High-Resolution Monitored Data Analysis of EV Public Charging Stations for Modelled Grid Impact Validation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper's subject is interesting and in line with the aims and scope of the Journal.

·        The results must be emphasized in the Abstract.

·        Key words should be improved.

·        Highlight the paper's main results, conclusions, and contributions in the Introduction section.

·        Highlight the main research gaps according to the reviewed literature.

·        The methodology section is not clear. The methodology algorithm is missing. Stronger argumentation for selected approaches is missing.

·        Theoretical and Practical implications are missing. Results must be compared with similar studies.

·        Avoid bullet and numbering in the Conclusions.

·        Future research directions should be reinforced.  The authors should provide more future research directions that would interest most of the Journal readers

·        Limitations in Conclusions are missing.

·        Scientific contributions should be presented.

 

Suggested references - due to the limitation in the number of suggested references, I list only two/three. Much more is necessary.

 

 

Wang, R., Wu, Z., & Sun, Z. (2024). Optimization of Charging-Station Location and Capacity Determination Based on Optical Storage, Charging Integration, and Multi-Strategy Fusion. J. Green Econ. Low-Carbon Dev., 3(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.56578/jgelcd030101

 

 

Prasetyo, S. D., Rizandy, A. N., Birawa, A. R., Regannanta, F. J., Arifin, Z., Mauludin, M. S., & Sukarman (2024). Design and Economic Analysis of a Solar-Powered Charging Station for Personal Electric Vehicles in Indonesia. J. Sustain. Energy, 3(2), 65-74. https://doi.org/10.56578/jse030201

 

Prasetyo, S. D., Regannanta, F. J., Mauludin, M. S., & Arifin, Z. (2023). Economic Feasibility of Solar-Powered Electric Vehicle Charging Stations: A Case Study in Ngawi, Indonesia. Mechatron. Intell Transp. Syst., 2(4), 201-210. https://doi.org/10.56578/mits020402

Comments on the Quality of English Language

.

Author Response

Reviewer : The paper's subject is interesting and in line with the aims and scope of the Journal.

• The results must be emphasized in the Abstract.

 

The authors kindly thank for the suggestion. The abstract structure has been modified as suggested, to include a greater amount of numerical data, in terms of charging infrastructure development and its usage. Of the parts changed is reported below:

 

“The research involved collecting empirical data from 411,800 recharging sessions and simulated data using the emobpy tool to model energy consumption and charging behaviour. Key findings reveal a substantial increase in the number of recharging points, from 673 in 2021 to 970 in 2023, with the total energy delivered increasing from 938 MWh in 2021 to 4,133 MWh in 2023.”

 

With this change, the article summary gains in impact and overall clarity.

 

• Key words should be improved.

 

The authors thank for the suggestion. Some of the keywords have been changed of modified, and now the “Electric mobility” and “Public Charging Stations” have been added.

In this way, the attractiveness of the article has been improved and the overall impact of the article increased.

 

• Highlight the paper's main results, conclusions, and contributions in the Introduction section.

 

The authors thank for the comment provided. The section of the introduction has been expanded, in order to make more clear the objective of the paper and the contribution of the article compared with the current scientific literature, Including an analysis of the main type of results provided.

More specifically, the following paragraph has been added:

 

“The innovative aspect of this article lies in the extensive scope of the regional case study, which, unlike other studies in the literature, encompasses a diverse range of spatial and geographical areas and includes various types of charging points, both AC and DC, with different nominal capacities. This breadth allows for the examination of multiple factors influencing the utilization of charging points. The study provides a detailed and varied representation of the charging behavior, including not only common data such as the duration and start time of charging but also crucial data to assess the impact on the network, such as the hourly power demand from each type of charging point.

Furthermore, the measured data are compared with data obtained through simulations using the emobpy tool. Unlike other approaches in the literature, emobpy includes parameters such as daily vehicle movements, which influence the likelihood of finding an available charging point and the usable nominal capacity. This allows for a more precise definition of the power profiles required from the network for vehicle charging.”

             

              After this change, the article has a clearer structure, increasing the effectiveness of the study

 

• Highlight the main research gaps according to the reviewed literature.

 

The authors thank you for your comment. The literature review has been extended with further studies on topics addressed in our article, such as electric mobility and the use of charging infrastructure. In addition, both for the new articles inserted as a comparison and for the articles already mentioned previously, the methodology used was more widely presented, in order to clarify the research gap filled by our study and showing the scientific contribution of having presented a comparison between data obtained through simulation and real data obtained through measurement, with a level of detail and variety of results obtained, equal to no other article in the literature.

After this changes the article has a clearer contribution

 

• The methodology section is not clear. The methodology algorithm is missing. Stronger argumentation for selected approaches is missing.

 

The authors thank for the valuable feedback. The following paragraph has been added to the section “Methods and Data”, in order to make it clearer, above all, the methodology by which the data were calculated through simulation:

 

“Emobpy employs a sampling approach to generate profiles for Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) by integrating customizable assumptions, vehicle physical properties, and empirical mobility data from German institutions. To create passenger car charging pro-files, the tool requires the percentage distribution of the population among non-commuters, part-time commuters, and full-time commuters. After establishing Origin-Destination vehicle patterns, the tool needs the characteristics of the vehicle fleet to determine battery consumption for each trip. Once vehicle consumption is assessed, it is crucial to provide probability distributions for charging stations, outlining the likelihood of finding an available charging station with a specific power rating at each location. Using this information, emobpy determines whether a BEV is connected to the grid at any given timestep and at what power capacity. Finally, to assess the overall grid electricity demand, an "immediate" charging strategy is considered, where BEVs charge at their maximum power rating as soon as a charging station becomes available.”

