Applied Energy 251 (2019) 113347

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

The impact of electric vehicles and mobile boundary expansions on the T

realization of zero-emission office buildings
Sunliang Cao
Renewable Energy Research Group (RERG), Department of Building Services Engineering, Faculty of Construction and Environment, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University,
Kowloon, Hong Kong

HIGHLIGHTS

• Expansion of the mobile boundary of the ZEB-Electric Vehicle (EV) interactions.

• Cover the scientific gap for the past limitation of the ZEB-EV interactions.
• AInvestigation
novel control strategy to expand the boundary to the remote parking locations.
• Impact of the ofV2Bsolutions to fully utilize the mobile storage capacities of EVs.
• interactions and boundary expansion scenarios on the ZEB balance.

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The critical solutions to the future global target of the carbon-neutral society rely on a comprehensive and
Zero emission building integrated consideration of both the building and transportation sectors. However, most of the past studies only
Renewable energy considered the local interactions between the buildings and the locally-charged electric vehicles (EVs), which
Vehicle-building integration significantly limits the utilization of the EV storage capacities. In this study, we have investigated a hybrid
Vehicle-to-building
photovoltaic and wind turbine supported zero-emission office building (ZEB) which is interacted with a number
Building-to-vehicle
Zero energy system
of electric vehicles. Furthermore, a novel control strategy, called “Boundary Expansion Scenario”, has been
proposed, where the boundary of the ZEB-EV interactions can be expanded from the conventional local parking
to the remote parking, so that the EV batteries can be fully utilized regardless of the parking location. The impact
of the renewable energy system, the Vehicle-to-Building (V2B) interactions and the boundary expansion sce-
narios on the zero-emission performance of the office building and the EVs have been comprehensively in-
vestigated. The research results show that by merely activating the V2B function without the “Boundary
Expansion Scenario”, the V2B capability can only lead to less than 5% of the enhancement of the matching
capabilities, since 93.4% of the surplus renewable electricity occur mainly during the non-parking hours.
However, by further activating the “Boundary Expansion Scenario”, the net zero-emission system can simulta-
neously enable the features of the significantly enhanced matching capabilities (the OEFe and OEMe both at
62%), the much intensified building-vehicle interactions (the EB2V at 18.73 kWh/m2.a and the EV2B at
14.87 kWh/m2.a), and an almost full renewable coverage of the EV storages (the renewable energy ratio at
96.9%).

1. Introduction and background
Nowadays, the building and transportation sectors have been ac-
counted for around 50% of the final total delivered energy consump-
tions in the world [1]. Meanwhile, this percentage reaches 95% in the
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) [2], resulting from
the highly-urbanized cityscape and the transfer of most of the local
industry to the mainland China. The Government of the HKSAR has
proposed an ambitious “HK Climate Action Plan 2030+ [3]” which
aims to reduce the carbon intensity by 65–70% by the year 2030
compared to the 2005 level. Regarding the aforementioned “95%” of
the final total delivered energy consumption, the critical solutions to
the realization of the ambitious “HK Climate Action Plan 2030+” es-
sentially rely on a comprehensive and integrated consideration of both
the building and transportation sectors. Furthermore, a recent progress
of the transportation sector is that the plug-in or hybrid plug-in electric

