobility patterns of users have a significant influence on EV load modeling. The charging
infrastructure also plays a crucial role, with differences in charging time depending on
Electronics 2024, 13, 2259 5 of 23

whether charging takes place at residences (where it tends to be slower) or at charging

centers (where charging is faster, but with specific times and locations).
On the other hand, indirect factors are related to external events that are beyond the
control of EV owners. Examples of these factors include weather conditions, where extreme
temperatures may increase the use of heating or air conditioning, thus impacting the
consumption of energy stored in EVs. Other indirect factors include government incentives
and environmental regulations, which may influence EV usage decisions [30].

Direct factor

Individual EV Residential charging EV charging station

Distance travel Arrival/ charging

(Mileage) patter Time service

Battery
character(capacity, Arrival/Departure
initial SoC) time Inter-arrival time

Travel time Numbers of users

Customer arrival
Charging power Charging duration patter

Indirect factor

Meteorological Day of the week

Traffic conditions
condition (time of day)

Attractive factors
Charging station (subsidy policy, emission
reduction, price of CV, fuel price, Charging price
location
parking price)

Figure 3. Factors related to EV load modeling (modified from [15,20,30]).

In summary, EV charging is influenced by factors that result in dynamic characteristics

in load demand modeling. Compared to conventional loads, modeling EV loads presents
unique particularities and specific challenges. These challenges focus on accurately repre-
senting the relationships between factors, such as distance traveled and EV battery state of
charge (SoC), or the mathematical expressions that relate these factors. It aims to explore
the dynamics of these factors that influence load modeling. Traditional methods often have
significant limitations in representing these factors with their dynamic characteristics [15].
Some of the most common factors used in the literature are detailed below.

3.1. Battery
The EV battery is closely related to the energy demand during its charging process.
The literature on EV load pattern modeling contains information on battery capacity and
other technical specifications of EV batteries. For example, in [31], they use and present
a table with various EV models intended for different uses, along with their respective
battery capacities and charging powers. Lithium-ion (Li-Ion) is the most commonly used
battery type in EVs because it offers greater safety, long life, and stable charge/discharge
cycles [32]. EV batteries are still being developed and improved, and other materials are
being explored. For example, lithium metal batteries can store more energy in the same
volume or weight as Li-Ion, but they are less safe than Li-Ion batteries [33]. In addition,
some EVs combine technologies, such as the Toyota Bz4x, which has nickel–metal hydride
batteries with Li-Ion. Table 2 presents different models of electric vehicles along with a
description of the characteristics of the batteries they use.
Electronics 2024, 13, 2259 6 of 23

Table 2. Battery characteristics of different EV models on the market [24,32].

Battery Capacity Range Charging Time

Brand Model Battery Type Type of Charge
(kWh) (km) (0–80%)
Renault Twizzy Li-Ion 6.1 80 3.5 h 220 V AC
Renault Zoe Li-Ion 52 395 1h DC fast
Hyundai IONIQ 5 Li-Ion 72.6 451 61 min DC fast
Hyundai Kona Electric Li-Ion 64 484 54 min DC fast
Nissan Leaf Li-Ion 30 270 40–60 min DC fast
VW E-Golf Li-Ion 24.2 150 45 min DC fast
Tesla S Li-Ion 100 610 30 min Supercharger
Chevrolet Bolt EV Li-Ion 66 416 1h DC fast
Toyota Bz4x Nickel–metal hydride/Li-Ion 71.4 450 30 min DC fast

On the other hand, one of the most commonly employed factors for modeling EV
load patterns is the state of charge (SoC). The SoC plays a crucial role in energy demand,
as the recharge time and the amount of energy required upon arrival at a charging station
are directly dependent on this state. SoC is a factor that evolves over time or as miles are
driven. These factors are interrelated and can be derived from mathematical formulas.
For example, in [34] the authors calculate the battery SoC of an EV after one day of driving
as follows:
d
SoC t = (SoC t−1 − ) × 100 (1)
D
where SoC t and SoC t−1 are the SoC of the battery at the end of the day and start of the day,
respectively, d is the distance traveled during the day, and D is the maximum distance the
EV can travel.
The SoC can also be calculated by [35]

Edemand
SoC desired = SoCinit + (2)
CB

where SoC desired refers to the desired battery state to travel a certain number of kilometers,
SoCinit is the SoC at the start of charging, CB is the EV battery capacity, and Edemand refers
to the energy demanded during charging by the EV. The energy demand can also be
determined by [36]

Edemand = PC η∆t (3)

where PC is the charging power capacity, η represents the charging efficiency, and ∆t is
the charging time. Another important parameter is the battery charging time, discussed
in [31,36]. It is calculated by

(SoC out − SoCin )CB

∆t = (4)
PC

where SoCin and SoC out are the SoC of the battery at the beginning and end of the charge.
The charging power (PC ) can also be represented by the battery charging current, Ib ,
as exemplified in [37]. This is because the battery capacity can be expressed in kW/h or
ampere-hours (Ah).
Additionally, the SoC can be derived from a set of assumptions, as described in [16],
where the maximum depth of discharge of the battery is stated to be 30%, a constraint to
limit the EV state of charge at the start of charging.

3.2. Distance Traveled

EV user behavior plays a crucial role in modeling EV charging, and this approach
is widely employed in research. Information on travel patterns can be obtained through
Electronics 2024, 13, 2259 7 of 23

travel surveys or estimated data (which often require additional statistical analyses) and
worldwide traffic patterns (which are obtained from pilot experiments or GPS navigation
data), as mentioned in [5]. For the most part, the studies use variables such as daily
distances traveled, energy consumption per mile, and trip length, either from estimated
data or actual records. When accurate data are not available, it is common to resort to travel
surveys as a surrogate source of information. For example, Ref. [38] reports that in Austria,
an EV typically travels an average of 32 km per day.
On the other hand, it is possible to determine the energy demand per mile driven
through historical data or surveys that suggest a maximum energy consumption of
17 kWh/100 km in the winter and a minimum of 15 kWh/100 km in the summer. A similar
approach is found in [16], which considers a constant energy consumption in the range of
0.15–0.30 kWh/km, depending on the distance traveled.

3.3. Weather
The charging demand of EVs can be correlated with temperature due to their thermal
sensitivity, which implies that fluctuations in temperature impact the energy demand in the
grid [5]. Therefore, this indirect factor is considered when modeling EV load. For example,
in [9], different demand profiles of an EV in winter and summer are presented. In addition,
maximum energy consumption data of 17 kWh/100 km in winter and a minimum of
15 kWh/100 km in summer are used to estimate the electrical demand of EVs [38].

3.4. Day
In many studies, time variables are an important factor. The literature often focuses
on modeling EV charging demand for a weekday, although some compare differences
between weekdays and weekends, as in [39]. On the other hand, in [5], the modeling and
prediction of the weekly demand profile is addressed, highlighting the daily variations
in EV charging. In summary, it is possible to obtain different EV load demand models by
considering different time intervals. A comprehensive approach could involve modeling
EV charging demand over a year.

4. EV Load Modeling Methods

This section addresses EV load modeling. The results of these models can be based on
measurements at EV charging stations, or linked to factors such as EV arrival/departure
times, charging duration, and distance traveled, among others. With this information, it is
possible to reconstruct the demand required by EVs. Mathematical modeling of any event,
such as EV demand, follows a formulation process or model building, depicted in Figure 4.

Real - world Mathematical

Formulate
data model

Verification Analysis

Real World
Mathematical
explanations or Interpretation
solution
prediction

Figure 4. Steps of the mathematical modeling process (modified from [40]).