 

Thanks to the changes made, the article presents a clearer representation of the methodology used, ensuring greater replicability of results, but still ensuring a fluid and concise structure.

 

• Theoretical and Practical implications are missing. Results must be compared with similar studies.

 

The authors kingly thank for the suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have included a dedicated paragraph in the "Discussion" section that elaborates on both the theoretical and practical implications of our findings. This paragraph highlights how our data and analysis contribute to the body of knowledge on EV infrastructure deployment and usage patterns, and how they can inform policymakers, urban planners, and utility companies. Additionally, we have compared our results with similar studies to contextualize our findings and underline their significance within the broader research landscape. These additions provide a clearer understanding of the relevance and impact of our study.

 

• Avoid bullet and numbering in the Conclusions.

 

The conclusion section has been modified so that it no longer includes a bullet point description of the main results obtained, which has instead been described in detail within the Discussion section. The Conclusion section was thus made more fluent and clear, presenting a general recap of the research process, the scope of the article and the importance of the study within the literature.

 

• Future research directions should be reinforced.  The authors should provide more future research directions that would interest most of the Journal readers.

 

The authors kindly thank for the suggestion. In the revised "Discussion" section, we now outline five specific future research directions: (1) exploring the long-term impacts of increased EV adoption on electricity grids across various geographic and climatic conditions, (2) investigating the effectiveness of incentive programs and policies in promoting EV infrastructure, (3) integrating renewable energy sources with EV charging stations, (4) developing advanced predictive models using machine learning and AI for demand forecasting and grid impact assessments, and (5) examining user behavior and preferences in different urban and rural settings. These directions are intended to inspire future research that will build on our findings and further advance the field of e-mobility.

 

•       Limitations in Conclusions are missing.

 

The authors appreciate the suggestion made. In response, a section within the “Discussion” chapter has been added, to highlight the limitations of both the measured data and also the results obtainable with the emobpy tool. Acknowledging these limitations provides a more balanced view of our study and underscores areas where further research is needed to validate and expand upon our findings.

In this way, the article achieves an higher value of clarity for its benefits among the other studies in literature.

 

• Scientific contributions should be presented.

 

The authors kindly thank for highlighting the importance of clearly presenting the scientific contributions of our study. In the revised manuscript, a section in the "Conclusion" and in the “Discussion” have been added, that explicitly outline our key scientific contributions. These include the provision of a comprehensive dataset on EV charging infrastructure and usage patterns over a three-year period, the validation of predictive models using high-resolution empirical data, and the identification of temporal and spatial trends in charging behaviors. These contributions not only advance the understanding of EV recharging infrastructure but also offer practical insights for optimizing the deployment and management of EV charging stations. By detailing these contributions, we aim to demonstrate the value and impact of our research within the scientific community.

 

Suggested references - due to the limitation in the number of suggested references, I list only two/three. Much more is necessary.

 

• Wang, R., Wu, Z., & Sun, Z. (2024). Optimization of Charging-Station Location and Capacity Determination Based on Optical Storage, Charging Integration, and Multi-Strategy Fusion. J. Green Econ. Low-Carbon Dev., 3(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.56578/jgelcd030101
• Prasetyo, S. D., Rizandy, A. N., Birawa, A. R., Regannanta, F. J., Arifin, Z., Mauludin, M. S., & Sukarman (2024). Design and Economic Analysis of a Solar-Powered Charging Station for Personal Electric Vehicles in Indonesia. J. Sustain. Energy, 3(2), 65-74. https://doi.org/10.56578/jse030201
• Prasetyo, S. D., Regannanta, F. J., Mauludin, M. S., & Arifin, Z. (2023). Economic Feasibility of Solar-Powered Electric Vehicle Charging Stations: A Case Study in Ngawi, Indonesia. Mechatron. Intell Transp. Syst., 2(4), 201-210. https://doi.org/10.56578/mits020402

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main question addressed by the research is how does the growth and distribution of EV charging infrastructure, along with energy consumption patterns and charging behaviors across different types of charging stations, influence temporal and spatial trends in charging station usage, and how do these observations compare with grid impact simulation models to validate and refine predictive approaches. Real-life operational data from the Trentino-South Tyrol and the results obtained through the simulation are the most important contributions to the field. Similar studies from the field rarely use comprehensive real-life data. This study addresses a significant gap in the field by using high-resolution temporal and spatial data from public charging stations in Trentino-South Tyrol over three years, offering an empirical analysis of EV charging patterns and infrastructure utilization. 

 

The paper is well-written, although not so well structured. The authors should address the following issues. The authors should try to emphasize the novelty and contributions throughout the paper.

 

1. The authors should try to condense the paper title. It is too extensive. The title should be as short and informative as possible.