E-mail addresses: sunliang.cao@polyu.edu.hk, caosunliang@msn.com.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113347
Received 21 February 2019; Received in revised form 2 May 2019; Accepted 16 May 2019
Available online 24 May 2019
0306-2619/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Cao
Nomenclature
AHU air handling unit
BIPV building integrated photovoltaic system
CEFeg the equivalent CO2 emission factor of the electric grid (kg
CO2,eq/kWhe)
DHW domestic hot water
EAC the annual air-handling unit cooling demand (kWh/m2.a)
EAC chiller the annual electricity consumption of the air-handling unit
cooling chiller (kWh/m2.a)
EB2V the annual electrical energy transferred from the office
building to the electric vehicle integrated system (kWh/
m2.a)
Eexp,a the annual exported energy to the electric grid (kWh/
m2.a)
Edirect,a the annual net direct energy (kWh/m2.a)
Eimp,a the annual imported energy from the electric grid (kWh/
m2.a)
CEa the annual operational equivalent CO2 emission (kg
CO2,eq/m2.a)
EREe,a the annual electrical energy generated by the local re-
newable energy system (kWh/m2.a)
ESC the annual space cooling demand (kWh/m2.a)
ESC chiller the annual electricity consumption of the space cooling
chiller (kWh/m2.a)
vehicles (EVs) have started to increasingly penetrate the vehicle
market, intensifying the interactions between the building and trans-
portation sectors. Furthermore, by the time these electric vehicles enjoy
a road-side free emission, the equivalent CO2 emissions are burdened
on the source of the electricity for recharging the EVs. Correspondingly,
this will also be a challenge for the equivalent CO2 emissions of the
building sector especially when the vehicles are locally building-
charged via the so-called “Building-to-Vehicle (B2V)” interaction.
In the academic society, by foreseeing the challenges of the plug-in
or hybrid plug-in electric vehicles, some researchers focused on the
impact of the “B2V” capability on the technical or economic perfor-
mances of the buildings and vehicles, as well as the solutions to mitigate
the negative impact of the EV charging on the building energy systems.
Munkhammar et al. [4] investigated the impact of the electric vehicle
home charging (B2V only) on the self-consumption of a PV supported
net-zero energy residential house in Sweden. Their results showed that
the EV home charging significantly increases the annual household load
by 37%, leading to a 20% drop of the solar coverage in the building
load [4]. Moreover, due to the day-night mismatch between the PV
generation and the EV home charging, the improvement of the self-
consumption of the on-site PV generation is also limited by only around
10% [4]. Similar mismatch phenomenon has also been noticed by the
further study of Munkhammar et al. [5] for the individual and clusters
of buildings with the EV home charging in the city of Westminster, UK,
while the mismatch level is found to be less significant when the
boundary has been expanded to the city scale. Munkahammar et al. [6]
proposed that the demand side management controls should be im-
plemented in order to alleviate the corresponding mismatch problem.
Sehar et al. [7] investigated the solutions of the on-site solar photo-
voltaic systems and the demand side management to alleviate the ne-
gative impact of the fast charging plug-in electric vehicles (B2V only)
on a retail building in US. Their research results showed that the co-
operation of the on-site solar PV systems and the demand side man-
agement can contribute to altogether 38% of the coverage of the EV
demand, significantly alleviating the negative stress of the EV pene-
trations on the building and local grid [7]. Flores et al. [8] conducted a
techno-economic study on the integration of fast plug-in EV charging
stations with commercial and public buildings (B2V only) in California,
2
Applied Energy 251 (2019) 113347
EV electric vehicle
EV2B the annual electrical energy transferred from the electric
vehicle integrated system to the office building (kWh/
m2.a)
FSOC fractional state of charge
HV hydrogen vehicle
Lelec the total electrical demand power (kW)
OEFe on-site electrical energy fraction
OEMe on-site electrical energy matching
PEVsys the electrical power sent to drive the EV integrated system
(kW)
Pexp the exported power to the electric grid (kW)
Pimp the imported power from the electric grid (kW)
Pimp,EVsys the backup electricity imported from the electric grid for
supporting the EV integrated system (kW)
PREe the electrical power generated by the local renewable
energy systems (kW)
PV photovoltaic
PV2B the electrical power discharged from the electric vehicle
batteries to support the office building usage (kW)
REe renewable electricity
WT wind turbine
ZEB zero-emission/energy building
EV , RE the annual local renewable energy ratio in the EV in-
tegrated system
US. Their results found that the integration of the EV charging provide
more economic benefit to the EVs than the buildings, while the dy-
namics and the size of the buildings significantly affect the economic
benefit [8]. The buildings with low load factor and less coincidence
with the EV charging peaks have more potentials in saving the overall
operational cost, while the reduction of the EV charging power will also
be beneficial for the further decrease of the overall operational cost [8].
Similar researches regarding the impact of the B2V capability on the
building system performance can also be noticed in the references
conducted by Zhao et al. [9], Andersen et al. [10], and Buonomano
et al. [11].
Meanwhile, besides the abovementioned focus of the B2V cap-
ability, more recent researches have been focused on the Vehicle-to-
Building (V2B) interactions by treating the EVs as mobile or dispersible
energy storages for the buildings. Ioakimidis et al. [12] utilized the
storage capacities of the electric vehicles (EVs) parked in the parking lot
to regulate the power consumption profiles of a university building in
Belgium. In their study, the EVs are respectively discharged and
charged to shave and fill the peak and valley powers of the building
demand, with respect to different numbers of the EV parking spots.
According to their simulation results, the EVs can effectively flatten the
building demand profiles during the daytime, while the peak power
consumptions are reduced by 3.9%, 15% and 19.7% with respect to 8,
35 and 65 EV parking spots, respectively [12]. Alirezaei et al. [13]
investigated the impact of integrating an electric vehicle on the techno-
economic benefit of a photovoltaic supported net zero-energy re-
sidential building with the B2V and V2B interactions in US. Their re-
sults showed that the integration of the EV can help to reduce the grid
reliance of the ZEB by up to 68%, while the electricity bill can be saved
by up to 62% even without any government subsidies [13]. Further-
more, several optimal control strategies have also been proposed by
some researchers to enhance the techno-economic performance of the
V2B and the B2V interactions. Zhang and Li [14] proposed a control
strategy of the V2B and the B2V interactions by timely switching the
control objectives based on different economic risk regimes: in the high
risk regime resulting from the proximity of the grid price spikes, the
control objective is to minimize the risk of the high energy cost by the
V2B interaction, whereas in the low risk regime, the control objective is
S. Cao
to minimize the charging cost by the B2V interaction. They im-
plemented this control strategy in a simulation case study for a uni-
versity building together with a 16-kWh EV battery under the real-time
electricity market of the North Texas, US. Their simulation results
showed that the total operational cost of the tested 25 days can be
significantly reduced by up to 35% via the proposed control strategy
[14]. Tanguy et al. [15] proposed a “collaborative charging concept” in
their research. In this collaborative charging concept, the EV can be
freely charged to a certain fractional state of charge (80% in the case
study) in exchange of its usage as the storage capacity to shave the peak
power of the building (the university campus in the case study) [15].
Their results showed that, compared to the conventional scenario
without the V2B interaction, the electricity bill of the university campus
can be reduced by 0.9–1.6% via their proposed collaborative charging
scheme under the presumption that 1–4% of the vehicles are plug-in
hybrids or EVs [15]. Kuang et al. [16] proposed a collaborative decision
model to cooperatively operate an office building and an EV charging
station with interconnections between each other, while the V2B op-
eration can be realized via the aforementioned interconnections. The
office building is equipped with the PV panels, the combined heat and
power systems, and the electric and thermal storages, while the EV
charging station is equipped with the PV panels. In their research,
Kuang et al. used a multi-objective mixed integer linear programming
to control the cooperative operations with the multi-objectives of
minimizing the operational costs of both the office building and the EV
charging station [16]. According to their results, compared to the
conventional non-cooperative scenario, the total operational costs can
be reduced by up to 23% by the proposed collaborative decision model
[16]. Similar researches can also be noticed in the references conducted
by Thomas et al. [17], Fathabadi [18], Jin et al. [19], and Panwar et al.
[20].
Some recent studies have even started to focus on the B2V and the
V2B interactions between the buildings and the hydrogen fuel cell
electric vehicles. Cao and Alanne [21] proposed a hybrid system which
is composed of a zero-energy residential building and a hydrogen ve-
hicle (HV) integrated on-site hydrogen system in Finland. The basic
principle of this system is to use the surplus renewable electricity of the
on-site PV or micro-wind turbine to generate the hydrogen fuel for the
transportation usage, while the HV can also be used to back up the on-
site energy shortage by the hydrogen fuel cell system [21]. Meanwhile,
the cogenerated heat of the electrolyzer, compressor and the fuel cell
can be used to partially support the domestic heating usage [21]. The
research results showed that the proposed system can simultaneously
realize the zero-energy balance of the building, the convenient acces-
sibility of the HV refueling station, the net zero-emission requirement of
the hydrogen fuel, and a significantly enhanced matching capability
[21]. In a following study conducted by Cao and Alanne [22], the
aforementioned hybrid ZEB-onsite hydrogen system is updated to in-
clude solar thermal collectors and a ground source heat pump, while a
detailed techno-economic analysis is conducted to assess the economic
feasibility of the proposed system against the system with the externally
refueled HV. Moreover, in this study, the grid electricity is also allowed
to back up the electrolyzer in case of the on-site energy shortage [22].
The research results showed that the proposed hybrid ZEB-onsite hy-
drogen system can be economically competitive only when the cost of
the micro-electrolyzer has been dropped to the lowest market scenario
of 2000 EUR/kW, whereas none of the cases can be economically fea-
sible in case the prevailing market scenario of 5000 EUR/kW is applied
for the micro-electrolyzer [22]. Robledo et al. [23] studied 10 PV
supported zero-energy residential buildings together with 5 hydrogen
fuel cell electric vehicles in Netherland, while these vehicles are re-
fueled by an external hydrogen refueling station. Two different V2B
operational scenarios are applied in their research: one is the “load
following (LF)”, and the other one is the “fixed power output (FP)”.
Their simulation results showed that by both of the V2B scenarios, the
annual imported electricity of the ZEBs can be significantly reduced by
3
Applied Energy 251 (2019) 113347
up to 71% [23]. Regarding the economic performance, Robledo et al.
found that, if the hydrogen cost is at the current level of 12 EUR/kg, the
annual operational cost of the proposed V2B scenarios are much more
expensive than the scenario without the V2B interaction, whereas this
situation will be reverted if the future cost of the hydrogen can be re-
duced to 8.24 EUR/kg and 6.76 EUR/kg for the LF and the FP based
V2B scenarios, respectively [23].
Based on the abovementioned literature reviews, several scientific
gaps can be noticed in the international academic community:
Firstly, the past international researches mainly analysed the local
interactions between the building and the EVs (or the nearby charging
station) when the EVs are parking inside the interacted building (or the
nearby charging station). However, this treatment results in a limitation
that when the EVs are not parking inside the interacted building (or the
nearby charging station), the storage capacity of the EVs cannot be fully
utilized.
Secondly, when the net zero-energy/emission building (ZEB) is in-
volved in the B2V and the V2B interactions, the type of the ZEB is
mainly the PV supported residential building, such as the studies con-
ducted by Munkhammar et al. [4,5] and Alirezaei et al. [13]. This is
probably resulting from the fact that the residential buildings, espe-
cially those of the low-rise or single-family houses, have more space on
the roof for installing the on-site PV panels to support the net ZEB,
while the house owner is more likely to have one or few vehicles
parking inside the residential building. However, very limited studies
have been focused on the integrated utilization of the mobile EVs and
the hybrid PV/wind turbine technologies to support the net zero-
emission office buildings.
Thirdly, as a continuation of the abovementioned second point, as
most of the past ZEB-EV based study were focused on the residential
buildings, the past investigations were mainly focused on one or limited
numbers of the interacted EV(s). Correspondingly, it is still unknown
how different numbers of the interacted EVs will affect the performance
of the net zero-emission office buildings.
Furthermore, it should be emphasized that these scientific gaps are
summarized based on the literature review of the international re-
searches rather than the local studies. Therefore, these gaps are not
constrained by the specific locations, regions, or climate conditions.
Based on these three scientific gaps, this paper is focusing on a
hybrid PV and wind turbine supported zero-emission office building
which is interacted with a number of EVs. A novel control strategy will
also be proposed and investigated in this study, where the boundary of
the ZEB-EV interactions can be expanded from the local parking to the
remote parking so that the EV battery capacities can be fully utilized.
The impact of the V2B interactions and the boundary expansion sce-
narios on the zero-emission performances of the building and the EVs
will be comprehensively investigated. Furthermore, the impact of dif-
ferent numbers of the interacted EVs on the ZEB-EV interactions will
also be studied. In the following Section 2, the weather, building/ve-
hicle demand and the simulation environment will be introduced.
Thereafter, the descriptions of the building services and the integrated
vehicle energy system will be given in the Section 3, while the analysis
criteria will be described in the Section 4. In the Section 5, the simu-
lation results, analyses and discussions will be presented, which is fol-
lowed by the sensitivity analyses in the Section 6 with respect to the
office-parking hours, commuting duration, and vehicle energy con-
sumptions. In the end, the conclusion is given in the Section 7.
2. Weather, building and vehicle demands, and simulation
environment
The location of the studied office building is in Hong Kong. The city
of Hong Kong (22.3°N, 114.2°E) is located on the northern shore of the
South China Sea with a subtropical climate condition. The weather file
is based on the Meteonorm data of Hong Kong, which includes the
hourly weather data of temperature, humidity ratio, solar radiation,
S. Cao
and wind speed [24,25]. According to this weather file, the annual
average dry bulb temperature, the annual total solar radiation on the
horizontal surface, the annual cooling degree days (base temperature at
18 °C) and the annual heating degree days (base temperature at 18 °C)
are 22.9 °C, 1423 kWh/m2.a, 2025 cooling degree days and 247 heating
degree days, respectively. Fig. 1 also presents the monthly total solar
radiation on the horizontal surface and the monthly average wind
speed. The seasonal dependence of the solar resources can be noticed in
the Fig. 1 which follows a typical summer-winter cycle in the sub-
tropical region in the northern hemisphere. The monthly average wind
speed is relatively stable around 4.6–5.7 m/s all over the year with an
exception at 3.6 m/s in July.
The studied office building has 10 floors above ground and 1
parking floor under ground. Each floor has a floor area of 480 m2 with a
floor height of 3 m. The building envelopes, insulations and services
systems are designed according to the Performance-based Building
Energy Code of Hong Kong [26], whose parameters are listed in the
Appendix A. The floor plan for each office floor is depicted in the Fig. 2.
The window to wall ratio of the external façade is 0.21 according to the
suggestion of the Hong Kong Green Office Guide [27] in order to reduce
the solar heat gain through the glazing. The internal gains of the
lighting and equipment are designed according to the schedule and
magnitude defined in the Ref. [26], with an annual internal gain of
58.60 and 104.3 (including the devices and lift) kWh/m2.a, respec-
tively.
Under the condition that there is no building integrated photo-
voltaic system (which will affect the thermal balance of the building),
Table 1 lists the annual total energy demands and the peak power de-
mands of the air handling unit (AHU) cooling, space cooling, AHU
heating, space heating, domestic hot water (DHW) heating and the
building electric demands, while their duration curves are also depicted
in the Fig. 3. The building electric demands presented in the Table 1
and Fig. 3 include the electric demands of the lighting, equipment and
ventilation fans, while excluding those from the cooling/heating system
or the electric vehicle system. As listed in the Table 1, the total cooling,
heating and electric demands of the office building are 261.6, 4.86 and
191.3 kWh/m2.a, respectively.
In the underground parking floor, there are 10 EV charging points.
It is assumed that there are 10 EVs parking in the office building from
8:00–18:00 every Monday to Friday. The EVs are commuting between
the office and the home during the periods of 6:00–8:00 and
18:00–21:00, including driving and other daily activities between the
office and the home. During the rest of the time, the EVs are parking at
home. It is assumed that the daily cruise range for each EV is 32 km.
The size and capacity of the EV is designed based on the commercial
product “Tesla Model S” [28], whose battery is composed of 7104 li-
thium-ion battery cells with an overall capacity of 85 kWh. For the daily
cruise range of 32 km, the equivalent energy consumption is 4.15 kWh/
day with an energy consumption to cruise ratio at 0.13 kWh/km ac-
cording to the assumption of the author’s former study for the same
vehicle model [29]. The control strategies of the EVs are introduced in
the latter Section 3.2 in detail.
The building, vehicle, and energy systems are all established in the
simulation environment TRNSYS 18 [30]. TRNSYS is a quite prestigious
simulation software, which has a development history over four dec-
ades. It is a dynamic simulation software, which is commonly used for
simulating the building energy systems, building services and HVAC
systems, on-site renewable energy and storage systems, and various
control systems. The latest version TRNSYS 18 includes the features of
the TRNSYS simulation studio, the building simulation environment
TRNBuild, and the deck file interface TRNEdit for the input file edition
and parametric analysis [31]. The models (called “Types” in TRNSYS)
of the standard and TESS packages are mostly open-source coded,
which facilitate the edition and revision of the specific models. The
time-step used in the simulation of this study is 0.25 h, which guaran-
tees the stability and convergence of the system models.
4
Applied Energy 251 (2019) 113347
3. Building services and integrated vehicle energy system
3.1. The basic components and the control principles
The brief schematic of the hybrid system is depicted in the Fig. 4. As
shown in the Fig. 4, the hybrid system is mainly composed of the re-
newable electricity generation system, the building electricity con-
suming devices, and the electric vehicle integrated system. The re-
newable electricity generation system is mainly composed of the
building integrated photovoltaic system (BIPV) and a wind turbine. The
detailed description of the BIPV and the wind turbine is given in the
latter Section 3.3. The building consuming devices include the water-
cooled chillers (for the AHU cooling and the space cooling), the cooling
towers, the auxiliary electric heaters, and the building devices and
equipment. The water-cooled chillers will charge the AHU cooling and
the space cooling storage tanks for supporting the AHU cooling and the
space cooling demands. The specifications of the water-cooled chillers
and the cold water storage tanks are listed in the Table 2. The electric
vehicle integrated system is composed of the battery based electric
vehicles, which can be charged and discharged by the B2V and the V2B
technologies, respectively. The detailed control of the electric vehicles
will be described in the latter Section 3.2. In addition, the hot water
demand of the office building is supported by a solar thermal system
with a hot water storage tank and the auxiliary electric heaters. The
specifications of the solar thermal collector and the hot water storage
tank are listed in the Table 2. In order to determine a suitable size of the
solar thermal collector area, a parametric analysis is pre-conducted to
investigate the impact of the solar thermal collector area on the annual
electricity consumption of the auxiliary electric heater. As shown in the
Fig. 5, when the solar thermal collector area is around 27–33 m2, the
deceleration rate of the demand curve starts to slow down. Corre-
spondingly, in this study, the solar thermal collector area is selected to
be 30 m2, while the further increasement of the collector area does not
bring in further significant reduction of the demand.
Based on the brief schematic shown in the Fig. 4, the control prin-
ciples of the hybrid system are briefly introduced as follows. The re-
newable electricity generated by the renewable electricity generation
system is firstly compared to the electricity demands of the electricity
consuming devices in the office building. On one hand, in case the re-
newable electricity (REe) is higher than the building electricity de-
mands (i.e. the “Pexcess” exists as shown in the Fig. 4), the surplus re-
newable electricity will be sent to charge the EV batteries. Thereafter, if
there is still any surplus REe surplus left, it will be exported to the
electric grid. On the other hand, in case the renewable electricity is
lower than the building electricity demands (i.e. the “Pshort” exists as
shown in the Fig. 4), the shortage will be firstly covered by discharging
the EV batteries if the condition allows. Thereafter, if there is still any
shortage, the rest of the shortage will be covered by the electricity
imported from the electric grid.
180 8
Solar
Monthly average wind speed (m/s)
Monthly total solar radiation
7
150 Wind (Right axis)
6
(kWh/m2.mon)
120
5
90 4
3
60
2
30
1
0 0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
Fig. 1. The monthly total solar radiation on the horizontal surface and the
monthly average wind speed.
S. Cao Applied Energy 251 (2019) 113347

Fig. 2. The floor plan of the office building for the 1st to 10th floors. The unit of the length dimension in the Figure is meter.

