Michael Devetsikiotis's research while affiliated with University of New Mexico and other places

What is this page?


This page lists the scientific contributions of an author, who either does not have a ResearchGate profile, or has not yet added these contributions to their profile.

It was automatically created by ResearchGate to create a record of this author's body of work. We create such pages to advance our goal of creating and maintaining the most comprehensive scientific repository possible. In doing so, we process publicly available (personal) data relating to the author as a member of the scientific community.

If you're a ResearchGate member, you can follow this page to keep up with this author's work.

If you are this author, and you don't want us to display this page anymore, please let us know.

Publications (5)


Figure 1. System framework. 
Table 1 . Fast charging stations (FCS) and electric vehicles(EV) input parameters.
Figure 2. Charging power function [36]. 
Table 2 . Optimal charging outlet allocations.
Figure 3. Arizona highway network [18,39]. 

+7

A Hierarchical Optimization Model for a Network of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
  • Article
  • Full-text available

May 2017

·

830 Reads

·

61 Citations

Energies

Cuiyu Kong

·

·

·

Michael Devetsikiotis

Charging station location decisions are a critical element in mainstream adoption of electric vehicles (EVs). The consumer confidence in EVs can be boosted with the deployment of carefully-planned charging infrastructure that can fuel a fair number of trips. The charging station (CS) location problem is complex and differs considerably from the classical facility location literature, as the decision parameters are additionally linked to a relatively longer charging period, battery parameters, and available grid resources. In this study, we propose a three-layered system model of fast charging stations (FCSs). In the first layer, we solve the flow capturing location problem to identify the locations of the charging stations. In the second layer, we use a queuing model and introduce a resource allocation framework to optimally provision the limited grid resources. In the third layer, we consider the battery charging dynamics and develop a station policy to maximize the profit by setting maximum charging levels. The model is evaluated on the Arizona state highway system and North Dakota state network with a gravity data model, and on the City of Raleigh, North Carolina, using real traffic data. The results show that the proposed hierarchical model improves the system performance, as well as the quality of service (QoS), provided to the customers. The proposed model can efficiently assist city planners for CS location selection and system design.

Download
Share


Adaptive multi-tiered resource allocation policy for microgrids

March 2016

·

13 Reads

·

1 Citation

AIMS Energy

We consider a cluster of buildings within proximity that share a large-capacity battery for peak-shaving purposes, and draw power from the grid at a premium once they reach a certain threshold. Our goal is to identify a resource allocation policy that minimizes the amount of energy the cluster draws at a premium, while also ensuring fair access to all of its members. We introduce an adaptive policy that allows for maximum energy savings when the network load is low, and ensures fairness when the aggregate power level is high. We compare this adaptive policy with two standard resource allocation strategies with complementary advantages, and demonstrate through an extensive performance evaluation, that it combines the benefits of both. It is therefore suitable for a microgrid operator where equal weight is given to both cluster-wide cost minimization and fairness among all customers.


FIGURE 2. A transaction that transfers a tokenized asset (X) from Alice to Bob. Alice signed her input, and created an output locked against Bob's public key, so that only Bob can spend it. ''asset type'' and ''value'' fields are set to ''X'' and ''2'' respectively. Alice transferred 2 units of X to Bob by creating a new row with that information and assigning it to him; see Figure 2. (In fact, Alice's transaction also deleted her own row, created a new row assigned to one of her public keys, and moved the 8 remaining units of X she holds there. That is done in order to control concurrency –see Section II-E– and prevent conflicts between concurrent write operations in the system; rows are not modified, instead they are deleted and new rows are created with the updated values [11].) Bob's new balance of asset ''X'' can be calculated by aggregating all the rows in the database that correspond to his public keys, and whose ''asset type'' is set to ''X''. Same goes for Alice. Some of the validation checks that we would encode into the nodes of a blockchain network that is set up for such asset transfers would be: @BULLET Does the proposed transaction address an existing row? @BULLET Is it properly signed so as to delete that row (or rows)? @BULLET Has this row been addressed (used) by a previous validated transaction? An asset cannot be spent twice. @BULLET Does it transfer the right amounts to new rows? For example, if the row the transaction reads ''10 units of X'', an attempted transfer of ''2 units of X'' (to Bob) and ''9 units of X'' (back to Alice) should fail. Same goes for an attempted transfer of, say, ''10 units of Y''. The sum of inputs should equal the sum of outputs, i.e. a transfer should not increase the total quantity of an asset type. Note that a transaction can address several existing rows instead of just one, i.e. transfer assets scattered over the database, as long as it is properly signed to access them. These existing, not-yet-deleted rows are called unspent transaction outputs (UTXO) in Bitcoin; they were created by earlier transactions in the system. The UTXO that a transaction consumes are called transaction inputs; the UTXO that a transaction creates are called transaction outputs [12]. A transaction then basically deletes a set of rows (UTXO) and creates a set of new rows (UTXO) in the database (see Figure 3 for an example). One outstanding question from the description above is: how do we generate assets and introduce them in the chain? Before we get to the state of Alice having 10 units of X, 
FIGURE 3. Transaction n spends the second UTXO that transaction b (not pictured) created (b#2), and generates two new outputs (n#1, and n#2), spent by transactions n + 3 and n + 9 respectively. A similar process applies to every transaction in the network. Transactions are therefore linked to each other and allow for easy provenance tracking. 
FIGURE 4. An asset tracking example using smart contracts and IoT. In Fig. 4a (left) a container leaves the manufacturing plant (A), reaches the neighboring port (B) via railway, gets transported to the destination port (C), and then to the distributor's facilities (D), until it reaches the retailer's site (E). In Fig. 4b (right), we focus on the B-C stage. The carrier of the container performs a handshake with the dock at the destination port (C) to confirm that the container is delivered to the expected location. Once that handshake is completed, it posts to a smart contract to sign the delivery. The destination port follows along to confirm reception. If the node at C does not post to the contract within an acceptable timeframe, the shipping carrier will know and can initiate an investigation on the spot. 
Blockchains and Smart Contracts for the Internet of Things