 

2. The authors provide a review of some literature in multiple places (part of it is in the Introduction and another art is in the sub-section “Study area”). I suggest they form a separate section “Literature review” (or Related papers) and cover all main aspects of the study. They should also clearly highlight the main research gaps identified through this review. The authors should leave in the introduction only a short overview of the problem and highlight the purpose and the aim of the study, as well as the main results, conclusions, and scientific contributions.

 

3. The methodology should be better presented. The authors should make a diagram showing the actual steps of the methodology application. They should also provide more details regarding the methodology to allow the replication of results. The authors mentioned that they used the methodology previously employed by another study in the literature, but other than that they didn’t provide additional details. This methodology should also be covered in the literature review and the authors should highlight if they introduced some novelties in the proposed methodology.

 

4. The paper does not have a proper discussion. The authors did not discuss how the results can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies. Discussion should clearly and concisely explain the significance of the obtained results to demonstrate the actual contribution of the article to this field of research when compared with the existing and studied literature. This should be done not only for the proposed methodology but also for the problem dealt with in the paper.

 

5. The authors didn’t explain the limitations of the proposed approach.

 

6. The authors didn’t discuss the theoretical and practical (managerial) implications of their study. Who and for what can use the results of the study?

 

7. Future research directions are scarce. The authors should provide at least 3-5 solid future research directions that would be interesting to most of the journal readers.

 

8. The used references are appropriate. They are relevant to the addressed problem and up-to-date. However, the literature review should be supplemented with the references regarding the methodology.

 

9. Some technical issues should be addressed:

 

a) There should be at least a couple of sentences between the headings of different levels (e.g. between 2 and 2.1).

 

b) Sub-section “Recharging infrastructure” should be numbered 2.2 not 3.2.

 

c) Sub-section “Simulation data” should be numbered 2.3.2 not 2.3.1.

 

d) Figures 12 and 13 are not mentioned anywhere in the main text. All figures present in the paper must be mentioned somewhere in the main text.

 

e) There is some error in the line 306.

 

f) References in the reference list are not formatted according to the Instructions for Authors (e.g. journal names are not abbreviated).

 

g) Some references are incomplete (they are missing important information),

Author Response

Reviewer :

The main question addressed by the research is how does the growth and distribution of EV charging infrastructure, along with energy consumption patterns and charging behaviors across different types of charging stations, influence temporal and spatial trends in charging station usage, and how do these observations compare with grid impact simulation models to validate and refine predictive approaches. Real-life operational data from the Trentino-South Tyrol and the results obtained through the simulation are the most important contributions to the field. Similar studies from the field rarely use comprehensive real-life data. This study addresses a significant gap in the field by using high-resolution temporal and spatial data from public charging stations in Trentino-South Tyrol over three years, offering an empirical analysis of EV charging patterns and infrastructure utilization. 

 

The paper is well-written, although not so well structured. The authors should address the following issues. The authors should try to emphasize the novelty and contributions throughout the paper.

 

1. The authors should try to condense the paper title. It is too extensive. The title should be as short and informative as possible.

 

The authors kindly thank for the suggestion. The article title has been changed to provide a more concise but still informative description of the article content. In this way the overall attractiveness and clarity of the study is increased.

 

2. The authors provide a review of some literature in multiple places (part of it is in the Introduction and another art is in the sub-section “Study area”). I suggest they form a separate section “Literature review” (or Related papers) and cover all main aspects of the study. They should also clearly highlight the main research gaps identified through this review. The authors should leave in the introduction only a short overview of the problem and highlight the purpose and the aim of the study, as well as the main results, conclusions, and scientific contributions.

 

The authors thank you for your comment. As regards the general structure of the article, reference was made to the "Guidelines for authors" of the journal.

Following this structure, the article initially has two sections:

• Introduction: in this section, as recommended by the guidelines, a general presentation of the topics addressed in the article was included, with the reasons and objectives of the study, as well as the literature review, where the most recent articles dealing with similar topics have been presented.
• Methods and data: in this section we have included the methodology used, making it more clear and effective than the first version submitted. Within the sub-section "Study Area" is also shown a description of the territory considered, to highlight the advantage of having used the territory of Trentino-Alto Adige as case study, thanks to the presence of tourist areas and not, and in which there is a strong growth of electric vehicles in circulation and charging points installed.

The references were then inserted in the "Introduction" and "Case Study" sections in line with the guidelines.

As regards the "Introductions" section, as suggested by the commentary, the objective and the novelty of the study presented has been made clearer. This gives the article a clearer and more fluid structure, thus increasing its overall effectiveness 

 

3. The methodology should be better presented. The authors should make a diagram showing the actual steps of the methodology application. They should also provide more details regarding the methodology to allow the replication of results. The authors mentioned that they used the methodology previously employed by another study in the literature, but other than that they didn’t provide additional details. This methodology should also be covered in the literature review and the authors should highlight if they introduced some novelties in the proposed methodology.

 

The authors appreciate the valuable feedback. A paragraph has been added to the “Methods and Data” section to better clarify the methodology used, with a general presentation of the approach used for the calculation by simulation of charging data of electric vehicles.