3.2. The control of the electric vehicles
As mentioned in the Section 2, the electric vehicle in this study is
designed based on the commercial product “Tesla Model S” [28], whose
battery has a capacity of 85 kWh. The battery is modelled by the Type
47a [36] in the TRNSYS environment. It is assumed that the upper and
lower limitations of the fractional state of charge (FSOC) of the EV
battery are 0.95 and 0.3, respectively. The EV batteries can be charged
and discharged via the office building via the B2V and the V2B tech-
nologies, respectively. The control strategies of the charging and the
discharging processes will be introduced below.
Furthermore, in this study, we novelly propose a “Boundary
Expansion Scenario” as depicted in the Fig. 6. When the “Boundary
Expansion Scenario” is not activated, the B2V and the V2B interactions
can only occur when the EVs are parking inside the office building, i.e.
the conventional scenario for the building-vehicle interactions. How-
ever, when the “Boundary Expansion Scenario” is activated, the inter-
actions between the office building and the EVs can be expanded to the
remote parking locations where the EVs are connected to the electric
grid. In other words, even though the EVs are parking at home, the B2V
and the V2B interactions (note that the letter “B” here stands for the
office building rather than the home building) can still occur via the
electric grid. Correspondingly, when the “Boundary Expansion Sce-
nario” is activated, the boundary of the office building and the EVs can
be virtually expanded to include the remote locations. In this study, we
assume that the EVs are owned by the office building owners and rented
to the office occupants, and the EV batteries will not be used to support
any domestic electricity usage in the remote home buildings.
(1) The “Boundary Expansion Scenario” is not activated
When the “Boundary Expansion Scenario” is not activated, the
control strategies of the charging and the discharging processes are
described as follows.
(1.1) The control strategy for the charging process (i.e. B2V)
In order to guarantee that the EV battery has sufficient capacity to
support the return journey between the office and the destination, the
FSOC of the EV battery should not be less than 0.35 at the time of
departure from the office building at 18:00 every weekday. In order to
guarantee this required capacity, the FSOC of the battery is monitored

Table 1
The cooling, heating and electric demands of the office building.
Cooling Heating Electric(a)

AHU Cooling Space Cooling Total Cooling AHU Heating(b) Space Heating DHW Heating Total Heating Electric(a)

Total Energy (kWh/m2.a) 223.4 38.22 261.6 0 0.39 4.47 4.86 191.3
Peak Power (kW) 1177.8 204.0 1177.8 0.55 39.34 8.81 39.82 255.8

(a)
The electric demand includes those of the lighting, equipment and ventilation fans, but excludes those from the cooling/heating system or the electric vehicle
system.
(b)
The AHU heating demand here excludes the demand of the reheater equipped with the cooling coil.

5
S. Cao Applied Energy 251 (2019) 113347

1200 50
Duration curves 45 Duration curves
1000
Space Cooling 40 Space Heating
800 AHU Cooling 35 AHU Heating
Power (kW)

Power (kW)
Electric Demand 30
DHW Heating
600 25
Total Cooling Demands Total Heating Demands
20
400
15
10
200
5
0 0
0 1460 2920 4380 5840 7300 8760 0 1460 2920 4380 5840 7300 8760
Time (hr) Time (hr)
Fig. 3. The duration curves of the cooling, heating and electric demands of the office building.

BIPV Shading Effect Space cooling demand and

AHU cooling demand

Water Cooled Chillers

(AHU Cooling and CWST CWST The
Space Cooling) boundary
(AC) (SC)
Aux. for the
Cooling
Electric energy and
Towers
Heater emission
HWST

Solar calculation
Devices and equip.
thermal
Electricity demands

BIPV
Pexcess Electric
+ Vehicle (EV)
Integrated
– System
Pshort
Wind
turbine Backup electricity from
grid for the EV
Renewable integrated system
electricity (REe)
generation system
EV battery discharging power
Pimpp Pexp
Import from electric grid

Export to electric grid

Fig. 4. The schematic of the hybrid zero-emission office building-electric vehicle energy system including the renewable electricity generation system, the building
services systems, and the electric vehicle integrated system.

at 8:00 every weekday morning when the EV returns to the office
building. In case the FSOC at 8:00 is less than 0.35, the “mandatory
charging mode” will be activated with a mandatory charging power not
less than 500 W, which guarantees that the FSOC can be increased from
the lower limitation of the FSOC at 0.30 up to the required 0.35 within
10 h (8:00–18:00 during the office parking hours). This mandatory
charging power is firstly supported by the surplus renewable electric
power “Pexcess (as marked in the Fig. 4)”; if this surplus renewable
electric power is not sufficient to reach 500 W, the rest will be covered
by the imported power from the electric grid. The “mandatory charging
mode” will be activated until the FSOC reaches 0.35, and thereafter the
“non-mandatory charging mode” will be activated as follows.
The charging process during the “non-mandatory charging mode”
will be conducted if the following conditions are simultaneously met:
(a) The surplus renewable electricity “Pexcess (as marked in the Fig. 4)”
exists; (b) The EV is parking inside the office building; and (c) The
fractional state of charge (FSOC) of the EV battery is less than the upper
limitation of the battery, which is 0.95 as mentioned in the beginning of
the Section 3.2.
(2.1) The control strategy for the discharging process (i.e. V2B)
The discharging of the EV battery will be conducted if the following
conditions are simultaneously met: (a) The on-site energy shortage
“Pshort (as marked in the Fig. 4)” exists; (b) The EV is parking inside the
office building; (c) The fractional state of charge (FSOC) of the EV
battery is higher than the value of 0.35.

6
S. Cao Applied Energy 251 (2019) 113347

Table 2
The parameters of the chillers, tanks, and the solar thermal collectors in the TRNSYS environment.
The parameters The values

AHU and Space Cooling Chillers (Modelled by the Type 666 Chiller type AHU cooling chiller: Water-cooled chiller, whose parameters are mainly
[32] in the TRNSYS) based on the product “Carrier R30XW802 [33]”
Space cooling chiller: Water-cooled chiller, whose parameters are
mainly based on the product “Daikin WGZ 055 [34]”
Rated capacity(a) AHU cooling chiller: 796 kW
Space cooling chiller: 165.4 kW
Rated COP(a) AHU cooling chiller: 5.53
Space cooling chiller: 4.7
Set point temperature of the chilled AHU cooling chiller: 5 °C
water leaving temperature Space cooling chiller: 13 °C
Catalogue reference The catalogue files of the AHU cooling and the space cooling chillers
refer to the reference [33] and [34], respectively.

Cold Water Storages Tanks for the AHU Cooling and Space Tank type Vertical insulated water storage tank with temperature stratification
Cooling (Modelled by the Type 534 [35] in TRNSYS) Tank volume AHU cooling tank: 26 m3
Space cooling tank: 5.5 m3
Tank height AHU cooling tank: 2.5 m
Space cooling tank: 1.914 m
Number of tank nodes 5

Solar Thermal Collectors (Modelled by the Type 71 [36] in Type Evacuated tube solar thermal collector
TRNSYS) The total solar thermal system sizes Total of 30 m2 with each module at 1 m2.
Number in series times the number in 3× 10
parallel
Flow rate at test conditions 0.0139 kg/(s.m2)
Intercept efficiency 0.7
Negative of first order efficiency 2.78 W/(m2.K)
coefficient
Negative of second order efficiency 8.33 × 10 3 W/(m2.K2)
coefficient

Hot Water Storage Tank (Modelled by the Type 534 [35] in Type Vertical insulated water storage tank with temperature stratification
TRNSYS) Tank volume 2 m3
Tank height 1.366 m
Number of tank nodes 5

(a)
The rated condition: inlet cooling water temperature at 30 °C, and the chilled water set point temperature at 7 °C.

4.5 Office
4.0 Auxiliary Building
3.5 electric heater
consumption
BIPV
Energy (kWh/m2 .a)

3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0 Electric
0.5 grid
Home
0.0 Building
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Solar thermal collector areas (m2 ) Remote
Local Storage
Fig. 5. The impact of the solar thermal collector area on the annual electricity
Interaction Remote
consumption of the auxiliary electric heater.
Local Interaction
Storage
(2) The “Boundary Expansion Scenario” is activated

If the “Boundary Expansion Scenario” is activated, the boundary of

the office building and the EVs can be virtually expanded to include the Fig. 6. The brief schematic of the “Boundary Expansion Scenario” with the
remote locations. In this study, the remote location refers to the loca- local and remote interactions.
tion where the EVs are parking at home. The control strategies for the
charging and discharging processes of the EV batteries (i.e. the B2V and
letter “B” stands for the office building rather than the home building)
the V2B interactions where the letter “B” stands for the office building
is expanded to include both the office parking and the home parking
rather than the home building) follow similar strategies as those when
hours.
the “Boundary Expansion Scenario” is not activated. However, the only
difference is that the interactions are now not constrained by the
physical location of the office building, but can be expanded to include 3.3. The renewable energy systems
the period when the EV is remotely parking at home. In other words,
the duration of the B2V and the V2B interactions (still note that the As introduced in the Section 3.1, the renewable electricity genera-
tion system is composed of the building integrated photovoltaic system

7
S. Cao Applied Energy 251 (2019) 113347

(BIPV) and the wind turbine system. The BIPVs are installed on the four system (as depicted in the Fig. 4), several criteria are involved in this
façades and the roof of the office building. Regarding the four facades, study. Firstly, regarding the grid interactions of the hybrid system, the
the BIPVs cover the entire areas of the walls except the window glazing annual electrical energy imported from (i.e. “Eimp,a”) and exported (i.e.
or the gate, equivalent to 2073 m2. Regarding the roof, the BIPVs cover “Eexp,a”) to the electric grid will be considered, following the two
87.5% of the roof area, whereas the rest is reserved for the solar thermal equations below:
collectors and other roof mounted facilities. As a total, the overall area t2
of the BIPVs is 2493 m2. The BIPVs are modelled by the TRNSYS Type Eimp,a =
t1
Pimp (t)dt
(1)
567 [37], whose shading and thermal effect can be interacted with the
building model Type 56 [38] in the TRNSYS environment. The BIPVs t2
Eexp,a = Pexp (t)dt
are glazed photovoltaic panels with an air channel between the back t1 (2)
cover of the BIPV panels and the external surface of the wall/roof of the
where “Pimp(t)” and “Pexp(t)” are the imported and exported power
office building. The efficiency of the BIPV product under the standard
from and to the electric grid (as marked in the Fig. 4), respectively. The
testing condition (the incidence radiation at 1000 W/m2 and the re-
lower and upper limits of the integral “t1” and “t2” are the starting and
ference temperature at 25 °C) is 14.27%. The detailed parameters of the
the end of the investigated period, which are the beginning and the end
BIPV modelling has been listed in the Table 3.
of one year’s period in this study, respectively. Correspondingly, by
The wind turbine is modelled based on the specifications of the
knowing the annual energy imported from and exported to the electric
commercial product “Vestas V39 [39]” with a rated capacity of 500 kW.
grid, the annual net direct energy of the hybrid system (i.e. “Edirect,a”)
This is a 3-blade horizontal-axis wind turbine with a hub height and a
can be calculated according to the Equation (3):
rotor diameter of 40.5 m and 39.0 m, respectively. The cut-in and cut-
out wind speeds are 4 m/s and 25 m/s, respectively. The wind turbine is Edirect,a = E imp,a Eexp,a (3)
modelled by the TRNSYS Type 90 [36]. The detailed parameters and
Furthermore, under the assumption that the equivalent CO2 emis-
the power-speed curve of the wind turbine are listed in the Table 3. The
sion factors of the local solar and wind generations are zero [21], the
wind turbine is assumed to be locally installed close to the office
annual operational equivalent CO2 emission (i.e. “CEa”) of the hybrid
building.
system can be calculated as follows:
CEa = (E imp,a Eexp,a ) CEFeg (4)
4. Analysis criteria
where the CEFeg is the equivalent CO2 emission of the electric grid. In
In order to investigate the technical performance of the hybrid this study, we designate this CEFeg to be 0.572 kg CO2,eq/kWh, which is

Table 3
The parameters of the BIPV and the wind turbine in the TRNSYS environment.
The parameters The values

BIPV (Modelled by the Type 567
[37] in the TRNSYS)
PV efficiency mode Linear modifiers for off-rated cell temperature and incident radiation
The absorptance of the PV surface 0.9
The refractive index of the transparent cover material 1.526
The reference PV efficiency under the reference conditions 14.27%
(the incidence radiation at 1000 W/m2 and the reference
temperature at 25 °C)
Efficiency modifier with respect to the temperature −0.005 °C−1
Efficiency modifier with respect to the radiation 9 × 10 5 m2/W
The emissivity of the glazing cover surface 0.9
The conductivity of the glazing cover 1.4 W/(m.K)
The thickness of the glazing cover 0.00635 m
The thermal resistance of the substrate 1.52 m2.K/W
The emissivity of the external surface of the back cover 0.09
The emissivity of the external surface of the wall/roof of the 0.9
office building
The height of the air channel between the back cover of the 0.0508 m
BIPV panels and the external surface of the wall/roof of the
office building