January 2016

·

7,432 Reads

·

4,179 Citations

IEEE Access

Motivated by the recent explosion of interest around blockchains, we examine whether they make a good fit for the Internet of Things (IoT) sector. Blockchains allow us to have a distributed peer-to-peer network where non-trusting members can interact with each other without a trusted intermediary, in a verifiable manner. We review how this mechanism works and also look into smart contracts-scripts that reside on the blockchain that allow for the automation of multi-step processes. We then move into the IoT domain, and describe how a blockchain-IoT combination: 1) facilitates the sharing of services and resources leading to the creation of a marketplace of services between devices and 2) allows us to automate in a cryptographically verifiable manner several existing, time-consuming workflows. We also point out certain issues that should be considered before the deployment of a blockchain network in an IoT setting: from transactional privacy to the expected value of the digitized assets traded on the network. Wherever applicable, we identify solutions and workarounds. Our conclusion is that the blockchain-IoT combination is powerful and can cause significant transformations across several industries, paving the way for new business models and novel, distributed applications.


Revenue Optimization Frameworks for Multi-Class PEV Charging Stations

January 2015

·

41 Reads

·

27 Citations

IEEE Access

The charging power of plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) decreases significantly when the state of charge (SoC) gets closer to the fully charged state, which leads to a longer charging duration. Each time when the battery is charged at high rates, it incurs a significant degradation cost that shortens the battery life. Furthermore, the differences between demand preferences, battery types, and charging technologies make the operation of the charging stations a complex problem. Even though some of these issues have been addressed in the literature, the charging station modeling with battery models and different customer preferences have been neglected. To that end, this paper proposes two queueing-based optimization frameworks. In the first one, the goal is to maximize the system revenue for single class customers by limiting the requested SoC targets. The PEV cost function is composed of battery degradation cost, the waiting cost in the queue, and the admission fee. Under this framework, the charging station is modeled as a $M/G/S/K$ queue, and the system performance is assessed based on the numerical and simulation results. In the second framework, we describe an optimal revenue model for multi-class PEVs, building upon the approach utilized in the first framework. Two charging strategies are proposed: 1) a dedicated charger model and 2) a shared charger model for the multi-class PEVs. We evaluate and compare these strategies. Results show that the proposed frameworks improve both the station performance and quality of service provided to customers. The results show that the system revenue is more than doubled when compared with the baseline scenario which includes no limitations on the requested SoC.

Citations (4)


... A survey shows that the concern of users about the range of electric vehicles greatly hinders the development of electric vehicles. In order to promote the development of electric vehicles, we need to establish sufficient and reasonably arranged electric vehicle charging facilities (Lin and Hua, 2015;Kong et al., 2017). In 2009, the planning and layout of charging facilities in the United States began construction projects in multiple states. ...

Reference:

Location Selection of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Through Employing the Spherical Fuzzy CoCoSo and CRITIC Technique
A Hierarchical Optimization Model for a Network of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations

Energies

... The deployment of the wireless charging system on public roads determines the rate of power transfer and the density of chargers. There are two possible designs for the system [16]. In arrangement 1, every 50-meter section powers two electric vehicles, with a maximum power transfer rate of 100 KW. ...

Optimal charging framework for electric vehicles on the wireless charging highway
  • Citing Conference Paper
  • October 2016

... It takes a blockchain-based video surveillance system to completely mitigate the effects of these security flaws [77]. According to the author [78], blockchain is a peer-topeer distributed ledger system that keeps track of all operations revenue, agreements, and contracts. Smart city surveillance supported by blockchain may contain the following: ...

Blockchains and Smart Contracts for the Internet of Things

IEEE Access

... Due to the significant increase in harmonic content beyond this SoC threshold, the probability of failure reaches unity. The literature reports that charging EVs beyond 80% SoC (in CV phase) increases the duration of charging sessions (and possible waiting times for other customers) and accelerates battery degradation [19]. Our findings further show that full-cycle charging of EVs violates harmonic levels. ...

Revenue Optimization Frameworks for Multi-Class PEV Charging Stations
  • Citing Article
  • January 2015

IEEE Access