In addition, details on the strengths, weaknesses, and requirements of each model-

ing approach are provided. According to the articles included in this review, EV load
models can be grouped into three categories: deterministic methods, statistical methods,
and artificial intelligence-based methods.
Electronics 2024, 13, 2259 8 of 23

4.1. Deterministic Methods

Deterministic methods for EV load modeling assume that specific EV parameters are
known. Simple mathematical models that relate power and voltage at the load bus are
employed. These mathematical models are divided into static and dynamic models [41].
The methodology used for deterministic modeling of EVs loads is shown in Figure 5.
Static modeling expresses the load characteristics by algebraic functions at any instant
of time. These load models are generally used to calculate the steady-state behavior of
loads [17]. On the other hand, dynamic load modeling is an extension of static load model-
ing used to capture and represent disturbances similar to faster phenomena, e.g., analysis
of power system behavior after small or large disturbances. Dynamic models express active
and reactive powers as a union of voltage and time [17,41].

EV Fast Charging Station Objective Function

Simulation measurement

Dependent var.
Real measurement Measured data
Pmeas
Meter AC/DC DC/DC

Independent var.

Load Model Optimization Algorithm

Estimated data
Static load models
Pestim
Dynamic load models

Updated load model Tabu search Algorithm

parameters cftool - Matlab (curve fitting
tool)

Figure 5. Methodology for deterministic modeling of EV loads (modified from [42]).

The most commonly used types of static and dynamic load modeling in EV modeling
include exponential static load models, polynomial static load models, and exponential
recovery dynamic loading models.
• The exponential static load model (EXP) can be represented by
 α
P V
= (5)
P0 V0
 β
Q V
= (6)
Q0 V0
where the variables P0 , Q0 , and V0 are rated active power, rated reactive power,
and rated voltage, respectively, while α and β are the unknown model parameters.
There is a modification of this equation, known as constant power plus exponential
model (PEXP), where a constant variable is added to the exponential load model,
as follows:
 α
P V
= p1 + p2 (7)
P0 V0

Another modification of the exponent model is the linear exponential model (LEXP),
as shown:
   α
P V V
= p1 + p2 (8)
P0 V0 V0
Electronics 2024, 13, 2259 9 of 23

• The polynomial static load model (ZIP) can be expressed as

 2  
P V V
= p1 + p2 + p3 (9)
P0 V0 V0
 2  
Q V V
= q1 + q2 + q3 (10)
Q0 V0 V0
where p1 , p2 , and p3 are the unknown parameters of the model as well as q1 , q2 , and q3 .
• The exponential recovery dynamic load model (ERL) represents the active and reactive
power responses to staggered bus voltage disturbances. This model is commonly used
to represent loads that recover slowly over time, ranging from several seconds to tens
of minutes [41].
  as   at
dPr V V
Tp + Pr = P0 − P0 (11)
dt V0 V0
  at
V
P1 = Pr + P0 (12)
V0
where Pr is a state variable related to active and reactive power dynamics, Tp is the
exponential recovery response time constant, while as and at are exponents related to
the transient load response.
In [42], a static modeling approach is discussed based on current and active power mea-
surements at an electric vehicle (EV) charging station. The ZIP, EXPO, PEXPO, and LEXP
models are evaluated to accurately represent EV charging, showing that the LEXP and
EXP models are the most suitable. In [43], the impact of EV charging on the power grid is
explored by evaluating loads with voltage variations under different ZIP, PEXP, and EXP
charging models. The results indicate that each EV charging model have a different impact
on the IEEE 34-bar study system. The ZIP, PEXP, and EXP methods have a higher, medium,
and lower impact, respectively. This highlights the importance of selecting more realistic
EV load models, as this significantly influences the network analysis results. On the other
hand, in [17], static and dynamic models describe the behavior of EV chargers. Initial simu-
lations used static charging models, such as ZIP and EXP, demonstrating their effectiveness.
However, simulations with the ERL dynamic charging model highlighted the significant
influence of control parameters on the dynamic response of EV chargers, questioning the
ability of standard models to adequately capture the dynamic behavior of EVs. In [44],
the PEXP model is applied in power flow analysis, revealing a direct correlation between
EV charging and voltage stability as the rated charging power of EVs increases.
From the literature, it can be concluded that deterministic methods can be valuable
for infrastructure planning and power flow analysis in situations with robust data and
accurate steady-state assumptions. However, such methods do not address the variability
and uncertainty inherent in human behavior and electric vehicle adoption.

4.2. Statistical Methods

Statistical methods for EV load modeling are used to understand and predict how
EV load demand varies as a function of the factors described in Section 3. These methods
leverage statistical techniques, such as probabilistic distributions and stochastic processes,
to analyze historical data and generate demand models that can aid in EV charging infras-
tructure planning and grid management [19,24].
In the statistical methods approach, probability density functions (PDFs) can be ap-
plied to represent and quantify uncertainty in EV-related data or events, such as charging
duration, distance traveled, and availability of charging points [35]. In [18,31], researchers
represent daily distance traveled and charging start time with a normal distribution. Simi-
larly, in [38], a normal distribution is used to represent the start time of the first and second
trip, assuming an average of two trips per day. On the other hand, in [31], the maximum
Electronics 2024, 13, 2259 10 of 23

distance traveled is represented by a log-normal distribution. However, Ref. [45] indi-

cates that standard single-mode probability distributions (e.g., normal distribution) are
unrepresentative of real situations. Therefore, it is more appropriate to formulate a multi-
mode representation, such as a beta probability distribution, to represent the charging start
time. Figure 6 briefly describes the most commonly used probability distributions in EV
load modeling.
Probability distributions rely heavily on historical data to determine which best repre-
sent observed behavior. For instance, historical data are used in a study that relies on motor
vehicle traffic surveys in Australia [38], while the Elaad database provides aggregated data
from public, private, and workplace charging stations in the Netherlands [45]. Likewise,
the KOSTAT database provides EV information for South Korea [46].
Stochastic methods are based on stochastic process theory, which means that they
consider the randomness and variability of events over time [19]. These methods may in-
clude event simulation and modeling of evolving systems with random components. Often
based on event simulations, they do not necessarily require detailed historical data as they
make use of PDFs [35]. They can be useful when limited information is available or when
different future scenarios are to be explored. The most commonly used stochastic modeling
methods include Monte Carlo, Markov chain theory, and autoregressive integrated moving
average (ARIMA).
[AutoFakeSlant,AutoFakeBold]TeX Gyre Pagella Asana Math
f (x; µ, σ 2 ) f (x; µ, σ 2 ) f (x; α, β)
Normal 1.5 1 Log-normal 3 Beta
α = 0.1; β = 0.1
0.8
α = 1; β = 1
1 2
0.6 α = 2; β = 2
0.4 α = 1; β = 5
0.5 1
0.2 α = 5; β = 5

x x x
−4 −3 −2 −1 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

(x−µ)2 (ln x−µ)2 xα−1 (1−x)β−1

f (x; µ, σ 2 ) = √1 e− 2σ 2 f (x; µ, σ 2 ) = 1
√ e− 2σ 2 f (x; α, β) = B(α,β)
σ 2π xσ 2π
f (x; λ, k) f (k; x) f (k; λt)
Weibull Binomial Poisson
λ = 1; k = 1
1 0.2 0.2
λ = 1; k = 2
λ = 2; k = 3
0.5 λ = 1; k = 3 0.1 0.1

x x x
1 2 3 4 5 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

n

k
k x k−1 −(x/λ)k f (k; x) = p (1 − p)n−k (λt)k e−λt
f (x; λ, k) = λ λ
e k f (k; λt) = k!

Figure 6. Probability distributions and their PDFs to model the factors affecting EV load modeling.