Wind turbine (Modelled by the Type The type of the wind turbine 3-blade horizontal-axis wind turbine (based on the commercial product
90 [36] in the TRNSYS) “Vestas V39 [39]”)
Rated power 500 kW
Hub height 40.5 m
Rotor diameter 39.0 m
Cut-in wind speed 4 m/s
Cut-out wind speed 25 m/s
The site shear exponent 0.22
The power-wind speed curve 600
Power-Wind speed curve
500

400
Power (kW)

300

200

100

0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Wind speed (m/s)

8
S. Cao Applied Energy 251 (2019) 113347

based on the five year average value (2013–2017) of the equivalent CO2
emission factor of the electricity provided by the CLP Power Hong Kong
Ltd. – one of the two largest utility companies in Hong Kong [40].
Moreover, in order to evaluate the matching capability of the hybrid
system, the on-site electrical energy fraction (OEFe) and the on-site
electrical energy matching (OEMe) are used to support the evaluation.
The OEFe essentially indicates the proportion of the local electric de-
mand which is covered by the local electric generation rather than
being imported from the electric grid. The OEMe essentially indicates
the proportion of the local electric generation which is consumed lo-
cally rather than being exported to the electric grid or being dumped.
The detailed and generalized calculation method for the OEFe and the
OEMe are defined in the Ref. [41,42], while the following equations are
the simplified format for the specific case in this study:
t2
Pimp (t)dt
OEFe = 1
t1
, 0
t2
[L elec (t) + PEVsys (t)]dt
t1
t2
Pexp (t)dt
t1
OEMe = 1 t2 , 0 OEMe
PREe (t)dt
t1
where the “Lelec(t)” is the total electrical demand power of the office
building (as depicted in the Fig. 4) including the water cooled chillers,
cooling towers, auxiliary electric heaters, and the building devices and
equipment, but excluding those of the electric vehicles. The “PEVsys(t)”
is the electrical power sent to drive the EV integrated system. The
“PREe(t)” is the electrical power generated by the local renewable en-
ergy systems, including the BIPVs and/or the wind turbine.
As mentioned in the Section 3.2, the EV batteries are possible to be
charged by the electric grid during the “mandatory charging mode”.
Correspondingly, in order to calculate the annual local renewable en-
ergy ratio in the EV integrated system (i.e. “ EV , RE ”), the following
equation should be applied:
t2
t1
Pimp,EVsys (t)dt
EV , RE = t2
PEVsys (t)dt
t1
where the “Pimp,EVsys(t)” is the backup electricity imported from the
electric grid for supporting the EV integrated system.
In addition, in order to investigate the V2B and the B2V interac-
tions, the following two criteria will be considered. One is the annual
energy transferred from the office building to the electric vehicle in-
tegrated system, “EB2V”, as presented in the Eq. (8). The other one is the
annual energy transferred from the electric vehicle integrated system to
the office building, “EV2B”, as presented in the Eq. (9).
t2
EB2V = PEVsys (t)dt
t1
EV2B =
t2
PV2B (t)dt
t1
where the “PEVsys(t)” is the electrical power sent to drive the EV in-
tegrated system, and the “PV2B(t)” is the electrical power discharged
from the EV batteries to support the office building usage. Furthermore,
in order to differentiate the interacted energy between the local and
remote interactions (as depicted in the Fig. 6), the terms “EB2V(or
V2B),local”,
and “EB2V(or V2B),remote” are defined as the interacted energy
during the periods of the local and remote interactions, respectively.
5. Simulation results, analyses and discussions
In this study, in order to comprehensively investigate the impact of
the renewable electricity generation systems, the V2B scenarios, the
“Boundary Expansion Scenario”, and the EV numbers on the technical
performance of the hybrid system, five research groups are categorized
as listed in the Table 4. As shown in the Table 4, there are three re-
newable electricity generation options in the Groups 1–3: (a) merely
with the building integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) system, (b) merely
with the 500-kW wind turbine, and (c) with both the BIPV and the wind
turbine systems. Moreover, the Groups 1–3 are all integrated with 10
OEFe 1 electric vehicles. Regarding the differences between the Groups 1–3: in
(5) the Group 1, neither the V2B function nor the “Boundary Expansion
Scenario” is activated; in the Group 2, the V2B function is activated, but
the “Boundary Expansion Scenario” is inactivated; in the Group 3, both
1 the V2B function and the “Boundary Expansion Scenario” are activated.
(6)
Furthermore, in the Groups 4 and 5, the integrated EV numbers are
increased from 2 to 20 with an increase step of 2. The V2B function is
activated in both the Groups 4 and 5, whereas the “Boundary Expansion
Scenario” is only activated in the Group 5. In addition, as a reference
case, the case “Ref” is included in this study: it has a collector area of
30 m2 without any renewable electricity system. For this reference case,
10 EVs are integrated, but neither the V2B function nor the “Boundary
Expansion Scenario” is activated.
The flow chart of the research steps is also depicted in the Fig. 7.
The impact of the renewable electricity generation systems on the
realization of the zero-emission systems are firstly investigated in the
Section 5.1. Thereafter, the impact of the V2B scenarios (with or
without the activation of the V2B function) on the overall performance
of the hybrid system as well as the building-vehicle interactions are
analysed and discussed in the Section 5.2. Furthermore, Section 5.3
presents the impact of the “Boundary Expansion Scenario” on the
(7)
overall hybrid system performance and the building-vehicle interac-
tions. In the end, the impact of the integrated EV numbers on the system
performance is investigated in the Section 5.4. The corresponding
coverage of the research groups (Groups 1–5 as listed in the Table 4)
with respect to each section is presented in the Fig. 7. The assessment
criteria follow those introduced in the Section 4: as also summarized in
the Fig. 7, regarding the overall performance of the hybrid system, the
focused criteria include the annual grid interactions (“Eimp,a” and
“Eexp,a”), the annual net direct energy (“Edirect,a”), the annual opera-
tional equivalent CO2 emission (“CEa”), and the annual matching cap-
(8) abilities (“OEFe” and “OEMe”); regarding the building-vehicle inter-
actions, the focused criteria include the interactive energy (“EB2V” and
“EV2B”) and the annual local renewable energy ratio in the EV in-
(9) tegrated system (“ EV , RE ”). Meanwhile, the key schedules of the
building-vehicle interaction include those of the office-parking, com-
muting, and home-parking hours, which will affect the V2B function
and the boundary expansion scenario.

Table 4
The options of variables in this research (Abbreviations: BIPV-building integrated photovoltaic system, WT-wind turbine).
Solar thermal collector area REe option V2B function Expansion of boundary Number of EVs

2
Case: Ref 30 m None N N 10
Group 1 30 m2 (a) BIPV; (b) WT; (c) BIPV + WT N N 10
Group 2 30 m2 (a) BIPV; (b) WT; (c) BIPV + WT Y N 10
Group 3 30 m2 (a) BIPV; (b) WT; (c) BIPV + WT Y Y 10
Group 4 30 m2 BIPV + WT Y N 2–20
Group 5 30 m2 BIPV + WT Y Y 2–20

9
S. Cao Applied Energy 251 (2019) 113347

Overall performance
BIPV The impact of the renewable of the hybrid system Schedule of
electricity generation
The annual grid interactions the Vehicle
systems (Section 5.1)

Assessment Criteria
G1 (Eimp,a, Eexp,a) -Building
Wind N Interaction
turbine V2B The annual net direct energy
The impact of the V2B (Edirect,a) Office Parking
Function
scenarios (Section 5.2) (Local
Y
T annual operational
The Interactions)
BIPV G2 eequivalent CO2 emission
+ ( a)
(CE
The impact of the mobile Commuting
Wind
boundary expansions N Boundary The annual matching (including
turbine G3 driving and
(Section 5.3) Expansion capabilities (OEFe, OEMe)
other daily
Scenario
Y activities)
Solar The impact of the G4 Building-Vehicle interactions
Thermal integrated EV numbers Home Parking
The annual local EB2V
(Section 5.4) G5 (Remote
renewable energy ratio
in the EV integrated Interactions)
system ( ) EV2B

Fig. 7. The flow chart of the research steps, methodology and the assessment criteria. “G1”-“G5” refer to the Groups 1–5 listed in the Table 4.

5.1. The impact of the renewable electricity generation systems on the
realization of the zero-emission system
The simulation results of the annual energy and emission perfor-
mances of the Group 1 are listed in the Fig. 8 and Table 5. In addition,
the simulation results of the case Ref. are also listed for the comparison
purposes. Firstly, as shown in Fig. 8 and Table 5, when all the available
facades are utilized for the BIPV, the annual net-direct energy con-
sumption “Edirect,a” is reduced from 256.4 kWh/m2.a (case “Ref”) to
215.3 kWh/m2.a (case “G1(a)”) by 16%. The resulting annual equiva-
lent CO2 emissions are reduced from 146.7 to 123.2 kg CO2,eq/m2.a by
16.0%. This reduction is a combined effect of the BIPV shading and the
PV generation, as introduced as follows. On one hand, as listed in the
Table 6, by utilizing the BIPVs, the annual space cooling demand “ESC”
is significantly reduced from 38.22 kWh/m2.a in the case “Ref” to
30.49 kWh/m2.a in the case “G1(a)” by 20.2%, while the annual AHU
cooling demand “EAC” is slightly reduced from 223.4 kWh/m2.a in the
case “Ref” to 219.6 kWh/m2.a in the case “G1(a)” by 1.7%. This is
because that the shading effect of the BIPVs mainly contributes to the
reduction of the solar heat gains of the envelopes, leading to a much
more noticeable reduction of the space cooling demand than the AHU
cooling demand. Correspondingly, the annual electricity consumptions
of the space and AHU cooling chillers (“ESC chiller” and “EAC chiller” as
listed in the Table 6) reduce from 4.99 and 36.34 kWh/m2.a to 3.84 and
35.74 kWh/m2.a by 23.0% and 1.7%, respectively. On the other hand,
as listed in the Table 5, the BIPV systems generate a total amount of
41.3 kWh/m2.a (per m2 of the total floor areas of the office building)
renewable electricity. According to the simulation results as presented
in the Fig. 8, under the condition without the V2B function, the BIPV
generations can cover 14% (i.e. OEFe) of the local annual electricity
demands, while 93% (i.e. OEMe) of the BIPV generations are consumed
smallest share at 17%, whereas the north façade has the largest share at
23%. These opposite situations are mainly resulting from the variable
annual solar radiation per square meter of the received area by the four
facades and the roof, as shown in the Fig. 10. However, due to the
limited available areas on the roof of the 10-floor office building, all the
facades should be fully utilized to exploit the maximum potential of the
local solar resources. Furthermore, although the annual received solar
radiations are variable for each façade or roof, the annual efficiency of
the BIPVs are all around 10% according to the simulation results.
Secondly, by merely equipping a 500-kW wind turbine in the case
“G1(b)”, the annual net-direct energy consumption “Edirect,a” and an-
nual net equivalent CO2 emission “CEa” are reduced from 256.4 kWh/
m2.a and 146.7 kg CO2,eq/m2.a (Case “Ref”) to 36.9 kWh/m2.a and
21.1 kg CO2,eq/m2.a (Case G1(b)), both by 85.6%, respectively. This is
due to the much enhanced renewable electricity generations, as the
annual wind turbine generation can reach 231.1 kWh/m2.a. However,
different from the case “G1(a)” with BIPV, the wind turbine system
cannot contribute to the reduction of the cooling load, as also presented
in Table 6. Moreover, as shown in the Fig. 8, compared to the case
“G1(a)”, although the importing stress on the electric grid (i.e. Eimp,a)
can be reduced from 218.3 (Case “G1(a)”) to 145.2 kWh/m2.a (Case
“G1(b)”), the exporting stress on the grid (i.e. Eexp,a) has to be sig-
nificantly amplified from 3 to 108.3 kWh/m2.a by 36 times. This leads
to the enhanced OEFe and worsened OEMe: although the OEFe rises
from 0.14 (Case “G1(a)”) to 0.43 (Case “G1(b)”), the OEMe falls from
0.93 to 0.53. This indicates that, by the 500-kW wind turbine alone,
Eimp,a
300 Eexp,a 1
Edirect,a
240 OEFe (Right axis) 0.8
Annual Energy [kWh/m2 .a]

OEMe (Right axis)

on-site rather than being exported to the electric grid. This indicates
180 0.6
that even though all the available facades are utilized, the BIPVs are
still far from covering the total electricity demands of the office
Index

120 0.4
building and the integrated 10 electric vehicles. The alternative or extra
renewable energy systems should be equipped to progress towards the
60 0.2
zero-energy/emission balance.
In addition, regarding the contributions of the annual BIPV gen- 0 0
erations from each façade or roof in the case “G1(a)”, it has been shown Ref (a) BIPV (b) WT (c) BIPV+WT
in the Fig. 9(a) that the horizontal roof and the north façade have the -60 -0.2
largest and smallest share of the contributions, which are 27% and REe options
15%, respectively. This is quite opposite to the share of the available Fig. 8. The annual grid interactions, direct energy consumptions and matching
envelope areas for the BIPVs as shown in the Fig. 9(b): the roof has the capabilities of the cases in Group 1.

