This is the autho s e sio of a o k that was published in the following source: Hardman, S.; Jenn, A.; Beard, G.; Daina, N.;Figenbaum, E.; Jochem, P. E. P.; Kinnear, N. A. D.; Pontes, J. P.;Refa, N.;Turrentine, T. S.; Witkamp, B. (2018). AbstractThis paper presents a literature review of studies that investigate infrastructure needs to support the market introduction of plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs). It focuses on literature relating to consumer preferences for charging infrastructure, and how consumers interact with and use this infrastructure. This includes studies that use questionnaire surveys, interviews, modelling, GPS data from vehicles, and data from electric vehicle charging equipment. These studies indicate that the most important location for PEV charging is at home, followed by work, and then public locations. Studies have found that more effort is needed to ensure consumers have easy access to PEV charging and that charging at home, work, or public locations should not be free of cost. Research indicates that PEV charging will not impact electricity grids on the short term, however charging may need to be managed when the vehicles are deployed in greater numbers. In some areas of study the literature is not sufficiently mature to draw any conclusions from. More research is especially needed to determine how much infrastructure is needed to support the roll out of PEVs. This paper ends with policy implications and suggests avenues of future research.Next, we provide background information on charging modes and levels and then introduce the approach to the literature review. Section 2 then summarises the literature, whilst Section 3 concludes with insights for policymakers and literature gaps.

Roll compensation during cornering (aligning the feet-to-head axis of the body with the resultant force) reduces lateral acceleration, but how any improvement in comfort depends on the frequency of the acceleration has not previously been investigated. Seated subjects judged the discomfort caused by lateral oscillation, roll oscillation, and fully roll-compensated lateral oscillation at each of seven frequencies (0.25 to 1.0 Hz). Irrespective of whether it was caused by pure lateral acceleration or gravitational acceleration due to pure roll, acceleration in the plane of the seat caused similar discomfort at frequencies less than 0.4 Hz. From 0.4 to 1.0 Hz, with the same lateral acceleration in the plane of the seat, there was greater discomfort from roll oscillation than from lateral acceleration. With fully roll-compensated lateral oscillation, discomfort was less than with either the lateral component or the roll component of the motion from 0.2 to 0.5 Hz, but discomfort increased with increasing frequency and caused similar discomfort to pure roll oscillation at 1.0 Hz. Keywords: passenger comfort, tilting trains, low frequency motion, tilt-compensationPublished as: Discomfort caused by low-frequency lateral oscillation, roll oscillation and roll-compensated lateral oscillation Beard, G. F. & Griffin, M. J. Jan 2013 In : Ergonomics. 56, 1, p. 103-114 12 p. 3 Practitioner summaryTilting can reduce passenger exposure to vehicle lateral acceleration when cornering, but how comfort depends on the frequency of motion was unknown. This study shows 'tiltcompensation' only improves comfort at frequencies less than 0.5 Hz. The findings affect tilting vehicles and the prediction of discomfort caused by low frequency motions.

The discomfort caused by lateral oscillation, roll oscillation, and fully roll-compensated lateral oscillation has been investigated at frequencies between 0.25 and 1.0 Hz when sitting on a rigid seat and when sitting on a compliant cushion, both without a backrest. Judgements of vibration discomfort and the transmission of lateral and roll oscillation through the seat cushion were obtained with 20 subjects. Relative to the rigid seat, the cushion increased lateral acceleration and roll oscillation at the lower frequencies and also increased discomfort during lateral oscillation (at frequencies less than 0.63 Hz), roll oscillation (at frequencies less than 0.4 Hz), and fully roll-compensated lateral oscillation (at frequencies between 0.315 and 0.5 Hz). The root-sums-of-squares of the frequency-weighted lateral and roll acceleration at the seat surface predicted the greater vibration discomfort when sitting on the cushion. The frequency-dependence of the predicted discomfort may be improved by adjusting the frequency weighting for roll acceleration at frequencies between 0.25 and 1.0 Hz.

No abstract

Lateral acceleration causes discomfort but how the discomfort depends on the frequency of acceleration or characteristics of seating is poorly understood. Using magnitude estimation, twelve male subjects rated the discomfort caused by lateral oscillation at eight frequencies (0.2 to 1.0 Hz) across four seating conditions (a rigid seat and a train seat, both with and without backrests). Discomfort increased with increasing frequency of lateral acceleration in a similar manner for all four seating conditions. However, at all frequencies and with both seats there was less discomfort when sitting with backrest support than without. Least discomfort occurred on the train seat with backrest and greatest discomfort on the rigid seat without backrest. Current standards predict an additive effect of backrest on vibration discomfort, but the findings show that low frequency lateral acceleration can cause less discomfort when sitting with a backrest than when sitting on the same seat without a backrest.