4.2.1. Monte Carlo

The Monte Carlo method (MCS) is a stochastic simulation technique that employs
random numbers to address practical problems with the primary purpose of obtaining
numerical solutions. This approach can generate random results that follow a probability
distribution by simulating a process, and then, estimating the numerical properties of the
model using statistical methods [47]. Within the MCS method, the EV load estimation
process is carried out by a large number of samples generated using PDFs based on the
input data [24]. The MCS is especially effective in scenarios characterized by high variability
in loading patterns. Its accuracy can reach very high levels with an adequate number of
simulations, although this may imply an increase in computational costs. In addition,
to improve the accuracy of the MCS, it is important to ensure that the input data are
accurate and up to date. This encompasses detailed information on user charging behavior,
grid conditions, and other relevant factors influencing EV load modeling [15].
In [46], researchers use the MCS method to model EV loading patterns in New Zealand,
considering EV plug-in time for charging and miles driven as input, characterized by
normal probability distributions. From the miles driven and charging time, the EV SoC
Electronics 2024, 13, 2259 11 of 23

and charging duration can be calculated. The methodology used for modeling EV loading
using the MCS method is shown in Figure 7.

Monte Carlo simulation

Start

Provide PDFs of input variables

Plug-in times f(tpi) Daily mileages f(di) Charging modes Mci

Determine initial SoC of EV (SoCi)

Charging duration (tci)

Charging demand calculation

Determine charging complete time (tdi) Determine charging power (Pci)

Daily charging power curve of each EV PEVi(t)

Aggregated EVs charging power PEV(t)

End

Figure 7. Schematic process of MCS simulation and calculation of EV charging demand (modified
from [46,48]).

In [48], a case study based on the Java–Bali Indonesian electric system is considered
to study different realistic scenarios of EV adoption, using probabilistic models and an
MCS modeling approach. The results of the study show that since EVs overload the
electricity system and incur high electricity production costs, adopting a proposed new
rate scheduling strategy can alleviate these problems. In [34], the Bass forecasting model is
employed using historical EV growth data between 2013 and 2018 to estimate the number
of EVs through 2022. In addition, the authors resort to MCS simulations to estimate EV
loading demand. The loading characteristics for different EVs (private, cab, and buses) are
analyzed, considering factors such as charging time, starting time, daily mileage, charging
method, and charging power. Similarly, Ref. [18] analyzes the factors influencing the
EV load distribution and formulates the corresponding PDF, based on variables such as
charging mode, SoC, load demand, and initial charging time specific to each EV type.
The daily charging profile of the different EV types is calculated using an MCS simulation.
Ultimately, the total EV load distribution curve is obtained by superimposing the individual
contributions of the different EV types.

4.2.2. Markov Chain Theory

Markov chain theory uses historical data to investigate the future state of the system.
What is particularly noteworthy is its efficiency in both the statistical analysis and the
temporal aspect of the datasets [24]. The charging behavior of EVs depends mainly on their
mobility characteristics and the available charging facilities. Even though it is difficult to
model the load behavior, some random methods, such as state, dwell time, and state transi-
tion probability can describe the expected behavior [15]. The procedure of modeling the EV
load behavior using the Markov chain theory method adopts the following methodology.
First, all the values of the studied phenomena are dispersed over several states (Figure 8).
In Figure 8, Pi,j denotes the transfer probability from interval i to interval j, which can
be expressed in terms of conditional probabilities as Equation (13) [36]:


PSi →S j = P S j |Si = Pi,j (13)
Electronics 2024, 13, 2259 12 of 23

Then, considering that the series of states are aligned by a homogeneous Markov chain,
a transition probability matrix of these states is determined, represented by Equation (14).
 
P11 P12 ··· P1n
 P21 P22 ··· P2n 
 
P = ( Pij ) =  . .. .. ..  (14)
n  .. . . . 
Pn1 Pn2 ... Pnn

This matrix is then applied to create a new chain of states. Finally, each state in
this new chain is transformed into an EV parameter value with a firm random generator.
The predicted values from the Markov method are based on the probabilities obtained from
the historical EV data [24].

Pi,n

Pi,i+1

Si Si+1 Sj Sn

Pi,j

Figure 8. State transfer probability diagram (modified from [36]).

Markov chain theory can analyze the relationship between the starting point, des-
tination, and arrival time of EVs. For example, in [16], researchers use traffic data to
model urban areas in Nanjing, identifying five zones, and adjusting travel times using a
Weibull PDF and Markov chain theory to characterize traffic flow patterns and electric
vehicle charging demand, considering variables such as distance traveled and battery SoC.
The analysis shows that peak demand tends to occur at 6 a.m., midday, and evening for
various types of EVs, except for electric cabs because of variability in the distances traveled.
On the other hand, the theory of Markov chains is also used to represent the evolution of
the battery SoC over time. The work in [36] focuses on an aggregation model of EVs and
highlights the use of higher-order Markov chains to define the charging and discharging
states of EVs. In addition, it uses the Poisson distribution to predict the EV charging start
time. This approach reduces the complexity of the state space. The model is validated in
MATLAB with data from a charging station in China and its ability to accurately predict
EV charging is demonstrated. Hence, methods based on Markov chain theory have a large
memory and carefully examine the problem space, so are appropriate for modeling the
behavior of EVs.

4.2.3. Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA)

Autoregressive integrated moving average is a statistical technique used in time-series
analysis to model and predict patterns in sequential data, such as EV charging station
loading [49]. The ARIMA method is represented by a mathematical equation that describes
the relationship between the values of a time series and its past values, as well as past
errors. The general equation of an ARIMA model can be expressed as
p q
y t = µ + ∑ γi y t − 1 + ε t + ∑ θ i ε t − 1 (15)
i =1 i =1

where yt is the present value, µ is a constant, γ and θi are the undetermined coefficients
and ε t is the error. The AR(p) model expresses the relationship between the present value
and the historical data. The MA(q) model focuses on the error accumulation of the AR(p)
model, which can effectively eliminate fluctuations. The construction of the ARIMA model
usually consists of three steps. The first step includes pattern recognition and order deter-
mination, while the second step involves parameter estimation, and the third step conducts
Electronics 2024, 13, 2259 13 of 23

model validation [50]. The authors in [49] employ an ARIMA method for modeling and
forecasting conventional electric load and EV parking demand. ARIMA parameters are
adjusted to minimize the mean square error and improve accuracy by decoupling daily
and seasonal load profiles. This approach shows significant error reduction and is used
in a daily scheduling problem with random constraints. Simulation results demonstrate
daily cost savings of 2.9% and 23% on 6-bus and 24-bus systems, respectively. On the
other hand, Ref. [50] focuses on modeling and short-term prediction of vehicle flexibility
and participation in real-time energy markets. Predictions are studied for both one hour
and 15 min ahead. Due to the complexity of the load data and their lack of continuity,
the ARIMA method combined with a Gaussian filter is used. It is found that using the
ARIMA method for EV load forecasting yields values close to the actual values. Both
studies highlight the usefulness of ARIMA in EV load forecasting and demand response
flexibility, with a focus on optimizing accuracy and reducing costs in energy operations.

4.2.4. Fuzzy Logic

The fuzzy logic modeling method uses fuzzy triangular numbers to model uncertainty
in EV demand, allowing for network component planning without the need for precise data.
This is achieved by assigning fuzzy numbers to EV power profiles based on approximate
scenarios. In Figure 9, the minimum (at1), average (at2), and maximum (at3) values of EV
power at different times are represented as triangular fuzzy numbers, with at2 being the
most likely value. Fuzzy logic is employed to classify key factors in EV charging, such as
SoC, distance traveled, and parking duration, allowing for flexible calculations of demand
and charging times [24].
Membership function

at1 at2 at3 EV load

power

Domain

Figure 9. EV load demand as a fuzzy number (modified from [24]).

