presentation overview uh 0.6m telescope & uh 0.9m telescope problem: telescope control software...

1
Developing PHEV Charging Load Profile Based on Transportation Data Analyses Developing PHEV Charging Load Profile (PCLP) PHEV: Plug in Hybrid Electric Vehicle PCLP: PHEV Charging Load Profile The amount of electricity demanded for charging PHEVs in a specification region at any given time. Student(s) : Zahra Darabi, Electrical and Computer Engineering Background Three key questions : i. when each vehicle begins to be charged, ii.how much energy is required to charge it, iii.what level of charge is available. In Previous studies: Total load profiles with and without PHEVs were compared Main objective has not been the building of a PCLP There was no detailed information about the data on which those profiles are based A load demand schedule of PHEVs was provided but the time of day at which vehicles are charged is not indicated. The most comprehensive reference for transportation data is the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) Base of PCLP- Daily Mileage The most common mileage is in the range of 25-30 miles. 55% of vehicles are driven 30 30 miles daily or less Utility Factor (UF) is the fraction miles driven by electricity. Electric Range Utility Factor (ERUF) is the ratio of miles driven by electricity to Faculty Advisor(s) : Dr. Mehdi Ferdowsi, Electrical and Computer Engineering Base of PCLP- Daily Mileage State Of Charge (SOC) is the percentage of charge remaining in the vehicle when it arrives. The SOC of a vehicle can be determined based on miles driven and the electric range (x) of the PHEV. Base of PCLP- Arrival Time The peak arrival time is between hours 16 and 22. Developing PCLPs Total power (t)= Power required by vehicles arriving at (t) + Power required by vehicles that have arrived since (t-n) Battery Utility Factor (BUF) is the fraction of total electricity consumed. Two approaches produces almost identical PCLPs Most of the time the PCLP of PHEV40s overlies those of PHEV30s and PHEV20s 11:00 to 17:00 PCLPs are almost the same Peak time of PCLPs is 18:00 to 23:00 The PCLP of PHEV30s is closer to that of PHEV40s Larger PHEV results better UF and peak time, but worse ERUF, BUF, and peak load Base of PCLP- Vehicles Type The first four types of vehicles are selected for this study Type 1 is the most common is vehicle type. are The four PHEV types are mapped to the four types of the 2001 NHTS data The energy required of four types of PHEV20 The average kWh/mile is 0.37 (based on the number and kWh/mile of each vehicle types). Improving Policies based on PHEV30 PCLPs of various charging levels As the charging level increases: the peak point moves to the left the peak value rises Policy 1: Vehicles, arriving between 0:00 and 16:00, get charging level of 7.68 kW and the rest get that of 1.4 kW Policy 2: Vehicles, arriving after 16, are charged 2 hours later Charging Levels & Charging Schedule Three charging levels based on two references Fully charging schedule (based on the charging level 1) Two approaches to scale charging schedule based on SOC Power scaling approach scales the electric power delivered to each vehicle at each hour. (constant time ) Time scaling approach considers maximum power available at each time and scales the total energy FUTURE WORK Developing smart charging profile Defining attributes for PCLPs Quantitative assessments of PCLPs Determining probability distributions for the three sides of the PCLP prism based on NHTS data Developing probabilistic PCLPs This work has been partially supported by the Intelligent Systems Center at the Missouri University of Science and Technology Acknowledgements 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00 kW Tim e ofday PHEV20 PHEV30 PHEV40 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00 miles Tim e ofday PowerScaling Tim e Scaling 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0-5 5_10 10_15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 50-55 55-60 60-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-100 >100 N o.ofvehicles M iles 0 20 40 60 80 100 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00 60.00 65.00 70.00 75.00 80.00 85.00 90.00 95.00 100.00 % x(miles) UF ERUF 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0-5 5_10 10_15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 50-55 55-60 60-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-100 >100 % of vehicles Miles 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00 No. of Vehicles Tim e ofday V ehicle Type 1 2 3 4 N um ber 23,881 4,686 5,139 5,536 Percentage 60.85% 11.94% 13.1% 14.11% Type TotalkW h kW h/mile Com pactSedan 6.51 0.3255 M id-size Sedan 7.21 0.3605 M id-size SU V 8.75 0.4375 Full-size SU V 10.15 0.5075 Typesofvehiclesin N H TS 01 Autom obile/car/station wagon 02 V an (m ini, cargo, passenger) 03 Sportsutility vehicle 04 Pickup truck 05 Othertruck 06 RV (recreationalvehicle) 07 Motorcycle 91 O ther Level R eference 1 2 3 EPRI-NEC 120V A C, 15A (12A ) 1.44 kW 240V AC,1phase, 40A 480V A C,3phase, 60 to 150 kW SA EJ1772 120V A C, 12A , 1phase 1.44 kW 208-240V A C, 1phase 32A, 6.66-7.68kW 208-600V A C, 3phase, 400A , >7.68 kW H our Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total kW h 01 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.91 0 0 0 6.51 02 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.21 0 0 7.21 03 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.35 0 8.75 04 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.35 10.15 PH EV 20 PH EV 30 PH EV 40 M ilesdriven by electricity 671,888 903,423 104,409 UF 0.522 0.703 0.812 ERUF 0.856 0.767 0.665 Consum ed total electrical energy ( kW h) 249,469.8518 336,026.5069 389,086.33675 BUF 0.859 0.771 0.669 Peak load (kW ) 25000 30000 32000 Peak tim e 20:30 21:45 22:00 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00 kW Tim e ofday 1.4kW policy1 7.68kW Policy2 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00 kW Tim e ofday 1.4kW 7.68kW 2kW 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00 kW Tim e ofday 1.4kW 7.68kW policy1