 

“Emobpy employs a sampling approach to generate profiles for Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) by integrating customizable assumptions, vehicle physical properties, and empirical mobility data from German institutions. To create passenger car charging pro-files, the tool requires the percentage distribution of the population among non-commuters, part-time commuters, and full-time commuters. After establishing Origin-Destination vehicle patterns, the tool needs the characteristics of the vehicle fleet to determine battery consumption for each trip. Once vehicle consumption is assessed, it is crucial to provide probability distributions for charging stations, outlining the likelihood of finding an available charging station with a specific power rating at each location. Using this information, emobpy determines whether a BEV is connected to the grid at any given timestep and at what power capacity. Finally, to assess the overall grid electricity demand, an "immediate" charging strategy is considered, where BEVs charge at their maximum power rating as soon as a charging station becomes available.”

 

These changes have resulted in a clearer presentation of the methodology, enhancing the replicability of the results while maintaining a fluid and concise structure.

 

4. The paper does not have a proper discussion. The authors did not discuss how the results can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies. Discussion should clearly and concisely explain the significance of the obtained results to demonstrate the actual contribution of the article to this field of research when compared with the existing and studied literature. This should be done not only for the proposed methodology but also for the problem dealt with in the paper.

 

The authors thank you for your suggestion. To make the discussion of results clearer, an additional section called "Discussion" was presented, focusing on the analysis of the added value of the results obtained in the study compared with current scientific literature. Each main result was then analyzed in detail to highlight its contribution, making the overall presentation of the results clearer and more effective 

 

5. The authors didn’t explain the limitations of the proposed approach.

 

The presence of the chapter "Discussion is also intended to describe the limits of the approach used. The gaps in both the simulation tool and the type of measured data are described, without, however, undermining the quality of the study presented. Thanks to the valuable feedback provided, it was possible to obtain a more linear and effective structure of the article

 

6. The authors didn’t discuss the theoretical and practical (managerial) implications of their study. Who and for what can use the results of the study?

 

The authors of the article thank for the valuable feedback. The presentation of the theoretical and practical implications of the study were inserted in the "Discussion" section, where the usefulness of the presented study is presented in detail, the following paragraph was added:

 

The findings of this study have significant theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, this research contributes to the body of knowledge on EV infrastructure deployment and usage patterns, providing a comprehensive dataset that can be used to refine and validate predictive models of energy consumption and charging behaviors. This data is essential for advancing theories related to sustainable transportation systems and grid integration of electric vehicles. Practically, the results offer valuable insights for policymakers, urban planners, and utility companies. Policymakers can use the data to inform decisions on where to allocate resources for new charging infra-structure, ensuring it meets the actual demand and supports widespread EV adoption. Urban planners can benefit from understanding the spatial and temporal distribution of charging sessions to design more efficient and user-friendly recharging networks. Utility companies can use the findings to optimize grid management and plan for future demand, ensuring reliable energy supply and minimizing the risk of overloading the grid. Additionally, businesses involved in the EV market, such as charging station operators and automotive manufacturers, can leverage these insights to enhance their services and products, ultimately contributing to the development of a more robust and sustainable EV ecosystem. The results regarding the presence of charging points installed in the territory and their actual use can provide crucial insights for the oper-ator in the charging infrastructure market. If the first data can identify areas that may require an investment for the construction of new charging points, the analysis of total electricity consumption, together with the time of use, it also provides important in-formation on the use of charging points currently available, thus providing an im-portant tool on the effectiveness of installations that have already been completed in recent years.

 

This change increased the possibility of arousing interest in the article from stakeholders working in the field of electric mobility, thus increasing the effectiveness of the article.

 

7. Future research directions are scarce. The authors should provide at least 3-5 solid future research directions that would be interesting to most of the journal readers.

 

The authors kindly thang for the comment. A clearer description of the future research directions has been added in the “Discussion” Section and reported below:

 

Building on the results of this study, several future research directions emerge that could further enrich the field of e-mobility and be of significant interest to journal readers. First, future studies should explore the long-term impacts of increased EV adoption on regional and national electricity grids, incorporating diverse geographic and climatic conditions. Second, there is a need to investigate the effectiveness of various incentive programs and policies in promoting the deployment and usage of EV recharging infrastructure. Third, research could focus on the integration of renewable energy sources with EV charging stations to enhance sustainability and reduce grid dependency. Fourth, the development of advanced predictive models using machine learning and AI could improve the accuracy of demand forecasting and grid impact assessments. Finally, examining user behavior and preferences in different urban and rural settings can provide insights for optimizing the design and placement of future recharging stations.

 

With this new paragraph, a clearer description of the future research questions starting from the results of this study is achieved, improving the overall impact of the article.

 

8. The used references are appropriate. They are relevant to the addressed problem and up-to-date. However, the literature review should be supplemented with the references regarding the methodology.

 

The authors thank for the comment. The literature review has been expanded with further studies concerning the topics addressed in our article. Furthermore, for both the new articles included as a comparison and the previously cited articles, the methodology used has been more clearly presented, so as to make the research gap filled by our study clearer.