In [51], the impact of EV battery charging on the electric grid is examined. The
researchers use data from driving cycles and parking patterns to model driver behavior.
A fuzzy inference system is used to model drivers’ recharging decisions, representing the
SoC, parking duration time, and charging probability as triangular fuzzy numbers. Hourly
charges are estimated for various vehicle types and different battery capacities, considering
charging regimes and home and work charging scenarios. The results show the impact on
the electric grid with the adoption of EVs.
Fuzzy logic can also be used in conjunction with the MCS. This hybrid method
combines probabilistic and fuzzy techniques to model EV loading and address uncertainty
in the input data. PDFs or datasets are required to extract EV loading. This hybrid
approach considers both spatial and temporal uncertainty of EVs, unlike most methods
that focus only on temporal uncertainty and assume uniform load locations throughout the
network [24]. In [52], the demand for EVs on the electric grid is addressed by using a fuzzy
logic model to simulate EV users’ decision making about charging. Key factors, such as
EV autonomy (AEV), battery state of charge (SoCEV), and daily travel distance (Dd), are
considered. These factors are described in terms of low, medium, and high, and are used
to determine charging decisions. A Monte Carlo simulation is employed to analyze EV
charging over multiple days, considering multiple factors. EV type and charging power
are selected based on market contribution and geographic location. The battery SoC on
arrival is estimated and the charging period is calculated based on daily travel distance
Electronics 2024, 13, 2259 14 of 23

and charging power. The EV charging decision is determined through the function C(AEV,
Dd, SoCEV). With a similar approach, Ref. [53] proposes a novel method based on a fuzzy
inference algorithm to predict the EVs’ load distribution in time and space. A travel chain
model is established to describe the dynamic process of EVs by considering traffic factors
and modeling PDFs of the spatiotemporal variables in the travel chain. A fuzzy inference
system with three inputs and one output is used to calculate the load probability, instead of
assuming specific load conditions. Load distribution curves are obtained by Monte Carlo
simulation, confirming the validity and accuracy of the method.

4.3. Machine Learning Methods

Machine learning is a sub-discipline of artificial intelligence that focuses on the creation
of algorithms and models capable of enabling computers to learn and make data-driven
decisions without requiring explicit programming. Its purpose is to automatically dis-
cover principles and patterns from collected data or interactions, using a trial-and-error
approach [54]. For applications in EV demand modeling, machine learning sub-methods
called random forest and neural networks are mostly used.

4.3.1. Random Forest (RF)

Random forest is a set of decision trees used in machine learning. Each tree is trained
with a random selection of samples and can be used for both regression predictions and
classification [55]. The output of the RF is the average of the values or the top-ranked
classification of the decision trees. Each RF tree is trained independently and has its own
training dataset. The results are then combined to obtain a more robust and accurate
prediction (Figures 10 and 11) [56]. RF is known for its ability to overcome the limitations
of individual decision trees and its good scalability [57].

Input

Yes Test No
1
Test Test
2 3
Yes No Yes No

Output 1 Output 2 Output 3 Output 2

Figure 10. Decision tree (modified from [55]).

X2 Decision tree I
X1
X10
X6
X4
X1 X1
X2 Decision tree II
Σ
X5 RF
X3 X10 X3 X7 Average all
X7 prediction
predictions
X9 X9
X6
X8
X2 Decision tree III

X6 X8
X3
Dataset Bagging

Figure 11. Schematic diagram of training random forest (modified from [55,57]).

The researchers in [55] focus on predicting the spatiotemporal distribution of EV load

to optimize the power grid using an improved random forest (IRF)-based prediction model.
The results demonstrate that IRF provides higher accuracy compared to methods such as
support vector machine (SVM), back propagation neural network (BPNN), and general RF.
Python is used to implement these algorithms, based on EV data collected over five weeks.
Electronics 2024, 13, 2259 15 of 23

Similarly, the authors in [58] present an EV charging forecasting model that combines the
sparrow search algorithm (SSA) and improved random forest regression (RFR). The SSA-
RFR model significantly improves the accuracy of load prediction compared to other
models due to parameter optimization and better generalization capability. It focuses on
the load prediction of 12,450 EVs in a specific region. EV load data were collected at 15 min
intervals by MCS simulation and divided into training and test sets. On the other hand,
in [57], a load forecasting method for EV charging stations is proposed that combines
generative adversarial networks (GANs) and the RF algorithm. The GAN-RF model shows
high accuracy and generalization when considering load variability and human behavior.
The study collected data from charging stations in a specific region of Xian Yang for 15 days,
with sampling every half hour. The last day was used for validation. In [56], the EV charging
prediction of the seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average (SARIMAX) and RF
models are compared using real data from 1700 charging stations in the Netherlands.
The SARIMAX models outperformed RF in predicting charging for different time horizons.
Although the machine learning models outperformed a persistence approach, they could
not match the accuracy of SARIMAX. The authors conclude that this is possibly due to the
limited size of the training dataset.
These studies highlight the diversity of approaches in EV load prediction and under-
score the need to consider factors such as dataset size and problem complexity to achieve
accurate and effective predictions in power grid optimization.

4.3.2. Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs)

Artificial neural networks are a group of algorithms that fall within the field of machine
learning and form the basis of deep learning algorithms. The design and operation of
ANNs resemble the functioning of the human brain, where interconnected processing units
work together to transmit and process information, like neurons in the brain. Prediction
techniques based on neural networks such as recurrent neural networks (RNNs), convolutional
neural networks (CNNs), long short-term memory (LSTM), and recurrent unit gating (GRU)
are widely used in the field of load prediction [59]. EV load modeling requires handling
large volumes of data, which makes ANNs and machine learning valuable. ANNs adapt
to the complexity of the phenomenon under study, considering factors such as arrival time,
departure time, and variability in driver behavior. The use of deep ANNs is essential to
address this complexity [24]. Figure 12 shows the general structure of ANNs for EV modeling.

Data pre-processing module

Calendar information Power consumption Weather information

Charging load dataset

Data pre-processing

Training set Test set

Normalization Normalization

ANN Predictions
Input layer Hidden layer Output layer

Input 1
Inverse normalization
Input 2 Output 1

Evaluate prediction accuracy

Input n
Test module

Load forecasting model module The forecasting results

Figure 12. General framework of the ANN method (modified from [5,60]).
Electronics 2024, 13, 2259 16 of 23

An example of ANN application is discussed in [61], where a new approach to EV

charging station occupancy prediction is employed, highlighting its potential in efficient
EV fleet management. A mixed LSTM neural network that combines historical data
and temporal features to obtain accurate predictions is used. The authors mention that
this method outperforms conventional approaches and offers potential for improving
smart charging strategies. The accuracy of the model is high for short-term predictions,
decreasing as the prediction horizon is extended, but is still adequate for windows of less
than 60 min. Similarly, a novel charging forecasting method for EV charging stations that
uses Bayesian deep learning and LSTM to address uncertainty in predictions is introduced
in [60]. Experiments are conducted on real data from a charging station at the Caltech
California campus. The method used shows superior performance compared to other
methods, suggesting great potential for practical applications. A similar study is performed
in [62], focusing on accurate prediction of electric vehicle charging. It uses the k-means
algorithm to cluster electric vehicle charging and the multiresolution discrete wavelet
transform to extract features. Then, it employs LSTM deep learning prediction model to
make accurate predictions of EV charging. The effectiveness of the method is supported
through a case analysis with more than 1300 charging stations in Zhejiang. On the other
hand, the authors in [63] address the growing concern of predicting EV charging at charging
stations, given their non-stationary nature and erratic charging procedures. The study uses
a deep learning-based CNN to predict traffic flow and evaluates uncertainties to establish
prediction intervals. Then, it calculates EV arrival rates and studies the charging process
using a probabilistic queuing model that considers service constraints and driver behaviors.
It is tested with real UK traffic data, demonstrating its potential for practical applications,
and improving the accuracy and reliability of EV charging demand prediction, which is
beneficial for charging station operators and traffic management.
Artificial neural networks offer a powerful tool for EV charging prediction, as they can
capture complex relationships and adapt to variability in charging behavior. Although they
may require large datasets and computational complexity, they offer great potential for
improving efficiency and accuracy in EV charging management.