10
S. Cao Applied Energy 251 (2019) 113347

Table 5
The annual energy, emission and matching capabilities of the case Ref. and the cases in Group 1.
Cases Eimp,a [kWh/m2.a] Eexp,a [kWh/m2.a] Edirect,a [kWh/m2.a] CEa [kg CO2,eq/m2.a] EREe,a(1) [kWh/m2.a] OEFe OEMe

Ref 256.4 0 256.4 146.7 0 0.00 1.00

G1(a) BIPV 218.3 3.0 215.3 123.2 41.3 0.14 0.93
G1(b) WT 145.2 108.3 36.9 21.1 231.1 0.43 0.53
G1(c) BIPV + WT 116.6 120.8 −4.2 −2.4 272.4 0.54 0.56

(1)
EREe,a: The annual electrical energy generated by the local renewable energy system, including the BIPVs and/or the wind turbine.

Table 6 1600

Annual solar radiation per m2 of the

The cooling demands and the electricity consumptions of the chillers in the case 1400 The annual solar radiation
Ref. and the cases in Group 1.

received area (kWh/m2.a)

per square meter of the
1200
Cases ESC(1) EAC(2) ESC chiller(3) EAC chiller(4)
received area
[kWh/m2.a] [kWh/m2.a] [kWh/m2.a] [kWh/m2.a]
1000
800
Ref 38.22 223.4 4.99 36.34
G1(a) BIPV 30.49 219.6 3.84 35.74 600
G1(b) WT 38.22 223.4 4.99 36.34
400
G1(c) BIPV + WT 30.49 219.6 3.84 35.74
200
(1)
ESC: The annual space cooling demand.
(2) 0
EAC: The annual air-handling unit cooling demand.
(3)
South West East North Horizontal
ESC chiller: The annual electricity consumption of the space cooling chiller. Façade Façade Façade Façade Roof
(4)
EAC chiller: The annual electricity consumption of the air-handling unit
cooling chiller. Fig. 10. The annual solar radiation per square meter of the received area by the
four facades and the roof.

43% of the local electricity demands of the building and EVs can be
other hand, the OEMe is slightly increased from 0.53 to 0.56, as the
covered by the wind turbine generation, while 53% of the wind turbine
prevailing coincidence between the BIPV generation and office demand
generation can be consumed locally rather than being exported to the
contributes to the overall improvement of the self-utilization of the
electric grid. Considering the day-night shift of the occupancy beha-
local renewable generations.
viours of the office building, the main source of the mismatch results
Fourthly, Table 7 lists the interactions between the office building
from the non-occupant hours when the wind turbine generations still
and the electric vehicles (EVs) in the case “Ref” and the cases in Group
exist. According to the simulation results, during the non-occupant
1. As introduced in the beginning of this Section 5, there is no V2B
hours, the wind turbine generation accounts for 47% of the annual
function in the case “Ref” and the cases of Group 1. Therefore, the
overall generations, whereas the corresponding percentage is 20% for
energy transferred from the EVs to the office building (i.e. EV2B) is zero
the BIPV generations. This is also why the mismatch does not obviously
for all the cases listed in the Table 7. Regarding the energy transferred
occur for the BIPV case (Case “G1(a)”).
from the office building to the EVs (i.e. EB2V), the EB2V is 2.17 kWh/
Thirdly, as shown in the Fig. 8 and Table 5, when the BIPV and the
m2.a in the reference case “Ref”. As there is no renewable electric
500-kW wind turbine are both equipped with the office building, the
system in the reference case “Ref”, the EB2V is entirely supported by the
annual net-direct energy consumption “Edirect,a” and the annual net
electric grid (via the “mandatory charging mode” introduced in the
equivalent CO2 emission “CEa” can reach as low as −4.2 kWh/m2.a and
Section 3.2), leading to the 0% of the renewable energy fraction in
−2.4 kg CO2,eq/m2.a, respectively, realizing the net-zero emission
charging the EVs (i.e. EV , RE = 0%). For the case “G1(a)”, although the
balance. The annual imported and exported electricity from/to the BIPV is equipped, 93% of the BIPV generations are absorbed by the
electric grid are at the comparable magnitude around 120 kWh/m2.a. building systems (OEMe = 93% as shown in Fig. 8) while there is no
Compared to the case “G1(b)”, the matching capabilities of the case surplus PV electricity during the time when the EVs are parking inside
“G1(c)” have been improved in both the aspects of the OEFe and OEMe: the office building, leading to the fact that all of the EB2V is still entirely
on one hand, the OEFe is significantly enhanced from 0.43 to 0.54, supported by the grid as that of the reference case “Ref”, and thus the
resulting from the increased total renewable generation together with
EV , RE and EB2V are the same as those of the reference case “Ref”.
the reduced cooling demands by BIPV as listed in the Table 6; on the

South Façade
17%
22% 23%
West Façade 27%

East Façade
23%
North Façade 17% 18%
15%
Horizontal
Roof
19% 20%

(a) (b)
Fig. 9. The distributions of (a) the annual BIPV generations, (b) the BIPV areas on the four facades and the roof.

11
S. Cao
Table 7
The energy interactions between the office building and the electric vehicles in
the case Ref. and the cases in Group 1.
Cases EV , RE EB2V [kWh/m2.a] EV2B [kWh/m2.a]
Ref 0% 2.17 0 m2.a and −2.4 kg CO2,eq/m2.a in the case G1(c) to the values of
G1(a) BIPV 0% 2.17 0 −3.8 kWh/m2.a and −2.2 kg CO2,eq/m2.a in the case G2(c), respec-
G1(b) WT 92.6% 2.21 0
G1(c) BIPV + WT 96.9% 2.23 0
However, the situations are different for the cases “G1(b)” and “G1(c)”.
In these two cases, the equipment of the 500-kW wind turbine both
inevitably leads to the surplus renewable generation during the office
hours when the EVs are parking inside the office building, significantly
contributing to the enhancement of the renewable energy fraction in
charging the EVs: as listed in the Table 7, the EV , RE can reach 92.6%
and 96.9% for the cases “G1(b)” and “G1(c)”, respectively. Meanwhile,
as more surplus renewable electricity exists, the energy transferred
from the office building to the EVs (i.e. “EB2V”) will be slightly higher
than the minimum requirement of 2.17 kWh/m2.a, reaching 2.21 and
2.23 kWh/m2.a for the cases “G1(b)” and “G1(c)”, respectively. How-
ever, the deviation will be limited within 3% because there is no V2B
function and the EV storage capacity is limited.
5.2. The impact of the V2B scenarios on the realization of the zero-emission
system
Fig. 11 and Table 8 present the annual energy and emission per-
formances of the Group 2. As indicated by Table 4, the only difference
between the Group 1 and Group 2 is that the V2B function is activated
in the Group 2. There is no boundary expansion in the Group 2. Com-
paring between the results of Group 1 (Fig. 8 and Table 5) and Group 2
(Fig. 11 and Table 8), it can be noticed that the impact of the V2B
function on the energy and emission performances is very small as in-
troduced below. For the REe option of BIPV, the impact is negligible
between the cases G2(a) and G1(a), mainly resulting from the limited
BIPV generations compared to the electric demands of the office
building with an annual OEFe and OEMe at 14% and 93%, respectively.
According to the simulation results of the cases G2(a), there is no sur-
plus renewable electricity during the time when the EVs are parking
inside the office, leading to the 0% EV , RE , and thus it is not effective to
utilize the V2B function in this case. For the cases G2(b) and G2(c),
although higher renewable generation capacities are available, the V2B
function can only be used to back up the on-site energy shortage when
the EVs are parking inside the office building. As listed in the Table 9,
the annual energy transferred from the EVs to the office building (i.e.
EV2B) are 3.05 and 3.95 kWh/m2.a for the cases G2(b) and G2(c), re-
spectively, which are less than 4% of the magnitude of the annual on-
site energy shortage (i.e. Eimp,a). This leads to the fact that the V2B
function only contributes to less than 5% of the improvement of the
OEFe. Meanwhile, as more energy is discharged from the EV batteries to
back up the building energy shortage with the V2B function, the annual
energy transferred from the building to the EVs (i.e. EB2V) will also be
higher for the cases G2(b) and G2(c) compared to the cases G1(b) and
G1(c): the EB2V are increased from 2.21 and 2.23 kWh/m2.a to 5.56 and
6.57 kWh/m2.a, respectively. However, the magnitude of the EB2V is
only less than 6% of the surplus on-site energy (i.e. Eexp,a), leading to a
limited improvement of the OEMe by less than 2% for the cases G2(b)
and G2(c) compared to the cases G1(b) and G1(c).
Moreover, as listed in the Table 9, with the V2B function, the higher
EB2V also leads to the lower renewable energy faction in charging the
EVs, where the EV , RE falls from 92.6% and 96.9% in the cases G1(b)
and G1(c) to 73.8% and 80.9% in the cases G2(b) and G2(c), respec-
tively. This is because that the V2B function increases the load of the EV
batteries to support both the transportation and building, leading to
higher chances to activate the “mandatory mode” when the EVs are
12
Applied Energy 251 (2019) 113347
supported by the grid electricity. Another adverse effect of the V2B
function is the slight increase of the annual net-direct energy con-
sumption “Edirect,a” and the annual net equivalent CO2 emission “CEa”:
for example, when the BIPV and the 500-kW wind turbine are both
equipped, the Edirect,a and CEa are slightly increased from −4.2 kWh/
tively. This slight adverse effect is resulting from the higher charging
losses of the EV batteries with respect to the increase of the EB2V.
As the original motivation of the V2B function is to utilize the EVs as
mobile electric storages, the small enhancement of matching cap-
abilities less than 5% in the Group 2 cannot meet the original target to
effectively enhance the overall matching capabilities. Before the pro-
posal of any solution, let us first check the distribution of the on-site
energy shortage (i.e. “Eimp,a”) and surplus (i.e. “Eexp,a”) during the
parking and non-parking hours in the Fig. 12. In the Group 2, the
“parking” and “non-parking” refer to the location of the office building.
And here we use the case G2(c) as an example, which realizes a net-zero
energy/emission balance. As shown in Fig. 12, 38.6% and 61.4% of the
Eimp,a are distributed during the non-parking and parking hours, re-
spectively. On the other hand, most of the Eexp,a is distributed during
the non-parking hours, reaching the magnitude and the percentage of
109.9 kWh/m2.a and 93.4%, respectively. Therefore, if this significant
amount of surplus renewable electricity during the non-parking hours
can be effectively utilized, the overall matching capabilities are ex-
pected to be further enhanced. Unfortunately, in the Group 2, when the
EVs are not parking inside the office building, the storage capabilities of
the EVs cannot be utilized. Hereby, in the next section, we will in-
vestigate the possibility and effect to expand the boundary of the EVs to
include the time when the EVs are also parking at home, which refers to
the activation of the “Boundary Expansion Scenario” as introduced in
the Section 3.2.
5.3. The impact of the mobile boundary expansions on the energy
performances of the zero-emission system
In the “Boundary Expansion Scenario”, even when the EVs are
parking at home, the office-EV interactions can be still continued via
the electric grid. In other words, the EV can be functioned as a local
electric storage when the EV is parking inside the office and be func-
tioned as a remote electric storage when the EV is parking at home. In
order to investigate the impact of this “Boundary Expansion Scenario”,
the Group 3 activates this scenario together with the V2B function. The
energy and emission performances of the cases in the Group 3 are listed
in the Table 10. Compared to the cases of the Group 2 (Table 8), the
matching capabilities are further improved in the cases of the Group 3,
as introduced below. In the case G3(a) with the mere installation of the
BIPVs, although the improvement of matching is limited, all the BIPV
generations are consumed by the office building and EV systems
Eimp,a
Eexp,a
300 1
Edirect,a
240 OEFe (Right axis) 0.8
Annual Energy [kWh/m2.a]
OEMe (Right axis)
180 0.6
Index
120 0.4
60 0.2
0 0
Ref (a) BIPV (b) WT (c) BIPV+WT
-60
REe options
-0.2
Fig. 11. The annual grid interactions, direct energy consumptions and
matching capabilities of the cases in Group 2.
S. Cao Applied Energy 251 (2019) 113347