 

9. Some technical issues should be addressed:

 

2. a) There should be at least a couple of sentences between the headings of different levels (e.g. between 2 and 2.1).
3. b) Sub-section “Recharging infrastructure” should be numbered 2.2 not 3.2.
4. c) Sub-section “Simulation data” should be numbered 2.3.2 not 2.3.1.
5. d) Figures 12 and 13 are not mentioned anywhere in the main text. All figures present in the paper must be mentioned somewhere in the main text.
6. e) There is some error in the line 306.
7. f) References in the reference list are not formatted according to the Instructions for Authors (e.g. journal names are not abbreviated).
8. g) Some references are incomplete (they are missing important information),

 

The authors kindly thank for the indications. All the enlisted technical issues have been fixed, to ensure a clear presentation of the article.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the manuscript and have identified several areas that require improvement. Below are my detailed comments for the authors:

The abstract lacks numerical findings. Including key numerical results will provide a clearer and more impactful summary of the study’s outcomes.

The manuscript does not adequately cover the relevant literature on electric vehicles. I highly recommend including the following review paper to strengthen the literature review:

   - "Electric vehicle scheduling: State of the art, critical challenges, and future research opportunities." Journal of Industrial Information Integration.

At the beginning of Section 2 (Materials and Methods), it is essential to explain the links between the subsections. This will help readers understand the structure and flow of the methodology.

Similarly, at the beginning of Section 3 (Results), please provide an explanation of how the subsections are interconnected. This will enhance the coherence and readability of the results section.

The manuscript contains an excessive number of figures and tables. I suggest limiting the total number to no more than 18. The authors can merge some figures and tables and transfer any unnecessary ones to the appendix. This will make the main text more concise and focused.

Finally, please, write a section on managerial insights and recommendations for the electric vehicles industry. 

 

Author Response

Reviewer :

I have reviewed the manuscript and have identified several areas that require improvement. Below are my detailed comments for the authors:

 

The abstract lacks numerical findings. Including key numerical results will provide a clearer and more impactful summary of the study’s outcomes.

 

The authors kindly thank for the suggestion. The abstract structure has been modified as suggested, to include a greater amount of numerical data, in terms of charging infrastructure development and its usage. Of the parts changed is reported below:

 

“The research involved collecting empirical data from 411,800 recharging sessions and simulated data using the emobpy tool to model energy consumption and charging behaviour. Key findings reveal a substantial increase in the number of recharging points, from 673 in 2021 to 970 in 2023, with the total energy delivered increasing from 938 MWh in 2021 to 4,133 MWh in 2023.”

 

With this change, the article summary gains in impact and overall clarity.

 

The manuscript does not adequately cover the relevant literature on electric vehicles. I highly recommend including the following review paper to strengthen the literature review:

   - "Electric vehicle scheduling: State of the art, critical challenges, and future research opportunities." Journal of Industrial Information Integration.

 

The authors thank the suggestion, the literature review section has been expanded to include more articles on electric vehicles, considering topics such as electric vehicle scheduling and further analyses concerning the use of charging infrastructure, based on simulations or real data. The study suggested was also included, in order to make this section of the article clearer.

 

At the beginning of Section 2 (Materials and Methods), it is essential to explain the links between the subsections. This will help readers understand the structure and flow of the methodology.

 

A new paragraph has been added at the beginning of section 2, to guide the readers through the content of the section, providing a clearer analysis of the steps done:

This section provides a comprehensive overview of the study's design and methodology. It begins with a description of the study area, focusing on the geographical and demographic characteristics of the Trentino-South Tyrol region, which influences local transportation preferences. This is followed by detailed information on the recharging infrastructure, including the number and types of recharging points, and the expansion of the network over time. The section also outlines the data collection process, describing both the empirical data gathered from real-world observations and the simulated data generated using the emobpy tool. The combination of these data sources allows for a robust analysis of energy consumption patterns and charging behaviors across different types of charging stations.

 

 

Similarly, at the beginning of Section 3 (Results), please provide an explanation of how the subsections are interconnected. This will enhance the coherence and readability of the results section.

 

Following the same approach, a new paragraph is also added at the beginning of section 3, to provide an initial description of the results obtained and presented in this section, granting a clear and more effective analysis:

 

This section presents the findings from the analysis of the collected data. It starts with the distribution and expansion of charging points, highlighting the growth trends and geographical distribution within the study area. This is followed by an analysis of energy consumption and charging session statistics, offering insights into monthly consumption patterns, average consumption per recharging point, and the duration of charging sessions. The section also includes a comparison of empirical data with simulation results to validate the predictive models used. Detailed profiles of charging behaviors are provided, showcasing the variations in energy consumption and session duration across different times and types of charging points.

 

 

The manuscript contains an excessive number of figures and tables. I suggest limiting the total number to no more than 18. The authors can merge some figures and tables and transfer any unnecessary ones to the appendix. This will make the main text more concise and focused.

 

The author thank for the kind suggestions. Some of the figures presented in the Results section have been merged together, due to similar content shown. In this way the total number of figures has been reduced to the initial value of 24 to the final value of 20. Even if the suggested value of 18 figures is not achieved. The overall clearness and flow of the Results section has been strongly increased, providing a amore concise and focused text and increasing the overall impact of the article.

 

Finally, please, write a section on managerial insights and recommendations for the electric vehicles industry. 