4.4. Comparison of Methods

Each of the EV load modeling methods analyzed has distinctive characteristics that
make them suitable for specific applications or studies. Deterministic modeling uses
mathematical formulas that relate energy demand to current or voltage to model EV
charging. It assumes that the parameters related to EVs are known, such as EV arrival
and departure time and distance traveled, in other words, the EV is seen as a stationary
storage system [24]. There are studies where they rely on real measurements or charging
station simulations to find the parameters of ZIP or polynomial charging models [19]. Its
advantage is that it is easy to understand and apply because it is based on mathematical
equations and is useful for stationary studies [41]. Additionally, it is easy to apply and
implement computationally [5]. Its main limitation is that it does not adequately represent
the random loading behavior of EVs and is limited when attempting to capture complex
or irregular patterns. The amount of data required is minimal since as mentioned it is
mostly based on assumptions, predefined parameters, or measurements. The accuracy of
this model is low, depending on the accuracy of the assumptions used [41].
On the other hand, statistical methods use data analysis techniques and probabilities to
model or predict EV load profiles. This approach is based on historical load data collection,
pattern analysis, and trend analysis [19]. Its main advantage is that it can capture variations
in EV user behavior over time [5]. Generally, these models are more constrained than
deterministic models, since they are based on historical data. The main limitation they
presents is the need for historical data as they require a significant amount of data. Another
limitation is the complex analysis that requires specialized knowledge in statistics [64].
Additionally, they have a moderate computational cost [20]. The amount of data required
Electronics 2024, 13, 2259 17 of 23

is moderate to high, depending on the desired accuracy and variability of the data. Its
accuracy is high, especially if a large amount of high-quality data is available [65].
However, machine learning-based modeling and prediction of EV load patterns uti-
lizes advanced algorithms in learning patterns and characteristics of EV load data [66]. This
approach includes various techniques such as neural artificial network models and decision
trees [5]. Its main advantage is that it can provide very accurate predictions by learning
complex nonlinear relationships from the input data [67]. It fits well with evolving data and
can learn from new trends and patterns. Its main limitation is its large data requirements
as it requires large amounts of data to train models effectively [19]. Additionally it requires
advanced computational skills in data science and machine learning [20]. The accuracy is
very high provided sufficient high-quality data is available and appropriate algorithms are
used [65].
Table 3 shows the advantages and disadvantages of each method.

Table 3. List of advantages and disadvantages of all methods [15,20,24,41].

Approach Method Advantages Disadvantages Application References

Appropriate for
Very simple, historical Output not accurate, research aiming to
Static Models
Deterministic data not needed, very uncertainty and driving examine the [17,42–44]
(EXP, ZIP)
low computational cost patterns not considered approximate impact
of EVs
Does not account for
Prediction of EV load
data correlation,
High accuracy, models demand with high [18,34,46,
Monte Carlo accuracy contingent on
data uncertainty well variability in user 48]
quantity of historical
behavior
data and sample size
Performance tied to
Considers all events of dimensionality of input
the transition matrix data, high computational
Markov Chain Time-series modeling
with high accuracy, cost for large state [16,36]
Theory of EV scenarios
moderate computational transition matrices,
cost suboptimal with low
Statistical input data dimension
Requires computational
effort, experience, many
High accuracy in time Optimizing and
input data samples,
ARIMA series, models reducing costs in [49,50]
performance degrades
uncertainty adequately energy operations
beyond short forecast
horizons
Can be modeled without
historical data, models Accuracy depends on
Sufficient when
load uncertainty well, rule configuration, based
Fuzzy Logic historical data are not [51–53]
combines with other on investigator’s
available
methods (e.g., MCS) for experience
accuracy
Electronics 2024, 13, 2259 18 of 23

Table 3. Cont.

Approach Method Advantages Disadvantages Application References

Requires large data
Versatile, no prior volumes for
Focus on various
Random assumptions on data generalization, accuracy
patterns in EV [55–58]
Forest shape, considers data depends on data quality,
dynamics
correlation weak interpretability, no
ability to extrapolate
Issues with long-term
Good for sequential and dependencies, high
Prediction of load
time-series data, models computational cost,
RNN patterns based on
complex time medium accuracy
historical data
dependencies compared to other ANN
Machine methods
Learning
Useful for extracting
Ineffective for pure Analysis of spatial
spatial features and
CNN sequential data, high data, e.g., location of [5,60–
patterns in 2D data, high
ANN computational cost parking 63,68,69]
accuracy on spatial data
Captures long-term Very high complexity,
Long-term demand
dependencies in higher computational
LSTM forecasting, complex
sequential data, high cost than other ANN
time series
precision methods
Computationally
efficient compared to Time-series load
High accuracy but
GRU LSTM, captures prediction with lower
slightly lower than LSTM
long-term dependencies computational cost
in sequential data

In [68], the predictive performance of the RF and ANN methods at different spatial
levels for predicting EV load is studied. In this study, they concluded that the RF model
was found to be more robust and accurate at different spatial levels and in case studies of
different sizes compared to the ANN model. On the other hand, in [69], they present an
investigation of nine diverse methodologies for forecasting EV load curves, encompassing
statistical, machine learning (ML), and deep learning (DL) techniques. The methodologies
are evaluated using four public and real EV datasets, with models incorporating online
and offline historical data for different scenarios and exploring seasonal variations through
annual simulations. The findings in this research suggest that ML models are the most
suitable due to their higher accuracy in forecasting EV load across different datasets
compared to DL and statistical models. However, the models studied demonstrated the
ability to predict EV load hourly, maintaining their accuracy even in the presence of
outlier data.

5. Future Trends in EV Load Modeling Methods

EV load modeling is constantly evolving due to the growing adoption of EVs and the
need to efficiently and sustainably integrate them into the electric grid. One of the main
trends is the use of data-driven modeling methodologies and machine learning. Collecting
and analyzing large volumes of data generated by EVs and charging stations enables the
development of more accurate models. These are used to predict load patterns, optimize
load distribution, and manage demand in real time [20]. However, one of the challenges
is the availability and accessibility of specific data, such as battery-related data, traffic
or trip data, and station charging session records [5]. Many studies do not clearly show
their data nor the provenance or how to obtain it, which is an obstacle to continuous
improvement in the models. It is essential to find a balance that allows for the protection of
EV users’ information and, at the same time, transparency in the data needed. The creation
Electronics 2024, 13, 2259 19 of 23

of real-time management algorithms is another key trend, as these can balance energy
demand and supply, optimize EV charging costs, and minimize the impact on the grid [20].
Consideration of government regulations or policies also plays a crucial role, as emissions
regulations, incentives for EV adoption, and infrastructure guidelines significantly influence
EV charging modeling strategies [70]. Likewise, understanding EV user behavior is crucial
for charging center location planning and demand management. Another future trend is for
models of EV load to incorporate factors such as usage habits, travel patterns, and charging
preferences of EV users. On the other hand, EV-related technology is constantly evolving.
For example, fast charging infrastructure is changing EV charging dynamics, so models
must consider the impact of these new technologies on the grid and charging patterns.
Another emerging trend is the vehicle-to-grid (V2G) concept [15]. This approach allows EVs
to not only draw power from the grid but also return energy stored in their batteries back
to the grid. This would help to balance energy demand, during consumption peaks and
provide ancillary services to the grid. However, for EV integration to be truly beneficial for
environmental preservation, it is crucial that EV charging does not rely on fossil fuel-based
power generation [70]. The increasing adoption of EVs is promoting the integration of
renewable energy. For this reason, modeling is being carried out where EV charging is
combined with renewable sources, such as photovoltaic systems, to maximize sustainability
and reduce carbon emissions [5]. Important to developing more accurate EV charging
modeling methods is the integration into the model of new technologies that emerge with
respect to EVs, real-time data collection and analysis, and collaboration between different
sectors. These methods will make it possible to forecast the impact of EV integration into
power grids and seek effective solutions.