Table 8
The annual energy, emission and matching capabilities of the case Ref. and the cases in Group 2.
Cases in the Group 2 Eimp,a [kWh/m2.a] Eexp,a [kWh/m2.a] Edirect,a [kWh/m2.a] CEa [kg CO2,eq/m2.a] OEFe OEMe

(a) BIPV 218.3 3.0 215.3 123.2 0.14 0.93

(b) WT 143.5 106.2 37.2 21.3 0.45 0.54
(c) BIPV + WT 113.9 117.6 −3.8 −2.2 0.56 0.57

Table 9
The energy interactions between the office building and the electric vehicles in
the Group 2.
Cases in the Group 2 EV , RE EB2V [kWh/m2.a] EV2B [kWh/m2.a]
(a) BIPV 0% 2.28 0.10
(b) WT 73.8% 5.56 3.05
(c) BIPV + WT 80.9% 6.57 3.95
without any surplus renewable electricity. The corresponding annual
OEFe and OEMe are enhanced from 0.14 and 0.93 in the case G2(a) to
the values of 0.16 and 1.00 in the case G3(a), respectively. With the
higher renewable electricity capabilities in the cases G3(b) and G3(c)
due to the existence of the 500-kW wind turbine, the enhancement of
the matching capabilities are more noticeable: compared to the cases
G2(b) and G2(c), the Eimp,a are reduced from 143.5 and 113.9 kWh/
m2.a to 131.1 and 102.2 kWh/m2.a by 8.6% and 10.3%, respectively,
while the Eexp,a are reduced from 106.2 and 117.6 kWh/m2.a to 92.5
and 104.8 kWh/m2.a by 12.9% and 10.9%, respectively. Fig. 13 pre-
sents the comparison of the energy, emission and matching perfor-
mances between the Groups 1, 2 and 3. It can be noticeably seen from
the Fig. 13 that, via the “Boundary Expansion Scenario”, the OEFe in
the cases G3(b) and G3(c) are increased by around 10.7–15.6% com-
pared to the cases G2(b) and G2(c), whereas the OEMe are increased by
around 8.8–11.1%.
Furthermore, the interactions between the office building and the
EVs are listed in the Table 11, while the Fig. 14 also presents the
comparison of the B2V and V2B interactions between the Groups 1, 2
and 3. As shown in Fig. 14(a), by the “Boundary Expansion Scenario”,
the energy transferred from the EVs to the office building (i.e. EV2B) are
significantly increased from 0.1, 3.05 and 3.95 kWh/m2.a in the cases
G2(a)-(c) to 2.55, 14.65 and 14.87 kWh/m2.a in the cases G3(a)–(c),
respectively. This significantly enhanced “EV2B” is resulting from the
expansion of the boundary to further utilize the EVs as remote electric
storages when the EVs are parking at home, contributing to the re-
duction of the on-site energy shortage as introduced in the former
paragraph. As listed in the Table 11, the EV2B,remote can reach 2.46, 5.03
and 5.60 kWh/m2.a in the cases G3(a), G3(b) and G3(c), respectively,
all contributing to the reduction of the on-site energy shortage during
the corresponding periods. Furthermore, as the EVs undertake more
loads for backing up the office building demand in the Group 3, the
magnitudes of the EB2V will also be significantly increased as shown in
the Fig. 14(b): the EB2V are increased from 2.28, 5.56 and 6.57 kWh/
m2.a in the cases G2(a)–(c) to the values of 5.01, 18.45 and 18.73 kWh/
m2.a in the cases G3(a)–(c), respectively. In overall, as depicted in the
Fig. 14, an increased enhancement of the bi-directional interactions
between the office building and the EVs can be noticed from Group 1 to
Group 2 by activating the V2B function and from Group 2 to Group 3 by
activating the “Boundary Expansion Scenario”.
Moreover, it should be mentioned that the Group 3 fully utilizes the
electric storage capacities of the EVs both locally in the office building
and remotely in the home building. The significant surplus renewable
electricity during the non-office parking hours (as formerly demon-
strated in the Fig. 12 in the Section 5.2) can be partially utilized for
supporting the transportation: this can be clearly indicated by the va-
lues of the EB2V,remote in the Table 11, where the EB2V,remote reach 2.99,
15.68 and 15.18 kWh/m2.a in the cases G3(a)-(c), respectively. These
magnitudes of the EB2V,remote noticeably exceed the EB2V,local especially
for the cases G3(b) and G3(c) when the 500-kW wind turbine is
equipped. In the cases G3(b) and G3(c), the values of the EB2V,local are
only 2.77 and 3.55 kWh/m2.a, which are 17.7% and 23.4% of the
EB2V,remote, respectively. In other words, when the “Boundary Expansion
Scenario” is activated, the prevailing B2V charging happens during the
non-office parking hours (i.e. the period when the EVs are remotely
parked in the home building) and this remote charging is realized via
the electric grid. Correspondingly, the effective utilization of the sur-
plus renewable electricity during the non-office parking hours in the
Group 3 lead to the best renewable energy fraction in charging the EVs
(i.e. EV , RE ) compared to other groups: as depicted in the Fig. 14(b), the
EV , RE are significantly increased from 0%, 73.8% and 80.9% in the
cases G2(a)–(c) to the magnitudes of 59.7%, 96.5% and 96.9% in the
cases G3(a)–(c), respectively. Therefore, although the EVs undertake
much more loads for backing up the building demand in the Group 3,
the renewable energy fraction in the EV batteries can still be kept at a
high level, especially for the cases G3(b) and G3(c) with almost full
renewable energy coverage.
However, as shown in the Fig. 13, a side-effect of the enhanced B2V
interaction is a slight increase of the annual net-direct energy con-
sumption “Edirect,a” and annual net equivalent CO2 emission “CEa”. For
example, the CEa is slightly increased from 123.2, 21.3 and −2.2 kg
CO2,eq/m2.a in the cases G2(a)–(c) to 123.3, 22.0 and −1.5 kg CO2,eq/
m2.a in the cases G3(a)–(c), respectively. This slight increase of the net-
direct energy consumption and emission is mainly resulting from the
increased charging losses during the enhanced B2V charging processes.

Unit in kWh/m2.a Unit in kWh/m2.a 7.8

Eimp,a Eexp,a (6.6%)
Parking 44.0 Parking
(38.6%)
Eimp,a Eexp,a
Non- 69.9 Non-
Parking (61.4%) Parking
109.9 (93.4%)

Fig. 12. The distributions of the “Eimp,a” and “Eexp,a” during the parking and non-parking hours in the case G2(c) (“parking” and “non-parking” refer to the location of
the office building).

13
S. Cao Applied Energy 251 (2019) 113347

Table 10
The annual energy, emission and matching capabilities of the cases in Group 3.
Cases in the Group 3 Eimp,a [kWh/m2.a] Eexp,a [kWh/m2.a] Edirect,a [kWh/m2.a] CEa [kg CO2,eq/m2.a] OEFe OEMe

(a) BIPV 215.6 0 215.6 123.3 0.16 1.00

(b) WT 131.1 92.5 38.5 22.0 0.52 0.60
(c) BIPV + WT 102.2 104.8 −2.5 −1.5 0.62 0.62

Comparison between groups: Edirect,a and OEFe

250 1 Comparison between groups: CEa and OEMe
150 1
Edirect_G1 CEa_G1
200 0.8

Annual Emission [kg CO2,eq/m2 .a]

Annual Energy [kWh/m2 .a]

120 0.8
Edirect_G2 CEa_G2
150 0.6
90 0.6

Index
Index
Edirect_G3 CEa_G3
100 0.4
60 0.4
OEFe_G1 OEMe_G1
50 0.2 30 0.2
OFEe_G2 OEMe_G2
0 0 0 0
(a) BIPV (b) WT (c) BIPV+WT (a) BIPV (b) WT (c) BIPV+WT
OEFe_G3 OEMe_G3
-50 -0.2 -30 -0.2
REe options REe options

(a) (b)
Fig. 13. The comparison of the annual net-direct energy consumption “Edirect,a”, annual net equivalent CO2 emission “CEa” and matching capabilities between the
Groups 1, 2 and 3.

5.4. The impact of the integrated EV numbers on the energy performances of
the zero-emission system
The above Sections 5.1–5.3 only focused on the situations that there
are 10 EVs integrated with the office building energy system, as the
parking floor is designed to support 10 EVs. In this Section 5.4, we will
further investigate the impact of the number of the EVs on the energy
and emission performances of the building and vehicle systems. The
numbers of the EVs are ranged from 2 to 20, while the numbers higher
than 10 are merely for the illustrative purposes under the assumption
that the parking floor can support up to 20 EVs. Two Groups are in-
vestigated in this section – Groups 4 and 5 as listed in the Table 4. Both
groups are equipped with the BIPVs and the 500-kW wind turbine,
while the V2B function is activated. The “Boundary Expansion Sce-
nario” is inactivated and activated in the Groups 4 and 5, respectively.
As the EVs are functioned as mobile electric storages for the hybrid
zero-emission systems consisting of both the office building and the
EVs, the increase of the numbers of the EVs is equivalent to the increase
of the mobile electric storage capacities together with the increased
transportation loads. Meanwhile, the activation of the “Boundary
Expansion Scenario” is equivalent to the expansion of the time-duration
when the EVs can be interacted with the office building.
Correspondingly, as shown in the Fig. 15, with respect to the increase of
the EV numbers from 2 to 20, the annual matching capabilities are
enhanced for both the OEFe and the OEMe: in case the “Boundary
Expansion Scenario” is not activated, the OEFe and the OEMe are
slightly increased from the magnitude of 0.55 to the magnitude of
0.57–0.58 by 4–5%; in case the “Boundary Expansion Scenario” is ac-
tivated, the OEFe and the OEMe are more noticeably increased from the
magnitude of 0.56–0.57 to the magnitude of 0.65–0.66 by 14–18%. It
clearly indicates that in case the “Boundary Expansion Scenario” is not
activated, although the increase of the EV numbers can increase the
electric storage capacities, the storage capacities cannot be effectively
utilized with respect to the available renewable energy capacities, as
the usable duration of the EV batteries is only valid during the office-
parking hours when the surplus renewable electricity is limited. On the
other hand, in case the “Boundary Expansion Scenario” is activated, the
EV battery capacities can be more effectively utilized either locally via
the building energy system or remotely via the electric grid. These
phenomena can also be quantitively indicated by the evolutions of the
V2B and B2V interactions as depicted in the Fig. 16. As shown in the
Fig. 16, in case the “Boundary Expansion Scenario” is not activated,
although the magnitudes of the interactions between the office building
and the EVs (i.e. the “EB2V” and “EV2B”) continuously increase with
respect to the increase of the EV numbers, the increase ratios are much
lower compared to the cases with the “Boundary Expansion Scenario”:
for example, with respect to the increase of the EV numbers from 2 to
20, the “EB2V” in the Group 4 increases from 1.79 to 10.43 kWh/m2.a by
0.48 kWh/m2.a per increased number of the EV, whereas the “EB2V” in
the Group 5 increases from 5.22 to 29.12 kWh/m2.a by 1.33 kWh/m2.a
per increased number of the EV. In other words, when the “Boundary
Expansion Scenario” is activated, the B2V and V2B interactions can be
more effectively enhanced with respect to the increase of the EV
numbers.
The significance of the “Boundary Expansion Scenario” can also be
noticed in the profiles of the EV , RE . As shown in the Fig. 16, with re-
spect to the increase of the EV numbers from 2 to 20 without the ac-
tivation of the “Boundary Expansion Scenario”, the EV , RE curve of the
Group 4 noticeably drops from 86.3% to 75.4%. This continuous drop is
mainly resulting from the increased EV transportation loads without a