 

The authors kindly thank for the suggestions. Within the new “Discussion” section, where the overall importance of the results obtained is presented, compared to other studies in literature, also an analysis of the managerial insights and the practical consequences of the article has been reported:

 

Practically, the results offer valuable insights for policymakers, urban planners, and utility companies. Policymakers can use the data to inform decisions on where to allocate resources for new charging infra-structure, ensuring it meets the actual demand and supports widespread EV adoption. Urban planners can benefit from understanding the spatial and temporal distribution of charging sessions to design more efficient and user-friendly recharging networks. Utility companies can use the findings to optimize grid management and plan for future demand, ensuring reliable energy supply and minimizing the risk of overloading the grid. Additionally, businesses involved in the EV market, such as charging station operators and automotive manufacturers, can leverage these insights to enhance their services and products, ultimately contributing to the development of a more robust and sustainable EV ecosystem. The results regarding the presence of charging points installed in the territory and their actual use can provide crucial insights for the operator in the charging infrastructure market. If the first data can identify areas that may require an investment for the construction of new charging points, the analysis of total electricity consumption, together with the time of use, it also provides important in-formation on the use of charging points currently available, thus providing an important tool on the effectiveness of installations that have already been completed in recent years.

 

In this way the article gains an higher level of impact and effectiveness, if compared to the previous version.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review for the article entitled: Monitored data of electric vehicle public charging stations with high temporal and spatial resolution for modelled grid impact analysis validation. Although the paper is nice to read and gives interesting insight there are few things needed to be corrected before publishing.

(1) The abstract part of the article is more detailed in presenting the results of the study, but the description of the research process is briefer, and it is recommended that the abstract part be adjusted to supplement the presentation of the research process appropriately.

(2) The content of lines 84 to 93 of the article only describes the current state of research on simulation methods and does not provide a description of the current limitations of the field, and it is recommended that this section be supplemented.

(3) The description of the content of lines 105 to 111 of the article does not match what follows, and it is suggested that this section be adjusted.

(4) There are some serial number, punctuation, font size and other types of errors in the article, such as missing punctuation in line 64 of the article; incorrectly labeled in line 137; and different font sizes in line 306. The authors are advised to scrutinize the article.

(5) The conclusion section of the article describes the experimental results of this study in detail, but the description of the experimental procedure is rather brief. In addition, the conclusion ends with a description of future research directions in the field without specifying the limitations of this study. It is recommended that the conclusion section be adjusted to provide a more detailed description of the section.

(6) The literature review may be improved by citing more relevant papers. Just list several as follows.

A network-based dispatch model for evaluating the spatial and temporal effects of plug-in electric vehicle charging on GHG emissions

Technical and economic analysis of battery electric buses with different charging rates

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Good

Author Response

Reviewer :

Review for the article entitled: Monitored data of electric vehicle public charging stations with high temporal and spatial resolution for modelled grid impact analysis validation. Although the paper is nice to read and gives interesting insight there are few things needed to be corrected before publishing.

(1) The abstract part of the article is more detailed in presenting the results of the study, but the description of the research process is briefer, and it is recommended that the abstract part be adjusted to supplement the presentation of the research process appropriately.

 

The authors kindly thank for the suggestions. The abstract has been changed to keep the same presentations of the major results achieved, but with a more in-depth description of the research process. This resulted in a clearer and more balanced summary, which increased the impact and clarity of the article, ensuring its high effectiveness

 

(2) The content of lines 84 to 93 of the article only describes the current state of research on simulation methods and does not provide a description of the current limitations of the field, and it is recommended that this section be supplemented.

 

The authors are grateful for the comments. The part of the literature review mentioned in the comment has been expanded to include more studies to show more clearly the state of the art regarding data on the use of the charging infrastructure obtained through simulations. The limitations of the results obtained or the methodology applied were more clearly explained for both added and already inserted studies. Thanks to this addition, the literature review analysis in the introduction is more balanced, achieving a greater clarity of content.

 

(3) The description of the content of lines 105 to 111 of the article does not match what follows, and it is suggested that this section be adjusted.

 

The authors are grateful for the suggestion. The new 'Discussion' section was inserted within the article, in order to maintain a more fluid and cohesive overall structure, in line with the suggestions for authors. In this way, the structure of the article is in line with that previously described between lines 105 and 111, which have therefore not been changed.

 

(4) There are some serial number, punctuation, font size and other types of errors in the article, such as missing punctuation in line 64 of the article; incorrectly labeled in line 137; and different font sizes in line 306. The authors are advised to scrutinize the article.

 

The authors thank for the precious comment. All the technical issues enlisted have been fixed, in order to provide a clearer structure and improve the effectiveness of the study.

 

(5) The conclusion section of the article describes the experimental results of this study in detail, but the description of the experimental procedure is rather brief. In addition, the conclusion ends with a description of future research directions in the field without specifying the limitations of this study. It is recommended that the conclusion section be adjusted to provide a more detailed description of the section.

 

The authors kindly thank for the suggestions. The final part of the article was structurally modified by inserting the new chapter 'Discussion' before the conclusion. In this way, the 'Discussion' paragraph described future research directions in more detail and also specified the current limitations of the study. The 'Conclusions' chapter, on the other hand, presents a general recap of the scope of the study and a brief description of the significance of the study in light of the results obtained.

This ensured a clearer structure to the article, increasing fluidity and impact on the readers.

 

(6) The literature review may be improved by citing more relevant papers. Just list several as follows.