6. Conclusions
The increasing adoption of EVs in the power grid is an inescapable trend that will
have a significant impact on PQ, stability, and economic efficiency of the grid. This shift
poses both opportunities and challenges in the optimal management of EV charging as a
flexible energy source. Therefore, it is essential to develop accurate and efficient models for
understanding and managing EV charging, which will affect both its future development
and the overall charging and electrical infrastructure. Accuracy in quantifying the scale
and evolutionary characteristics of EVs is critical to addressing the challenges in planning
and operating future energy systems.
In this overview, the examination initially focuses on various factors, both direct
and indirect, influencing EV charging modeling. In most of the papers reviewed, it was
observed that the main factors considered are SoC, average daily distance traveled, and EV
charging time. We then delved into EV charging modeling methods, dividing them into
three categories: deterministic, statistical, and machine learning modeling methods. Deter-
ministic modeling methods are characterized by their simplicity, do not require historical
data, and have low computational time. However, their main disadvantage is that they pro-
vide accurate modeling only for specific points in time and do not consider the uncertainty
of EVs. These methods may be appropriate for studies that seek to assess the impact of
EVs in a steady state. On the other hand, statistical methods offer high modeling accuracy
and consider the uncertainty of EVs, and can model EV load demand both spatially and
temporally. They require historical data, which can be collected through surveys or traffic
reports, and mostly the input data for these models are presented in PDFs. However,
their main disadvantage is that they involve higher computational costs. Finally, machine
learning methods can more accurately predict EV demand by considering the correlation
between input and output data. These methods can model EV demand both spatially and
temporally, for periods ranging from 15 min to several days. However, they are highly
dependent on the amount of historical data available, and their computational cost is
high. This review highlights the importance for researchers or network planners to identify
the amount of available data and their accuracy requirements before selecting the most
appropriate modeling method for EV loading.
Electronics 2024, 13, 2259 20 of 23

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.H.-R., R.C.-H., A.C.L.H. and A.I.-R.; methodology,

A.H.-R., R.C.-H., A.C.L.H. and A.I.-R.; formal analysis, A.H.-R., R.C.-H., A.C.L.H. and A.I.-R.;
investigation, A.H.-R., R.C.-H., A.C.L.H. and A.I.-R.; resources, A.H.-R., R.C.-H., A.C.L.H. and A.I.-R.;
writing—original draft preparation, A.H.-R.; writing—review and editing, A.H.-R.; visualization,
A.H.-R.; supervision, A.C.L.H. and A.I.-R.; project administration, A.C.L.H. and A.I.-R.; funding
acquisition, A.C.L.H. and A.I.-R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This material is based upon work supported by DOE under Grant DE-SC0020281 “De-
velopment and Validation of Models to Assess Dynamic Response of Converter-Dominated Power
Systems across Multiple Spatiotemporal Scales”.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

ANNs Artificial neural networks

ARIMA Autoregressive integrated moving average
BEV Battery electric vehicle
BPNN Back propagation neural network
CNNs Convolutional neural networks
CO2 Carbon dioxide
DL Deep learning
ERL Exponential recovery dynamic loading model
EVs Electric vehicles
EXP Exponential static load model
FCEVs Fuel-cell electric vehicles
GAs Genetic algorithms
GANs Generative adversarial networks
GRU Recurrent unit gating
HC Hosting capacity
HEVs Hybrid electric vehicles
IRF Improved random forest
ICE Internal combustion engines
LEXP Linear exponential load model
LSTM Long short-term memory
MCS Monte Carlo method
ML Machine learning
PDFs Probability density functions
PEXP Plus exponential load mode
PHEVs Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles
PQ Power quality
RF Random forest
RFR Random forest regression
RNNs Recurrent neural networks
SARIMAX Seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average
SoC State of charge
SSA Sparrow search algorithm
SVM Support vector machine
THD Total harmonic distortion
V2G Vehicle-to-grid
ZIP Polynomial static load model

References
1. Brückmann, G.; Bernauer, T. What drives public support for policies to enhance electric vehicle adoption? Environ. Res. Lett.
2020, 15, 094002. [CrossRef]
2. Alanazi, F. Electric Vehicles: Benefits, Challenges, and Potential Solutions for Widespread Adaptation. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 6016.
[CrossRef]
Electronics 2024, 13, 2259 21 of 23