Upload: curtis-hubbard

Post on 14-Dec-2015

232 views

Category:

Documents


12 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Presentation Overview UH 0.6m Telescope & UH 0.9m Telescope Problem: Telescope Control Software & LabVIEW Design: Steps to Solution LabVIEW Software Results:
Page 2: Presentation Overview UH 0.6m Telescope & UH 0.9m Telescope Problem: Telescope Control Software & LabVIEW Design: Steps to Solution LabVIEW Software Results:

Presentation OverviewPresentation Overview

• UH 0.6m Telescope & UH 0.9m Telescope

• Problem: Telescope Control Software & LabVIEW

• Design: Steps to Solution

• LabVIEW Software

• Results: Manual & Program

• Conclusion: Benefits for UH 0.9m Telescope

Page 3: Presentation Overview UH 0.6m Telescope & UH 0.9m Telescope Problem: Telescope Control Software & LabVIEW Design: Steps to Solution LabVIEW Software Results:

UH 0.6m TelescopeUH 0.6m Telescope

• Operated manually by hand paddle.• It’s not fully functional for researchers and students. • Used for Instrumentation Testing.

In 1968, the first telescope on Mauna Kea. Photo courtesy of Bill Heacox.

Page 4: Presentation Overview UH 0.6m Telescope & UH 0.9m Telescope Problem: Telescope Control Software & LabVIEW Design: Steps to Solution LabVIEW Software Results:

The New 0.9m TelescopeThe New 0.9m Telescope

• Upgraded to see modern astronomical images.

• Electronically controlled from sea-level, UH-Hilo’s control room.

• Available for the research of UH-Hilo students, including undergraduates.

Sketch of the 0.6m Telescope. Photo courtesy of Bill Heacox

Page 5: Presentation Overview UH 0.6m Telescope & UH 0.9m Telescope Problem: Telescope Control Software & LabVIEW Design: Steps to Solution LabVIEW Software Results:

ProblemProblem ??

?

Photo courtesy of Bill Heacox.