• A network-based dispatch model for evaluating the spatial and temporal effects of plug-in electric vehicle charging on GHG emissions
• Technical and economic analysis of battery electric buses with different charging rates

 

The authors thank for the comment, the literature review section has been expanded to include further studies that can show the research gap filled by our article, making it clearer the advantage of having used a comparison between data obtained through simulations and real data with a case study that is spatially and typologically broad. In this context, the two suggested studies were also included, further extending the quality of the literature review and improving the overall quality of the article.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.The basic data used to calculate the "total electricity demand of the power grid" in 2.3.1 should be reflected in the appendix, and the calculation formula should be listed in the article.

2.The bold black font "Error!... not found" appears on line 306.

3.No textual explanation was provided for Figures 12 and 13 in section 3.3.

4. Some feasible suggestions can be proposed based on the conclusion.

5. The contribution is not clear. The contribution of the paper should be shown clearly on front of the paper. This is the major issue for evaluating an article.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Reviewer:

1.The basic data used to calculate the "total electricity demand of the power grid" in 2.3.1 should be reflected in the appendix, and the calculation formula should be listed in the article.

 

The authors kindly thank for the valuable advice. The section mentioned (now called 2.3.2. after a correction) includes a more detailed presentation of the methodology used to calculate the main charging characteristics through the emobpy tool. In addition to a more detailed description of the tool in general, it also presents the equations used for calculating the total electricity demand of the power grid.

Because of the limited number of equations that need to be shown, it was not considered essential to insert an appendix, and these equations were inserted directly into the article, along with the rest of the methodology.

This way a clearer representation of the methodology used was obtained, ensuring a greater clarity of the steps that constitute the article and also of the results subsequently shown. The overall quality of the study has therefore improved

 

2.The bold black font "Error!... not found" appears on line 306.

 

The error has been changed and the correct references to the Figure have been added.

 

3.No textual explanation was provided for Figures 12 and 13 in section 3.3.

 

The authors thank for the comment. After correcting the cross-reference within the results section, the commentary to Figures 12 and 13 was made clearer, providing a textual explanation for them as well, and ensuring a higher quality of the entire section.

 

4. Some feasible suggestions can be proposed based on the conclusion.

 

The authors kindly thank for the suggestion. In the "Discussion" section, a list of suggestions was presented based on what was shown in the article, both based on certain limitations of the study, which can be the subject of future research, and showing the theoretical and practical consequences of the results obtained.

In this way, a greater overall impact of the article was achieved, ensuring greater interest on the part of the readers.

 

5. The contribution is not clear. The contribution of the paper should be shown clearly on front of the paper. This is the major issue for evaluating an article.

 

The authors appreciate the feedback given. The introduction has been expanded to clarify the paper's objectives and its contribution compared to existing scientific literature, including an analysis of the main types of results presented. After presenting the literature review in more detail, to show intuitively the research gap to be filled, the following paragraph has been added, to make the contribution of this study clearer:

 

“The innovative aspect of this article lies in the extensive scope of the regional case study, which, unlike other studies in the literature, encompasses a diverse range of spatial and geographical areas and includes various types of charging points, both AC and DC, with different nominal capacities. This breadth allows for the examination of multiple factors influencing the utilization of charging points. The study provides a detailed and varied representation of the charging behavior, including not only common data such as the duration and start time of charging but also crucial data to assess the impact on the network, such as the hourly power demand from each type of charging point.

Furthermore, the measured data are compared with data obtained through simulations using the emobpy tool. Unlike other approaches in the literature, emobpy includes parameters such as daily vehicle movements, which influence the likelihood of finding an available charging point and the usable nominal capacity. This allows for a more precise definition of the power profiles required from the network for vehicle charging.”

 

Thanks to the changes made, the effectiveness and clarity of the study have been greatly improved.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper should be accepted for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

.

Author Response

Thanks for the positive feedback

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have invested a substantial effort to address all issues from the previous review round, thus significantly improving the quality of their paper. Therefore, I suggest aj acceptance of the paper in its present form.

Author Response

Thanks for the positive feedback

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am not satisfied with the changes on the revision for the following initial comments:

The manuscript does not adequately cover the relevant literature on electric vehicles. I highly recommend including the following review paper to strengthen the literature review: "Electric vehicle scheduling: State of the art, critical challenges, and future research opportunities." Journal of Industrial Information Integration.

 

At the beginning of Section 2 (Materials and Methods), it is essential to explain the links between the subsections. This will help readers understand the structure and flow of the methodology.

 

Similarly, at the beginning of Section 3 (Results), please provide an explanation of how the subsections are interconnected. This will enhance the coherence and readability of the results section.

 

The manuscript contains an excessive number of figures and tables. I suggest limiting the total number to no more than 18. The authors can merge some figures and tables and transfer any unnecessary ones to the appendix. This will make the main text more concise and focused.

 

Finally, please, write a section on managerial insights and recommendations for the electric vehicles industry. 

Author Response

Reviewer #3

 

I am not satisfied with the changes on the revision for the following initial comments:

The manuscript does not adequately cover the relevant literature on electric vehicles. I highly recommend including the following review paper to strengthen the literature review: "Electric vehicle scheduling: State of the art, critical challenges, and future research opportunities." Journal of Industrial Information Integration.