3. Schmerler, D.; Velarde, J.; Rodríguez, A.; Solís, B. Electromovilidad. Conceptos, Políticas y Lecciones Aprendidas para el Perú;
Osinergmin: Lima, Perú, 2019.
4. Santos, G.; Davies, H. Incentives for quick penetration of electric vehicles in five European countries: Perceptions from experts
and stakeholders. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2020, 137, 326–342. [CrossRef]
5. Huang, X.; Wu, D.; Boulet, B. Ensemble learning for charging load forecasting of electric vehicle charging stations. In Proceedings
of the 2020 IEEE Electric Power and Energy Conference (EPEC), Edmonton, AB, Canada, 9–10 November 2020; pp. 1–5.
6. Karmaker, A.K.; Roy, S.; Ahmed, M.R. Analysis of the impact of electric vehicle charging station on power quality issues. In
Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Electrical, Computer and Communication Engineering (ECCE), Cox’sBazar,
Bangladesh, 7–9 February 2019; pp. 1–6.
7. Wang, X.; Kaleybar, H.J.; Brenna, M.; Zaninelli, D. Power Quality Indicators of Electric Vehicles in Distribution Grid. In
Proceedings of the 2022 20th International Conference on Harmonics & Quality of Power (ICHQP), Naples, Italy, 29 May–1 June
2022; pp. 1–6.
8. Caro, L.M.; Ramos, G.; Rauma, K.; Rodriguez, D.F.C.; Martinez, D.M.; Rehtanz, C. State of charge influence on the harmonic
distortion from electric vehicle charging. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2021, 57, 2077–2088. [CrossRef]
9. Supponen, A.; Rautiainen, A.; Markkula, J.; Mäkinen, A.; Järventausta, P.; Repo, S. Power quality in distribution networks
with electric vehicle charging-a research methodology based on field tests and real data. In Proceedings of the 2016 Eleventh
International Conference on Ecological Vehicles and Renewable Energies (EVER), Monte Carlo, Monaco, 6–8 April 2016; pp. 1–11.
10. Caro, C.D.D.; López, G.R.; Luna, A.C. Fast co-simulation methodology to assess electric vehicle penetration in distribution
networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Industry Applications Society Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD, USA, 29 September–3
October 2019; pp. 1–5.
11. Mulenga, E.; Bollen, M.H.; Etherden, N. Adapted stochastic PV hosting capacity approach for electric vehicle charging considering
undervoltage. Electricity 2021, 2, 387–402. [CrossRef]
12. Umoh, V.; Davidson, I.; Adebiyi, A.; Ekpe, U. Methods and Tools for PV and EV Hosting Capacity Determination in Low Voltage
Distribution Networks—A Review. Energies 2023, 16, 3609. [CrossRef]
13. Carmelito, B.E.; Filho, J.M.d.C. Hosting Capacity of Electric Vehicles on LV/MV Distribution Grids—A New Methodology
Assessment. Energies 2023, 16, 1509. [CrossRef]
14. Kamruzzaman, M.; Benidris, M.; Elsaiah, S.; Tian, Y. A Method for Maximizing the Hosting Capacity to Electric Vehicles using
Feeder Reconfiguration. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM), Montreal, QC,
Canada, 2–6 August 2020; pp. 1–5. [CrossRef]
15. Xiang, Y.; Hu, S.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, X.; Liu, J. Electric vehicles in smart grid: A survey on charging load modelling. IET Smart Grid
2019, 2, 25–33. [CrossRef]
16. Qian, X.; Wang, W.; Lu, Z.; Si, S.; Chen, J.; Wang, N. An Electric Vehicle Charging Load Prediction Method Based on Travel
Trajectory Characteristics. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE 6th Conference on Energy Internet and Energy System Integration
(EI2), Chengdu, China, 11–13 November 2022; pp. 2844–2849.
17. Tian, H.; Tzelepis, D.; Papadopoulos, P.N. Electric Vehicle charger static and dynamic modelling for power system studies.
Energies 2021, 14, 1801. [CrossRef]
18. Cheng, J.; Liu, N. Electric vehicles charging load prediction based on Monte Carlo method. In Proceedings of the 2022
2nd International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Control Science (IC2ECS), Nanjing, China, 16–18 December 2022;
pp. 846–850.
19. Zuluaga-Ríos, C.D.; Florián-Ceballos, D.F.; Rojo-Yepes, M.Á.; Saldarriaga-Zuluaga, S.D. Review of charging load modeling
strategies for electric vehicles: A comparison of grid-to-vehicle probabilistic approaches. Tecnura 2021, 25, 51–60. [CrossRef]
20. Mohammad, A.; Zamora, R.; Lie, T.T. Integration of electric vehicles in the distribution network: A review of PV based electric
vehicle modelling. Energies 2020, 13, 4541. [CrossRef]
21. Nour, M.; Chaves-Ávila, J.P.; Magdy, G.; Sánchez-Miralles, Á. Review of positive and negative impacts of electric vehicles
charging on electric power systems. Energies 2020, 13, 4675. [CrossRef]
22. ANSI Standard C84.1-2020; American National Standard for Electric Power Systems and Equipment—Voltage Ratings (60 Hz).
Technical Report; ANSI: Washington, DC, USA, 2020.
23. Quijije Barreto, J.C. Simulación en MATLAB–SIMULINK de un Cargador de Baterías de dos Etapas Basado en un Rectificador
Boost y un Convertidor Resonante para Aplicaciones en Industria de Automoción. Master’s Thesis, Universitat Politècnica de
Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain, 2019.
24. Ahmadian, A.; Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B.; Elkamel, A. A review on plug-in electric vehicles: Introduction, current status, and load
modeling techniques. J. Mod. Power Syst. Clean Energy 2020, 8, 412–425. [CrossRef]
25. Slangen, T.; van Wijk, T.; Ćuk, V.; Cobben, J. The harmonic and supraharmonic emission of battery electric vehicles in the
Netherlands. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Smart Energy Systems and Technologies (SEST), Istanbul,
Turkey, 7–9 September 2020; pp. 1–6.
26. Kumar, D.; Sharma, A.; Arphaphiphatphong, V.; Mervyn, L.; Jie, N.; Yi, N.; Srinivasan, D. Power Quality Assessment of Electric
Vehicles on the Distribution Networks. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies-Asia (ISGT
Asia), Brisbane, Australia, 5–8 December 2021; pp. 1–5.
Electronics 2024, 13, 2259 22 of 23

27. Society of Automotive Engineers. SAE J1772: SAE Electric Vehicle and Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Conductive Charge Coupler.
Technical Report; SAE International: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2010.
28. Aragon-Aviles, S.; Trivedi, A.; Williamson, S.S. Smart power electronics–based solutions to interface solar-photovoltaics (pv),
smart grid, and electrified transportation: State-of-the-art and future prospects. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 4988. [CrossRef]
29. Kongjeen, Y.; Bhumkittipich, K. Impact of plug-in electric vehicles integrated into power distribution system based on voltage-
dependent power flow analysis. Energies 2018, 11, 1571. [CrossRef]
30. Gschwendtner, C.; Knoeri, C.; Stephan, A. The impact of plug-in behavior on the spatial–temporal flexibility of electric vehicle
charging load. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2023, 88, 104263. [CrossRef]
31. Xiang, K.; Li, Y.; Lin, C.; Li, Y.; Cai, Q.; Du, Y. An Electric Vehicle Charging Load Forecast Model Based on Probability Distribution.
In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 4th Conference on Energy Internet and Energy System Integration (EI2), Wuhan, China, 30
October–1 November 2020; pp. 2847–2851.
32. Iclodean, C.; Varga, B.; Burnete, N.; Cimerdean, D.; Jurchiş, B. Comparison of different battery types for electric vehicles. In
Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Pitesti, Romania, 8–10 November 2017; IOP
Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2017; Volume 252, p. 012058.
33. Fang, M.; Yue, X.; Dong, Y.; Chen, Y.; Liang, Z. A temperature-dependent solvating electrolyte for wide-temperature and
fast-charging lithium metal batteries. Joule 2024, 8, 91–103. [CrossRef]
34. Liu, D.; Li, Z.; Jiang, J.; Cheng, X.; Wu, G. Electric vehicle load forecast based on Monte Carlo algorithm. In Proceedings of
the 2020 IEEE 9th Joint International Information Technology and Artificial Intelligence Conference (ITAIC), Chongqing, China,
11–13 December 2020; Volume 9, pp. 1760–1763.
35. Zhou, R.; Ping, Z.; Wang, G.; Li, L.; Li, G.; Zhang, B. A Study of Charging Demand Estimation Model of Electric Passenger
Vehicles in Beijing. In Proceedings of the 2021 40th Chinese Control Conference (CCC), Shanghai, China, 26–28 July 2021;
pp. 5847–5852.
36. Liu, H.; Shen, H.; Hu, W.; Ji, L.; Li, J.; Yu, Y. Electric Vehicle Load Forecast Based on Higher Order Markov Chain. In Proceedings
of the 2023 5th Asia Energy and Electrical Engineering Symposium (AEEES), Chengdu, China, 23–26 March 2023; pp. 1203–1207.
37. Ricardo, C.H.; Adriana, L.H.; Nelson, D.A. Energy management supported on genetic algorithms for the equalization of battery
energy storage systems in microgrid systems. J. Energy Storage 2023, 72, 108510. [CrossRef]
38. Hiesl, A.; Ramsebner, J.; Haas, R. Modelling stochastic electricity demand of electric vehicles based on traffic surveys—The case
of Austria. Energies 2021, 14, 1577. [CrossRef]
39. Jawad, S.; Liu, J. Electrical Vehicle Charging Load Mobility Analysis Based on Spatial-Temporal Model in Traffic-Distribution
Networks. In Proceedings of the 2023 Panda Forum on Power and Energy (PandaFPE), Chengdu, China, 27–30 April 2023;
pp. 700–704.
40. Ortlieb, C.P. Mathematische Modelle und Naturerkenntnis. Math. Didact. 2004, 27, 23–40.
41. Arif, A.; Wang, Z.; Wang, J.; Mather, B.; Bashualdo, H.; Zhao, D. Load modeling—A review. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2017,
9, 5986–5999. [CrossRef]
42. Gil-Aguirre, J.; Perez-Londoño, S.; Mora-Flórez, J. A measurement-based load modelling methodology for electric vehicle
fast-charging stations. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2019, 176, 105934. [CrossRef]
43. Kongjeen, Y.; Bhumkittipich, K.; Mithulananthan, N.; Amiri, I.; Yupapin, P. A modified backward and forward sweep method for
microgrid load flow analysis under different electric vehicle load mathematical models. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2019, 168, 46–54.
[CrossRef]
44. Kongjeen, Y.; Bhumkittipich, K. Modeling of electric vehicle loads for power flow analysis based on PSAT. In Proceedings of
the 2016 13th International Conference on Electrical Engineering/Electronics, Computer, Telecommunications and Information
Technology (ECTI-CON), Chiang Mai, Thailand, 28 June–1 July 2016; pp. 1–6.
45. Flammini, M.G.; Prettico, G.; Julea, A.; Fulli, G.; Mazza, A.; Chicco, G. Statistical characterisation of the real transaction data
gathered from electric vehicle charging stations. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2019, 166, 136–150. [CrossRef]
46. Su, J.; Lie, T.; Zamora, R. Modelling of large-scale electric vehicles charging demand: A New Zealand case study. Electr. Power
Syst. Res. 2019, 167, 171–182. [CrossRef]
47. Bian, H.; Guo, Z.; Zhou, C.; Wang, X.; Peng, S.; Zhang, X. Research on orderly charge and discharge strategy of EV based on
QPSO algorithm. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 66430–66448. [CrossRef]
48. Adianto, Y.; Baguley, C.; Madawala, U.; Hariyanto, N.; Suwarno, S.; Kurniawan, T. The coordinated operation of vertically
structured power systems for electric vehicle charge scheduling. Energies 2021, 15, 27. [CrossRef]
49. Amini, M.H.; Kargarian, A.; Karabasoglu, O. ARIMA-based decoupled time series forecasting of electric vehicle charging demand
for stochastic power system operation. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2016, 140, 378–390. [CrossRef]
50. Lu, F.; Lv, J.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, H.; Zheng, S.; Li, Y.; Hong, M. Ultra-Short-Term Prediction of EV Aggregator’s Demond Response
Flexibility Using ARIMA, Gaussian-ARIMA, LSTM and Gaussian-LSTM. In Proceedings of the 2021 3rd International Academic
Exchange Conference on Science and Technology Innovation (IAECST), Guangzhou, China, 10–12 December 2021; pp. 1775–1781.
51. Shahidinejad, S.; Filizadeh, S.; Bibeau, E. Profile of charging load on the grid due to plug-in vehicles. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2011,
3, 135–141. [CrossRef]
52. Bouallaga, A.; Doumbia, B. Stochastic Electric Vehicle Load Modeling for HV/MV Substation Constraint Assessment. In
Proceedings of the CIRED 25th International Conference on Electricity Distribution, Madrid, Spain, 3–6 June 2019; Paper n°1056.
Electronics 2024, 13, 2259 23 of 23

