Electric Vehicle Charging Load Forecasting Method Based on Improved Long Short-Term Memory Model with Particle Swarm Optimization
With the rapid global proliferation of electric vehicles (EVs), their integration as a significant load component within power systems increasingly influences the stable operation and planning of electrical grids. However, the high uncertainty and randomness inherent in EV users’ charging behaviors...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2025-03-01
|
| Series: | World Electric Vehicle Journal |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2032-6653/16/3/150 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | With the rapid global proliferation of electric vehicles (EVs), their integration as a significant load component within power systems increasingly influences the stable operation and planning of electrical grids. However, the high uncertainty and randomness inherent in EV users’ charging behaviors render accurate load forecasting a challenging task. In this context, the present study proposes a Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)-enhanced Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) network forecasting model. By combining the global search capability of the PSO algorithm with the advantages of LSTM networks in time-series modeling, a PSO-LSTM hybrid framework optimized for seasonal variations is developed. The results confirm that the PSO-LSTM model effectively captures seasonal load variations, providing a high-precision, adaptive solution for dynamic grid scheduling and charging infrastructure planning. This model supports the optimization of power resource allocation and the enhancement of energy storage efficiency. Specifically, during winter, the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) is 3.896, a reduction of 6.57% compared to the LSTM model and 10.13% compared to the Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) model. During the winter–spring transition, the MAE is 3.806, which is 6.03% lower than that of the LSTM model and 12.81% lower than that of the GRU model. In the spring, the MAE is 3.910, showing a 2.71% improvement over the LSTM model and a 7.32% reduction compared to the GRU model. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2032-6653 |