 

The authors kindly thank for the comment. The suggested paper has been more deeply integrated inside the introduction, in order to strengthen the literature review and provide the novelty of the article in a clearer way, assessing the state of the art of Electric vehicle scheduling. The paragraph has been changed as follows:

 

Pasha et al. [24] provide a comprehensive review of the state of EV scheduling, identifying key challenges such as energy management, battery degradation, and grid stability. They emphasize the need for adaptive algorithms that account for real-time fluctuations in energy demand and the importance of considering the impact of EVs on grid infrastructure. The paper also highlights future research opportunities, including the development of predictive models and decentralized scheduling algorithms to enhance EV network resilience. Among the studies that assessed electric vehicle scheduling, including also power grid considerations, Kamankesh et al. [25], proposed a system including both charging demand and renewable energy sources to evaluate the differences between controlled and uncontrolled charging, but considering a micro-grid case study, thus lacking the consideration of the influence of different geographical position on the production and demand profiles.

 

After including the suggestion proposed, the article has been improved in terms of clarity and effectiveness.

 

At the beginning of Section 2 (Materials and Methods), it is essential to explain the links between the subsections. This will help readers understand the structure and flow of the methodology.

 

The authors thank for the precious comment. The introduction of the Section 2 (Materials and Methods) has been changed in order to better explain the link between the sentences. A direct numerical reference of the Subsection has been added, in addition to a brief description of the content of each subsection. The paragraph has been changed as follows:

 

This section provides a comprehensive overview of the study's design and methodology. It begins with Subsection 2.1, which describes the collection of both measured and simulated data, including sources and time periods. Subsection 2.2 introduces the emobpy simulation tool, explaining its algorithms and assumptions. Next, Subsection 2.3 outlines the specific settings and parameters applied in the simulations, ensuring that the study's configuration is clear and replicable. Finally, Subsection 2.4 details the data analysis approach used to compare the measured and simulated data, highlight-ing the statistical techniques employed to assess accuracy and reliability. The combination of these data sources allows for a robust analysis of energy consumption patterns and charging behaviours across different types of charging stations.

 

In this way the overall structure of the section is clearer, increasing the readability of the Materials and Methods section and the general effectiveness of the article.

 

Similarly, at the beginning of Section 3 (Results), please provide an explanation of how the subsections are interconnected. This will enhance the coherence and readability of the results section.

 

The authors appreciate the valuable comment. The introduction of Section 2 (Materials and Methods) has been revised to clarify the connections between the subsections. Also in this case, numerical references for each subsection have been added, along with a brief description of their content. The paragraph has been updated as follows:

 

This section presents the study's findings, beginning with Subsection 3.1, which examines the growth in EV charging infrastructure, identifying key trends over the analyzed period. Subsection 3.2 then analyzes electricity consumption patterns, focusing on differences between AC and DC charging points and geographical variations. Finally, Subsection 3.3 compares the measured data with the Emobpy simulation results, evaluating the accuracy of the simulation tool. The results build upon each other, progressing from infrastructure growth to consumption patterns, and culminating in the validation of the simulation tool against real-world data.

 

The Results section now has a clearer presentation of the intermediate subsections, increasing the readability and the effectiveness of the overall paragraph.

 

The manuscript contains an excessive number of figures and tables. I suggest limiting the total number to no more than 18. The authors can merge some figures and tables and transfer any unnecessary ones to the appendix. This will make the main text more concise and focused.

 

The authors thank for the precious suggestion. Some of the figures have been eliminated and some have been merged and now the number of figures in the article is equal to 17. In this way the main text is more concise and the overall readability of the paper has been increased.

 

Finally, please, write a section on managerial insights and recommendations for the electric vehicles industry. 

 

The authors thank for the comment, the Discussion section has been changed with an additional paragraph, including an analysis on the managerial insights and the recommendations for the electric vehicles industry:

 

For manufacturers and fleet operators, incorporating advanced simulation tools can lead to more accurate predictions of energy consumption, enhancing range accuracy and extending battery lifespan. This results in better vehicle design, more reliable performance, and greater customer satisfaction. Additionally, the analysis of the share of charging connectors used during the monitored timeframe provides crucial information that can guide manufacturers in designing vehicles with charging systems that align with actual usage patterns. Understanding these preferences allows for more targeted development of new EV models, ensuring they meet specific user needs and driving conditions. By leveraging these insights, the EV industry can refine its products and contribute to the creation of more efficient and sustainable electric vehicles.

 

With this change, the article has increased its effectiveness by showing the potential benefits of the study from a broader point of view

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have dealt with all my concerns.

Author Response

Thanks for the positive feedback

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In line 280, "an 'immediate' charging 282 strategy is considered" should be supported by references.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

In line 280, "an 'immediate' charging 282 strategy is considered" should be supported by references.

 

The authors thank for the comment, the sentence has been changed in order to highlight the meaning of the “immediate” definition, including also the reference of the paper in which that nomenclature has been used. The section has been changed as follows:

 

Finally, to assess the overall grid electricity demand, an "immediate" charging strategy is considered (using the nomenclature of the tool developers [46], where BEVs charge at the maximum power rating as soon as a charging station becomes available.

 

In this way the methodology used is described in a clearer way, increasing the readability and replicability of the study described.