Page 6: Presentation Overview UH 0.6m Telescope & UH 0.9m Telescope Problem: Telescope Control Software & LabVIEW Design: Steps to Solution LabVIEW Software Results:

Choosing LabVIEWChoosing LabVIEW

South African Telescope

Page 7: Presentation Overview UH 0.6m Telescope & UH 0.9m Telescope Problem: Telescope Control Software & LabVIEW Design: Steps to Solution LabVIEW Software Results:

LabVIEW Software: Front Panel and Block Diagram

Page 8: Presentation Overview UH 0.6m Telescope & UH 0.9m Telescope Problem: Telescope Control Software & LabVIEW Design: Steps to Solution LabVIEW Software Results:

Design ApproachDesign Approach

UH 24 inch Telescope

UH 88 inch Telescope

IfA 16 inch Mauna Loa Telescope

Page 9: Presentation Overview UH 0.6m Telescope & UH 0.9m Telescope Problem: Telescope Control Software & LabVIEW Design: Steps to Solution LabVIEW Software Results:

Manually controlling the UH 0.6m Telescope. Photo courtesy of Bill Heacox.

Page 10: Presentation Overview UH 0.6m Telescope & UH 0.9m Telescope Problem: Telescope Control Software & LabVIEW Design: Steps to Solution LabVIEW Software Results:

Experiment and RecordExperiment and Record

Page 11: Presentation Overview UH 0.6m Telescope & UH 0.9m Telescope Problem: Telescope Control Software & LabVIEW Design: Steps to Solution LabVIEW Software Results:

Compiling NotesCompiling Notes

Page 12: Presentation Overview UH 0.6m Telescope & UH 0.9m Telescope Problem: Telescope Control Software & LabVIEW Design: Steps to Solution LabVIEW Software Results:

BEFORE

Page 13: Presentation Overview UH 0.6m Telescope & UH 0.9m Telescope Problem: Telescope Control Software & LabVIEW Design: Steps to Solution LabVIEW Software Results:

AFTER

Page 14: Presentation Overview UH 0.6m Telescope & UH 0.9m Telescope Problem: Telescope Control Software & LabVIEW Design: Steps to Solution LabVIEW Software Results:
Page 15: Presentation Overview UH 0.6m Telescope & UH 0.9m Telescope Problem: Telescope Control Software & LabVIEW Design: Steps to Solution LabVIEW Software Results:
Page 16: Presentation Overview UH 0.6m Telescope & UH 0.9m Telescope Problem: Telescope Control Software & LabVIEW Design: Steps to Solution LabVIEW Software Results:

LabVIEW MANUAL

Page 17: Presentation Overview UH 0.6m Telescope & UH 0.9m Telescope Problem: Telescope Control Software & LabVIEW Design: Steps to Solution LabVIEW Software Results:

ConclusionConclusion

Students at the 0.6m Telescope. Given by Bill Heacox.

• Easy-to-read LabVIEW Manual • Finding the first error in the system.• Program showcasing future features.

Page 18: Presentation Overview UH 0.6m Telescope & UH 0.9m Telescope Problem: Telescope Control Software & LabVIEW Design: Steps to Solution LabVIEW Software Results:

ReferencesReferences• Jennings, Richard, and Gary W. Johnson. 2006.

LabVIEW Graphical Programming. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

• Kring, Jim, and Jeffrey Travis. 2007. LabVIEW for Everyone: Graphical Programming Made Easy and Fun. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

• National Instruments Corporation. NI Developer Zone. [updated 11 July 2007; cited 12 July 2007]. Available from http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/main.\

• Schmitt, Stephen R. Converting Celestial to Horizon Coordinates. [2007; cited 16 July 2007]. Available from http://home.att.net/~srschmitt/script_celestial2horizon.html

Page 19: Presentation Overview UH 0.6m Telescope & UH 0.9m Telescope Problem: Telescope Control Software & LabVIEW Design: Steps to Solution LabVIEW Software Results:

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

Page 20: Presentation Overview UH 0.6m Telescope & UH 0.9m Telescope Problem: Telescope Control Software & LabVIEW Design: Steps to Solution LabVIEW Software Results:

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

• John Hamilton, Bill Heacox, and Jay Slivkoff.• Physics and Astronomy Department at

University of Hawaii-Hilo for their facilities.• Hilary O’Bryan, Sarah Anderson, Scott

Seagroves, and Akamai Interns.• Funding provided through the Center for

Adaptive Optics, a National Science Foundation Science and Technology Center (STC), AST-987683.