53. Wan, Y.; Cao, W.; Wang, L. A prediction method for EV charging load based on fuzzy inference algorithm. In Proceedings of the
2019 Chinese Control Conference (CCC), Guangzhou, China, 27–30 July 2019; pp. 2803–2808.
54. Zhao, S.; Blaabjerg, F.; Wang, H. An overview of artificial intelligence applications for power electronics. IEEE Trans. Power
Electron. 2020, 36, 4633–4658. [CrossRef]
55. Ge, X.; Shi, L.; Fu, Y.; Muyeen, S.; Zhang, Z.; He, H. Data-driven spatial-temporal prediction of electric vehicle load profile
considering charging behavior. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2020, 187, 106469. [CrossRef]
56. Buzna, L.; De Falco, P.; Khormali, S.; Proto, D.; Straka, M. Electric vehicle load forecasting: A comparison between time series and
machine learning approaches. In Proceedings of the 2019 1st International Conference on Energy Transition in the Mediterranean
Area (SyNERGY MED), Cagliari, Italy, 28–30 May 2019; pp. 1–5.
57. Gang, W.; Wu, L.; Xuan, G. A Load Forecasting Method of Electric Vehicles Charging Station Group Based on GAN-RF Model. In
Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE 5th Conference on Energy Internet and Energy System Integration (EI2), Taiyuan, China, 22–24
October 2021; pp. 3076–3079.
58. Wang, D.; Ge, Y.; Cao, J.; Lin, Q.; Chen, R. Charging load forecasting of electric vehicles based on sparrow search algorithm-
improved random forest regression model. J. Eng. 2023, 2023, e12280. [CrossRef]
59. Peng, S.; Zhang, H.; Yang, Y.; Li, B.; Su, S.; Huang, S.; Zheng, G. Spatial-temporal Dynamic Forecasting of EVs Charging Load
Based on DCC-2D. Chin. J. Electr. Eng. 2022, 8, 53–62. [CrossRef]
60. Zhou, D.; Guo, Z.; Xie, Y.; Hu, Y.; Jiang, D.; Feng, Y.; Liu, D. Using bayesian deep learning for electric vehicle charging station
load forecasting. Energies 2022, 15, 6195. [CrossRef]
61. Ma, T.Y.; Faye, S. Multistep electric vehicle charging station occupancy prediction using hybrid LSTM neural networks. Energy
2022, 244, 123217. [CrossRef]
62. Qin, B.; Cai, J.; Du, C.; Lv, Y.; Guo, C. Short Term Forecasting Method of Charging Load Based on Multilevel Discrete Wavelet
Transform and LSTM Model. In Proceedings of the 2022 4th International Academic Exchange Conference on Science and
Technology Innovation (IAECST), Guangzhou, China, 9–11 December 2022; pp. 111–115.
63. Zhang, X.; Chan, K.W.; Li, H.; Wang, H.; Qiu, J.; Wang, G. Deep-learning-based probabilistic forecasting of electric vehicle
charging load with a novel queuing model. IEEE Trans. Cybern. 2020, 51, 3157–3170. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
64. Kuster, C.; Rezgui, Y.; Mourshed, M. Electrical load forecasting models: A critical systematic review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017,
35, 257–270. [CrossRef]
65. Serrano-Guerrero, X.; Briceño-León, M.; Clairand, J.M.; Escrivá-Escrivá, G. A new interval prediction methodology for short-term
electric load forecasting based on pattern recognition. Appl. Energy 2021, 297, 117173. [CrossRef]
66. Zhu, J.; Yang, Z.; Mourshed, M.; Guo, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Chang, Y.; Wei, Y.; Feng, S. Electric vehicle charging load forecasting: A
comparative study of deep learning approaches. Energies 2019, 12, 2692. [CrossRef]
67. Koohfar, S.; Woldemariam, W.; Kumar, A. Performance comparison of deep learning approaches in predicting EV charging
demand. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4258. [CrossRef]
68. Khan, W.; Somers, W.; Walker, S.; de Bont, K.; Van der Velden, J.; Zeiler, W. Comparison of electric vehicle load forecasting across
different spatial levels with incorporated uncertainty estimation. Energy 2023, 283, 129213. [CrossRef]
69. Bampos, Z.N.; Laitsos, V.M.; Afentoulis, K.D.; Vagropoulos, S.I.; Biskas, P.N. Electric vehicles load forecasting for day-ahead
market participation using machine and deep learning methods. Appl. Energy 2024, 360, 122801. [CrossRef]
70. Gnanavendan, S.; Selvaraj, S.K.; Dev, S.J.; Mahato, K.K.; Swathish, R.S.; Sundaramali, G.; Accouche, O.; Azab, M. Challenges,
Solutions and Future trends in EV-Technology: A Review. IEEE Access 2024, 12, 17242–17260. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.