SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “ChargeX”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

17 records

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2024

ChargeX Prescribed Testing Program at CharIN June 2024 Testival: Outcomes & Future Recommendations

In June 2024, the ChargeX Consortium developed an optional prescribed testing program for electric vehicle (EV) and electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) manufacturers that attended the CharIN Testival as testers. There were two driving purposes of this program; to introduce a new hybrid approach to testing events with both ad-hoc and prescribed testing offered, and to demonstrate the test cases and structure effectiveness of the EV-EVSE Interoperability Test Plan (EEITP) document developed within the ChargeX Testing Task Force. This program contained eight test scenarios to be performed during the final 30-minutes of a 90-minute testing slot with details like purpose, setup, pass criteria, etc. included within a written test plan document. A $2,000 rebate was offered to those who participated, and a ChargeX moderation force was present to collect EV and EVSE meta data, testing meta data, and testing results.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

DOE OSTI2025

ChargeX OCPI Recommendations

The Open Charge Point Interface (OCPI) is an open protocol that enables electric vehicle (EV) charging systems to work together across networks. It supports communication and data sharing between Charge Point Operators (CPOs), who manage charging stations, and e-Mobility Service Providers (eMSPs), who provide charging services to EV drivers. OCPI facilitates functions like user authorization, remote charge point control, charging session data exchange, and billing through Charge Detail Records (CDRs). This allows EV roaming, so drivers can charge at different networks without multiple accounts. As the EV market grows due to increased adoption and technological advancements, OCPI faces higher demands. This has revealed issues with CDR format consistency, timestamp standardization across regions, transmission of EV-side error codes for troubleshooting, and support for new use cases. These challenges can affect operations and user experience, particularly as the industry starts considering Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) systems, where EVs supply energy to the grid, and Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) technologies for broader energy interactions. Using feedback from the ChargeX Diagnostics taskforce discussions, industry 1-on-1 meetings, technical standards, and OCPI’s evolution through versions (e.g., OCPI 2.1.1, 2.2, and 2.2.1), this report identifies these issues and suggests practical recommendations. These aim to improve interoperability, streamline operations, and prepare OCPI for future trends in the EV charging ecosystem.

32 - ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZA↗

DOE OSTI2025

ChargeX KPIs Transition to SAE

To systematically improve the public charging experience, EV charging industry stakeholders need to define and measure it precisely. Many stakeholders currently measure aspects of the charging experience, but they typically employ metrics that are either operational in nature, such as charger uptime and mean time between failures, or composite customer satisfaction indices. To improve the customer experience most effectively, the industry needs metrics that define the charging experience from the perspective of the customer, not business operations. Furthermore, industry practitioners need granular metrics to know what specific aspects of the charging experience need improvement. This presentation gives an overview of the key performance indicators (KPIs) defined by the ChargeX Consortium.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

DOE OSTI2025

ChargeX Consortium Presentation at OCPP Plugfest

This is a presentation that outlines the past successes of the INL led Charging Experience Consortium and lists current projects related to vehicle-grid integration. The primary purpose of this presentation is to engage with industry experts and practitioners about the use of the protocol OCPP to enable key improvements to the charging experience for both drivers and the grid.

42 ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2025

ChargeX Prescribed Testing Program at CharIN November 2024 Testival Outcomes & Future Recommendations

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Thurston, Sam↗

DOE OSTI2025

Implementation Guide of Customer-Focused Key Performance Indicators for Electric Vehicle Charging

This report describes how individual and unique messages that are sent over in OCPP sessions and/or transactions are used to calculate the interim set of key performance indicators (KPI) established by ChargeX Consortium’s Working Group 1: Defining the Charging Experience in the report entitles “Customer-Focused Key Performance Indicators for Electric Vehicle Charging.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

DOE OSTI2025

Recommendations for Minimum Required Diagnostics Information

The rapid growth of electrified transportation, including light- and medium-duty electric vehicles (EVs) as a mobility solution requires a reliable EV-charging infrastructure. To advance charging reliability, the ChargeX Consortium reports “Recommendations for Minimum Required Error Codes for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure” and “Implementation Guide for Minimum Required Error Codes in Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure” provided recommendations for a set of minimum required error codes (MRECs), their functional and responsibility classifications, and a guide for their implementation, using Open Charge Point Protocol (OCPP) versions 1.6J4 and 2.0.1.5 These reports outline a recommended practice for consistent error reporting and interpretation, which is essential for communicating issues uniformly across the complex and diverse EV-charging ecosystem. However, MRECs are just one part of diagnosing issues; another critical part is obtaining enough information about the current state and performance of the various charging components to identify root causes for each of the error codes. This additional diagnostics data can be used by technicians or automated systems to understand the context around an issue, allowing for timely resolution, decreased maintenance costs, and increased charging reliability. During everyday operations, data are regularly collected and analyzed across the ecosystem. Although sharing of all that available data would be great for diagnostics, concerns on data ownership, privacy, and original equipment manufacturer (OEM) intellectual property pose a challenge. To overcome this obstacle, this report proposes a set of minimum required diagnostic information (MRDI) and recommends that the industry implement these uniformly across the North American EV charging ecosystem. MRDI provides a means to exchange only data deemed necessary for root cause determination.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