Table 11
The energy interactions between the office building and the electric vehicles in the Group 3 (The subscripts “local” and “remote” in the terms “EB2V,local, EB2V,remote,
EV2B,local and EV2B,remote” refer to the local and remote interactions as depicted in the Fig. 6 and introduced in the Section 3.2).
Cases in the Group 3 EV , RE EB2V [kWh/m2.a] EV2B [kWh/m2.a] EB2V,local [kWh/m2.a] EB2V,remote [kWh/m2.a] EV2B,local [kWh/m2.a] EV2B,remote [kWh/m2.a]

(a) BIPV 59.7% 5.01 2.55 2.02 2.99 0.10 2.46

(b) WT 96.5% 18.45 14.65 2.77 15.68 9.62 5.03
(c) BIPV + WT 96.9% 18.73 14.87 3.55 15.18 9.28 5.60

14
S. Cao Applied Energy 251 (2019) 113347

Comparison between groups: EV2B Comparison between groups: EB2V and ηEV,RE
20 20 1.0
B2V_G1

16 V2B_G1 16 0.8

Annual Energy [kWh/m2 .a]

Annual Energy [kWh/m2 .a]

B2V_G2

Annual Fraction
V2B_G2
12 12 0.6
B2V_G3
V2B_G3
8 8 0.4 _G1

4 4 0.2 _G2

0
_G3
0 0.0
(a) BIPV (b) WT (c) BIPV+WT (a) BIPV (b) WT (c) BIPV+WT
REe options REe options

(a) (b)
Fig. 14. The comparison of the V2B and B2V interactions between the Groups 1, 2 and 3.

sufficient surplus renewable electric generation during the office-
parking hours. On the other hand, when the “Boundary Expansion
Scenario” is activated, the EV , RE curve of the Group 5 is kept at a quite
stable level with a slight decreasing trend from 97.7% to 95.9%. This is
because that when the “Boundary Expansion Scenario” is activated, the
increased EV capacities can be effectively utilized to store the surplus
renewable generation during both the office-parking and the non-office
parking hours, leading to a high level of renewable energy ratio of the
EV batteries above 95.9%. However, the enhanced B2V interactions
with respect to the increase of the EV numbers as well as the activation
of the “Boundary Expansion Scenario” will also have a side-effect. As
shown in the Fig. 15, with respect to the increase of the EV numbers
from 2 to 20 without the “Boundary Expansion Scenario”, the annual
net equivalent CO2 emission “CEa” linearly increases from −3.3 to
−0.8 kg CO2,eq/m2.a. In case the “Boundary Expansion Scenario” is
activated, the increase ratio is even higher, rising from −3.1 to 0.3 kg
CO2,eq/m2.a. These side effects are resulting from the increased char-
ging losses during the B2V process, as the charging efficiency of the EV
batteries are 90%. Therefore, since the “EB2V” are enhanced by both the
increase of the EV numbers and the activation of the “Boundary Ex-
pansion Scenario” as shown in the Fig. 16, the evolutions of the “CEa”
curve increase in comparable manners. Nevertheless, this increasing
magnitude of 2.5–3.4 kg CO2,eq/m2.a is quite marginal compared to the
CEa of the reference case “Ref”, and does not have a significant de-
viation from the net-zero emission balance level.
6. Sensitivity analyses of the building-vehicle interactions
6.1. The impact of adjusting the duration of the office-parking hours
When the “Boundary Expansion Scenario” is not activated, the only
interactive duration between the office building and the vehicles are the
office-parking hours. Therefore, this Section 6.1 focuses on the sensi-
tivity of the impact of the office-parking duration on the hybrid system
performance. Three more cases are investigated with respect to three
different parking durations as listed in the Table 12 and Table 13. The
control parameters are adjusted as follows: (1) the starting monitoring
time of the FSOC for activating the “mandatory charging mode” on each
weekday should be adjusted according to the new starting time of the
office-parking hours; (2) the allowed B2V and V2B interactive hours
between the office building and the EVs should be adjusted according to
the new schedule; and (3) the monitoring time for checking whether the
EV has sufficient capacity for the upcoming travelling should be ad-
justed according to the new end time of the office-parking hours. All the
other variables including the vehicle energy demand are kept un-
changed. The benchmark case is assumed to be Case 2(c) introduced in
the Section 5, which is a net-zero emission system without the
“Boundary Expansion Scenario”. As shown in the Table 12, the impact
of the adjustment of the office-parking hours on the overall hybrid
system performance is quite marginal. For the most extreme case “Case
2(c).s3” with three hours longer office-parking hours, the grid

0.70 4
OEFe_No
3 Expansion
Annual Emission (kg CO2,eq/m2 .a)

0.65 2 OEFe_Expansion

1
OEMe_No
Index

0.60 0 Expansion

OEMe_Expansion
-1

0.55 -2
CEa_No Expansion
(Right axis)
-3
CEa_Expansion
0.50 -4
0 4 8 12 16 20 (Right axis)
Number of EVs
Fig. 15. The impact of the numbers of the EVs on the annual matching capabilities and the equivalent CO2 emissions of the zero-emission system.

15
S. Cao Applied Energy 251 (2019) 113347

35 1.0
B2V_No
30 Expansion

Annual Energy (kWh/m2.a)

0.9
B2V_Expansion
25

Annual Fraction
0.8 V2B_No
20
Expansion
15
0.7 V2B_Expansion
10
0.6 _No Expansion
5 (Right axis)
_Expansion
0 0.5
(Right axis)
0 4 8 12 16 20
Number of EVs
Fig. 16. The impact of the numbers of the EVs on the energy interactions between the office building and the EVs.

interactions are only affected within around 1.3%: the Eimp,a by
−1.23% and the Eexp,a by −1.28%. Moreover, the annual operational
equivalent CO2 emissions (CEa) are only affected by 0.93%, 1.85%, and
3.70% for the Case 2(c).s1, Case 2(c).s2, and Case 2(c).s3, respectively.
Furthermore, the annual matching capabilities (i.e. the OEFe and the
OEMe) are affected within 1.43%.
On the other hand, the building-vehicle interactions are sensitively
affected by the office-parking hours. As shown in the Table 13 and the
Fig. 17, with respect to the increase of the office-parking duration from
one to three hours, the “EB2V” are increased from the original
6.57 kWh/m2.a to the magnitudes of 6.91 kWh/m2.a (by 5.18%),
7.25 kWh/m2.a (by 10.35%), and 7.91 kWh/m2.a (by 20.40%), re-
spectively. Meanwhile, the “EV2B” are increased from the original
3.95 kWh/m2.a to the magnitudes of 4.25 kWh/m2.a (by 7.59%),
4.56 kWh/m2.a (by 15.44%), and 5.15 kWh/m2.a (by 30.38%), re-
spectively. Correspondingly, the annual local renewable energy ratio
“ EV , RE ” are increased from the original 80.9% to the magnitudes of
82.1%, 83.1%, and 86.5%, respectively. Essentially, the increase of the
office-parking hours is equivalent to the prolonged operational hours of
the EV batteries for the building usage, leading to the enhanced
building-vehicle interactions by up to 20.40% and 30.38% for the
“EB2V” and the “EV2B” in these three cases, respectively. Meanwhile, as
more local renewable energy is charged to the EV batteries, the annual
renewable energy ratio is correspondingly increased as introduced
above. However, as the building-vehicle energy interactions are much
smaller than the grid interactions of the overall hybrid system, the
impact of the prolonged office-parking hours on the overall system
performance is very marginal as introduced in the first paragraph of this
section: for example, even for the most extreme case “Case 2(c).s3”, the
“EB2V” and the “EV2B” are only 4–7% of the annual grid interactive
energy (i.e. Eimp,a and Eexp,a) of the hybrid system, leading to less than
4% change of the annual emission and matching capabilities of the
hybrid system. In addition, it should be particularly mentioned here
that, in practice, when different vehicles have different prolonged
parking durations from one to three hours, the equivalent effect will be
limited up to the impact indicated by the most extreme case “Case
2(c).s3” in this section.
6.2. The impact of adjusting the commuting hours
When the “Boundary Expansion Scenario” is activated, the office-
building interactions will be expanded from the local parking to the
remote parking regardless of the parking locations. Therefore, the
commuting hours will affect the system performance, as they are the
only moments when the vehicles are not interacted with the office
building. Correspondingly, four more cases are investigated with re-
spect to different durations of the commuting hours, as listed in the
Table 14 and Table 15: two cases with 25% and 50% shorter durations,
and two cases with 25% and 50% longer durations. The benchmark case
is the Case 3(c) introduced in the Section 5, which is a net-zero emission
case with the activation of the “Boundary Expansion Scenario”. The
control parameters are adjusted as follows: (1) the starting monitoring
time of the FSOC for activating the “mandatory charging mode” and the
time for evaluating the sufficiency of the EV battery capacity for the
upcoming travelling should be adjusted according to the new office-
parking hours if there is any change; and (2) the allowed B2V and V2B
interactive hours should be adjusted according to the new schedule. All
the other variables including the vehicle energy demand are kept un-
changed. Essentially, the decrease of the commuting hours is equivalent
to the prolonged operational hours of the EV batteries for the building
usage, leading to the enhanced vehicle-building interactions, the en-
hanced overall matching capabilities, and the relieved bi-directional
grid interactive stresses; and vice versa. However, as shown in the
Table 14 and Table 15, these impacts on very marginal. In the most
extreme two cases (“Case 3(c).s2” and “Case 3(c).s4” with 50% shorter
and longer durations), the absolute change of the grid interactions
(“Eimp,a” and the “Eexp,a”) and the matching capabilities (“OEFe” and
“OEMe”) are all within 0.68%, while the annual operational equivalent
CO2 emissions are affected by up to 2.74%. Meanwhile, the absolute
changes of the building-vehicle interactive energy (i.e. the “EB2V” and
“EV2B”) are within 5% for all of the four cases, while the magnitudes of
the EV , RE are only affected within 0.1%. These marginal impacts are

Table 12
The sensitivity of the impact of the office-parking hours on the annual overall performances of the hybrid system. The “Boundary Expansion Scenario” is not
activated.
Cases Office-Parking Hours Eimp,a [kWh/m2.a] Eexp,a [kWh/m2.a] CEa [kg CO2,eq/m2.a] OEFe OEMe

(a) (a)
Case 2(c) Original: 8:00–18:00 113.9 117.6 −2.16 0.560 0.568(a)
Case 2(c).s1 1 h longer: 7:30–18:30 113.5 (−0.35%) 117.3 (−0.26%) −2.14 (0.93%) 0.562 (0.36%) 0.570 (0.35%)
Case 2(c).s2 2 h longer: 7:00–19:00 113.2 (−0.61%) 116.9 (−0.60%) −2.12 (1.85%) 0.564 (0.71%) 0.571 (0.53%)
Case 2(c).s3 3 h longer: 6:30–19:30 112.5 (−1.23%) 116.1 (−1.28%) −2.08 (3.70%) 0.568 (1.43%) 0.574 (1.06%)

(a)
The results of the CEa, OEFe, and OEMe of the Case 2(c) are rounded to the values of −2.2 kg CO2,eq/m2.a, 0.56, and 0.57 in the Table 8, respectively.