DOE OSTI2024

Implementation Guide of Customer-Focused Key Performance Indicators for Electric Vehicle Charging

33 - ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

DOE OSTI2025

Recommendations for Minimum Required Diagnostics Information for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure

The rapid growth of electrified transportation, including light- and medium-duty electric vehicles (EVs) as a mobility solution requires a reliable EV charging infrastructure. To advance charging reliability, the ChargeX Consortium reports “Recommendations for Minimum Required Error Codes for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure” and “Implementation Guide for Minimum Required Error Codes in Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure” have provided recommendations for a set of minimum required error codes (MRECs), their functional and responsibility classifications, and a guide for their implementation using OCPP versions 1.6J and 2.0.1. These reports outline a recommended practice for consistent error reporting and interpretation, which is essential for communicating issues uniformly across the complex and diverse EV charging ecosystem. However, MRECs are just one part of diagnosing issues, another critical part is obtaining enough information about the current state and performance of the various charging components to identify root causes for each of the error codes. This additional diagnostics data can be used by technicians or automated systems to understand the context around an issue, allowing for timely resolution, decreased maintenance costs, and increased charging reliability. During everyday operations, data is regularly collected and analyzed across the ecosystem. Although sharing of all that available data would be great for diagnostics, concerns on data ownership, privacy, and OEM intellectual property pose a challenge. To overcome this obstacle, this report proposes a set of Minimum Required Diagnostic Information (MRDI) and recommends that the industry implement these uniformly across the North American EV charging ecosystem. MRDI provides a means to exchange only data deemed necessary for root cause determination.

32 - ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZA↗

DOE OSTI2025

Sequence Diagrams & PFMEA Table - VGI [SWR-25-107]

As part of the VGI work under the National Charging Experience (ChargeX) Consortium, reliability analysis of communication interfaces for multiple SCM/VGI use-cases was performed using a Process Failure Modes and Analysis (PFMEA) style framework. This repository hosts all the relevant files for each of these use-cases which include: *A visual representation of their communication architecture: Image file (.png) *UML sequence diagram: Plant-UML source file (.puml). Visio file (.vsdx) and image file (.png) derived from the UML sourceX` *The PFMEA table: Excel file (.xlsx) These files are meant to serve as a starting point and can be adapted to company / organization specific SCM implementation.

Gadamsetty, Pranav [National Renewable Energy Labo↗

DOE OSTI2024

Recommended Actions to Improve Adapter Safety

With the rapid advancement and acceleration in the electric vehicle (EV) industry within the United States, major automakers and EV charging companies are increasingly adopting the North American Charging Standard (NACS) connector style, now officially known as J3400. This shift is expected to enhance charging infrastructure, providing a better customer experience by making it easier for all EV drivers to access a wider network of direct-current (DC) fast chargers (DCFCs). However, the adoption of the J3400 standard presents challenges for many EVs already on the roads and some currently coming off production lines that are equipped with the Combined Charging System (CCS) connector, which this report will refer to as the North American standard, CCS1. These vehicles will need adapters to use new or existing J3400 infrastructure. During this transition, several issues have emerged. Firstly, there is a need to standardize the new connector type to ensure it is interoperable, safe, and reliable. Second, existing CCS EV drivers need a way to access the J3400 network, which will require electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) or sites with both connector types, driver-provided adapters to physically convert from CCS to J3400, or EVSE with retained adapters designed for use with the EVSE. Third, adapter standards will need to be written to specify how they will be designed and what evaluations will be needed to ensure safe and reliable performance. To address these challenges, adapters that support different types of charging connectors will be essential. These adapters will play a crucial role in supporting the transition and ensuring continued service for legacy EVs with CCS inlets as the J3400 standard becomes the predominant one in the United States. Consequently, the National Charging Experience (ChargeX) Consortium has investigated and performed a teardown analysis on the different adapter versions on the market. The aim is to create a failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) on what are expected to be the most common adapter types used in this transition. In order to support this work, we executed an FMEA exercise with the main goal of identifying gaps in the existing adapters' performance and conformance to the most common safety requirements of high-power and high-voltage devices. This effort focused on adapters provided by the driver, as these may present the highest safety and reliability risks. The recommendations made here apply to both retained and driver-provided adapters.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗

DOE OSTI2026

Pull Force Evaluation of CCS Insulated End Caps

Insulated end caps installed on DC pins of Combined Charging System (CCS) inlets have been identified as potential debris sources within electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) connectors, increasing the risk of electric shock and fire hazards. Although standards such as IEC 62196-1:2022 specify mechanical pull-force requirements for these end caps, it remains unclear whether these requirements provide adequate robustness under real-world conditions. To address this concern, the National Charging Experience (ChargeX) Consortium's Hardware Task Force conducted evaluations of insulated end caps used in OEM CCS inlets. This study assesses the performance of insulated end caps used in OEM CCS inlets, specifically those installed on DC pins, using the procedures defined in IEC 62196-1:2022 (Section Sign) 26.7 and SAE J3400, supplemented by additional experimental conditioning. To ensure relevance to real-world conditions, NLR collaborated with charging network operators (CNOs) to guide the selection of charging inlet samples. Material analyses of the insulated end cap samples were conducted to confirm that the tested materials reflected the types and properties commonly observed in the field. The selected samples underwent temperature and humidity conditioning followed by pull-force testing to evaluate the end-cap integrity. Although SAE J3400 inlets were not directly tested due to limited diversity in available field data, the underlying end-cap principles between CCS and SAE J3400 are comparable, allowing the study's insights to be relevant to both technologies. Overall, this study provides a structured evaluation framework to inform potential refinements to mechanical pull-force requirements in charging standards.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

DOE OSTI2025

Understanding EV Charging Pain Points Through Deep Learning Analysis

Current and potential electric vehicle (EV) owners express concerns about the charging infrastructure, mentioning non-functional chargers, prolonged charging times, inconvenient charger locations, long wait times, and high costs as major barriers. Addressing these issues often requires analyzing actual vehicle charging data, which is typically proprietary and inconsistent due to diverse standards and protocols. To understand and improve the EV charging experience, customer reviews are typically used to identify common customer pain points (CPPs). However, there is not a comprehensive method to map customer reviews to a standardized set of CPPs. In collaboration with the National Charging Experience (ChargeX) Consortium, this study bridges these gaps by proposing a Systematic Categorization and Analysis of Large-scale EV-charging Reviews (SCALER) framework. SCALER is an integrated, deep learning framework that segments, actively labels, analyzes, and classifies EV charging customer reviews into six CPP categories. To test its effectiveness, we used SCALER to analyze over 72,000 reviews from customers charging various EV models on different networks across the United States. SCALER achieves a classification accuracy of 92.5%, with an F1 score exceeding 85.7%. By demonstrating real-world applications of SCALER, we enhance the industry’s ability to understand and address CPPs to improve the EV charging experience.

29 - ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2024

Customer-Focused Key Performance Indicators for Electric Vehicle Charging

To systematically improve the public charging experience, EV charging industry stakeholders need to define and measure it precisely. Many stakeholders currently measure aspects of the charging experience, but they typically employ metrics that are either operational in nature, such as charger uptime and mean time between failures, or composite customer satisfaction indices. To improve the customer experience most effectively, the industry needs metrics that define the charging experience from the perspective of the customer, not business operations. Furthermore, industry practitioners need granular metrics to know what specific aspects of the charging experience need improvement. This report defines such customer-focused metrics, called key performance indicators (KPIs).

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

DOE OSTI2025

Timeouts Best Practices

This study investigates common timeouts encountered in the electric vehicle (EV) charging communications process. Many different timeouts are defined within the EV charging communications protocols. These timeouts can either be a fixed value or a defined range of values. In both cases, the timeout defines the duration of time for which one or both parties in the communications session are expected to wait for some action or process to complete before terminating the charge attempt. These timeout-based terminations are intended to prevent the charging process from becoming stuck indefinitely in any particular step. These terminations also enable a retry of the terminated charging session to begin. However, misaligned timeout values can have a significant negative impact on the user experience. Premature termination of charging sessions due to inappropriate timeout settings can lead to charging failures, causing inconvenience, wasted time, and frustration for users. These disruptions can degrade the overall user experience, making it essential to carefully manage and align timeout values with the relevant actions and processes to ensure reliable and satisfactory EV charging sessions. The core objective of this study is to boost reliability and enhance user experience by conducting a thorough review of timeout-based issues in EV charging and delivering a set of recommendations to modify these existing timeouts. These recommendations are informed by feedback gathered from multiple EV charging partners. This document is intended to inform electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) and EV manufacturers, EV charging infrastructure developers, and policymakers responsible for designing and implementing EV charging protocols and systems.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

DOE OSTI2025

Quantifying Time to Charge

This work presents analysis aimed at quantifying and improving the time between the start of an electric vehicle (EV) charging session and the start of actual energy transfer. This is achieved by analyzing EV charge session communication logs. The data from these logs are used to identify the longest-duration phases within charge initialization. Paths for future work are presented with a focus on the areas most likely to deliver overall time-to-charge improvements.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

DOE OSTI2025

Customer-Focused Key Performance Indicators for Electric Vehicle Charging

To systematically improve the public charging experience, EV charging industry stakeholders need to define and measure it precisely. Many stakeholders currently measure aspects of the charging experience, but they typically employ metrics that are either operational in nature, such as charger uptime and mean time between failures, or composite customer satisfaction indices. To improve the customer experience most effectively, the industry needs metrics that define the charging experience from the perspective of the customer, not business operations. Furthermore, industry practitioners need granular metrics to know what specific aspects of the charging experience need improvement. This report defines such customer-focused metrics, called key performance indicators (KPIs).

33 - ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