16
S. Cao Applied Energy 251 (2019) 113347

Table 13
The sensitivity of the office-parking hours on the energy interactions between the office building and the electric vehicles. The “Boundary Expansion Scenario” is not
activated.
Cases Office-parking hours EV , RE EB2V [kWh/m2.a] EV2B [kWh/m2.a]

Case 2(c) Original 8:00–18:00 80.9% 6.57 3.95

Case 2(c).s1 1 h longer: 7:30–18:30 82.1% 6.91 (5.18%) 4.25 (7.59%)
Case 2(c).s2 2 h longer: 7:00–19:00 83.1% 7.25 (10.35%) 4.56 (15.44%)
Case 2(c).s3 3 h longer: 6:30–19:30 86.5% 7.91 (20.40%) 5.15 (30.38%)

20 1.0 6.3. The impact of adjusting the daily cruise range and vehicle energy
consumption
Annual Energy [kWh/m2 .a]

16 0.8
B2V For both the conditions when the “Boundary Expansion Scenario” is
activated and non-activated, the daily cruise range (or the equivalent

Annual Fraction
12 V2B 0.6
(Right axis)
8 0.4
4 0.2
0 0.0
Case 2(c) Case 2(c).s1 Case 2(c).s2 Case 2(c).s3
Fig. 17. The sensitivity of the office-parking hours on the energy interactions
between the office building and the electric vehicles. The “Boundary Expansion
Scenario” is not activated.
mainly resulting from the much shorter prolonged or shortened com-
muting hours compared to the daily overall parking hours when the
building-vehicle interactions are conducted: for example, for the most
extreme two cases (“Case 3(c).s2” and “Case 3(c).s4” with 50% shorter
and longer durations), the change of the commuting hours (2.5 h) is
only 11.6%-15.2% of the daily overall parking hours, while this per-
centage will be even smaller (8–9.6% only) for the whole year when the
parking hours of the weekends are also taken into account.
Tables 16 and 17 further list two additional cases when the com-
muting hours are shifted one hour ahead or later, while keeping the
same duration. The impacts on the annual grid interactions, the
equivalent CO2 emissions, and the matching capabilities are all very
marginal with a change of magnitude less than 1%. The impacts on the
annual building-vehicle interactions are also limited by up to around
2%. This marginal sensitivity is also resulting from the much shorter
adjustment of the commuting hours compared to the overall yearly
parking hours (less than 1.4%), while this one hour shifting very min-
orly affects the building-vehicle interactive patterns.
Based on the above results, it can also be predicted that, when each
vehicle has a different adjustment or shift of the commuting hours ac-
cording to a certain type of pattern introduced in this Section 6.2, the
sensitivity of the impacts on the overall system performance and the
building-vehicle interactions will be limited up to the impact indicated
by the most extreme cases (typically “Case 3(c).s2”, “Case 3(c).s4”,
“Case 3(c).s5” and “Case 3(c).s6”) in this section.
vehicle energy consumption) may become quite essential for the system
performance, as it will affect the dynamic fractional state of charge of
the EV batteries. Therefore, as part of the sensitivity analyses, four more
different daily vehicle energy consumptions are considered in this
Section 6.3: the magnitude is increased by 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%,
respectively, as listed in the Table 18. Both the conditions with and
without the “Boundary Expansion Scenario” are considered in this
section. Since the daily EV energy consumption changes, the following
control parameters are correspondingly adjusted in order to guarantee
the usage of the EV for the transportation purpose: (1) the mandatory
charging power during the mandatory charging mode; (2) the key FSOC
of the EV battery equal or below which the mandatory charging mode is
terminated; and (3) the key FSOC of the EV battery equal or below
which the V2B discharging is terminated. The values of the aforemen-
tioned parameters are listed in the Table 18. Except these parameters,
all the other variables are kept unchanged. The benchmark cases refer
to the “Case 2(c)” without the “Boundary Expansion Scenario” and the
“Case 3(c)” with the “Boundary Expansion Scenario”.
As shown in the Fig. 18, with respect to the increase of the daily EV
energy consumption from 4.15 (increase by 0%) to 8.3 (increase by
100%) kWh/day, the matching capabilities of all the cases are slightly
decreased by up to 1.3%: for example, with the activation of the
“Boundary Expansion Scenario”, the OEFe decreases from 0.623 to
0.615 by 1.3%. Correspondingly, the annual operational equivalent
CO2 emission is increased by the magnitude of 1.3 and 1.2 kg CO2,eq/
m2.a under the conditions without and with the “Boundary Expansion
Scenario”, resulting from the increased vehicle energy demands. Fur-
thermore, regarding the building-vehicle interactions as shown in the
Fig. 19, when the “Boundary Expansion Scenario” is not activated, the
interactions are sensitively affected by the change of the EV energy
consumptions: with respect to the increase of the daily EV energy
consumption from 4.15 to 8.3 kWh/day, the “EB2V” is increased from
6.57 to 8.09 kWh/m2.a by 23.1%, while the “EV2B” is decreased from
3.95 to 3.27 kWh/m2.a by 17.2%. As a result of the higher transpor-
tation demand, the “ EV , RE ” is correspondingly decreased from 80.9% to
67.8%. However, when the “Boundary Expansion Scenario” is acti-
vated, the building-vehicle interactions are less sensitively affected
compared to the cases without the expansion scenario: the “EB2V”, the
“EV2B” and the “ EV , RE ” are affected by 2.7%, −10.5%, and −3.5%,
respectively. The main reason is that in case the “Boundary Expansion

Table 14
The sensitivity of the impact of the commuting hours on the annual overall performances of the hybrid system. The “Boundary Expansion Scenario” is activated.
Cases Commuting hours Eimp,a [kWh/m2.a] Eexp,a [kWh/m2.a] CEa [kg CO2,eq/m2.a] OEFe OEMe

(a) (a)
Case 3(c) Original: 6:00–8:00 & 18:00–21:00 102.2 104.8 −1.46 0.623 0.615(a)
Case 3(c).s1 25% shorter: 6:30–8:00 & 18:00–20:15 102.0 (−0.20%) 104.5 (−0.29%) −1.44 (1.37%) 0.624 (0.16%) 0.616 (0.16%)
Case 3(c).s2 50% shorter: 7:00–8:00 & 18:00–19:30 101.8 (−0.39%) 104.3 (−0.48%) −1.42 (2.74%) 0.625 (0.32%) 0.617 (0.33%)
Case 3(c).s3 25% longer: 5:30–8:00 & 18:00–21:45 102.5 (0.29%) 105.1 (0.29%) −1.47 (−0.68%) 0.621 (−0.32%) 0.614 (−0.16%)
Case 3(c).s4 50% longer: 5:00–8:00 & 18:00–22:30 102.9 (0.68%) 105.5 (0.67%) −1.49 (−2.05%) 0.619 (−0.64%) 0.613 (−0.33%)

(a)
The results of the CEa, OEFe, and OEMe of the Case 3(c) are rounded to the values of −1.5 kg CO2,eq/m2.a, 0.62, and 0.62 in the Table 10, respectively.

17
S. Cao Applied Energy 251 (2019) 113347

Table 15
The sensitivity of the commuting hours on the energy interactions between the office building and the electric vehicles. The “Boundary Expansion Scenario” is
activated.
Cases Commuting Hours EV , RE EB2V [kWh/m2.a] EV2B [kWh/m2.a]

Case 3(c) Original: 6:00–8:00 & 18:00–21:00 96.9% 18.73 14.87

Case 3(c).s1 25% shorter: 6:30–8:00 & 18:00–20:15 96.8% 19.04 (1.66%) 15.16 (1.95%)
Case 3(c).s2 50% shorter: 7:00–8:00 & 18:00–19:30 96.8% 19.30 (3.04%) 15.39 (3.50%)
Case 3(c).s3 25% longer: 5:30–8:00 & 18:00–21:45 96.9% 18.38 (−1.87%) 14.56 (−2.08%)
Case 3(c).s4 50% longer: 5:00–8:00 & 18:00–22:30 96.9% 17.98 (−4.00%) 14.19 (−4.57%)

Scenario” is not activated, the utilization of the EV battery is con-
strained by the office-parking hours when the B2V function dominates
the interaction, and the EV batteries are predominantly used for the
transportation purpose than the building usage: the most extreme case
is the case with a 100% increase of the vehicle demand when the “EB2V”
(8.09 kWh/m2.a) is 2.5 times of the “EV2B” (3.27 kWh/m2.a). This leads
to the fact that the building-vehicle interaction is sensitively affected by
the vehicle demand in case that the “Boundary Expansion Scenario” is
inactive. On the other hand, when the “Boundary Expansion Scenario”
is activated, the EV batteries are fully utilized for both the transporta-
tion and building usage via the V2B and B2V functions: even under the
most extreme case with a 100% increase of the vehicle demand, the
“EB2V” (19.24 kWh/m2.a) is only 1.4 times of the “EV2B” (13.31 kWh/
m2.a), leading to the fact that the building-vehicle interaction is less
sensitively affected by the vehicle demand. This result further empha-
sizes the importance of the “Boundary Expansion Scenario”: compared
to the case without this scenario, the building-vehicle interactions are
more stable with respect to the variation of the vehicle energy con-
sumption, facilitating the design and control of the interactive infra-
structures between the building side and the vehicle side in practice.
Furthermore, it can also be predicted that when the vehicles have di-
versified energy consumptions up to 100% increase ratio, the sensitivity
of the impact will be limited up to the effect indicated by the most
extreme cases in this section.
7. Conclusions
The critical solutions to the realization of the future low-carbon or
carbon neutral society rely on a comprehensive and integrated con-
sideration of both the building and transportation sectors. In this study,
we have investigated a hybrid photovoltaic and wind turbine supported
zero-emission office building which is interacted with a number of
electric vehicles (EVs). A novel scenario (i.e. “Boundary Expansion
Scenario”) has been proposed, where the boundary of the ZEB-EV in-
teractions can be expanded from the conventional local parking to the
remote parking, so that the EV batteries can be fully utilized regardless
of the parking location. The impact of the renewable energy systems,
the Vehicle-to-Building (V2B) interactions, the boundary expansion
scenarios and the integrated vehicle numbers on the zero-emission
performances of the office building and the electric vehicles have been
comprehensively investigated. Based on the simulation results, several
key conclusions can be obtained, as listed below.
Firstly, although the building integrated photovoltaics (BIPVs) can
contribute to more than 20% of the space cooling reduction and
41.3 kWh/m2.a of the renewable generation, the BIPVs (on the four
facades and the roof) can only cover 14–16% of the total electrical
demands of the building and the electric vehicles. In order to realize a
net zero-emission office building, the BIPVs should be equipped to-
gether with a 500-kW wind turbine, while the renewable energy frac-
tion of the EVs can reach 96.9% without the V2B function. However,
the matching of this net zero-emission system is quite poor, with the on-
site electrical energy fraction (OEFe) and on-site electrical energy
matching (OEMe) at 54% and 56%, respectively.
Secondly, by merely activating the V2B function without the
“Boundary Expansion Scenario”, the V2B capability has very minor
enhancement of the matching capabilities less than 5%, failing to fulfill
the original target to effectively enhance the matching performance by
the storage capacities of the EVs. The essential reason is that 93.4% of
the surplus renewable electricity of the hybrid BIPV and wind turbine
occur during the non-parking hours, when the storage capacities of the
EVs cannot be utilized. In order to tackle this problem, the “Boundary
Expansion Scenario” should be activated.
Thirdly, in case the “Boundary Expansion Scenario” is activated, the
EVs can be functioned as local storages when the EVs are parking inside
the office building, and, as remote storages when the EVs are parking at
home. Correspondingly, by activating the “Boundary Expansion
Scenario” together with the V2B function, the OEFe and the OEMe of
the net zero-emission system can be further respectively increased by
15.6% and 11.1%, both reaching the magnitude of 62%, while the B2V
and the V2B interactions can be significantly enhanced with the EB2V
and the EV2B reaching 18.73 and 14.87 kWh/m2.a, respectively.
Meanwhile, the effective utilization of the surplus renewable electricity
during the non-office parking hours can result in an almost full re-
newable energy coverage in the EV storages.
Fourthly, the increase of the numbers of the EVs is equivalent to the
increase of the mobile electric storage capacities together with the in-
creased transportation loads. By increasing the EV numbers from 2 to
20, the overall matching capabilities can be increased by a magnitude
of 4–5% and 14–18% under the conditions without and with the
“Boundary Expansion Scenario”, respectively. It clearly indicates that in
case the “Boundary Expansion Scenario” is not activated, although the
increase of the EV numbers can increase the electric storage capacities,
the storage capacities cannot be effectively utilized with respect to the
available renewable energy capacities, as the usable duration of the EV
batteries is only valid during the office-parking hours when the surplus
renewable electricity is limited. On the other hand, in case the
“Boundary Expansion Scenario” is activated, the EV battery capacities
can be more effectively utilized either locally via the building energy
system or remotely via the electric grid.
The sensitivity analysis further shows that in case the “Boundary

Table 16
The sensitivity of the impact of the commuting hours on the annual overall performances of the hybrid system. The “Boundary Expansion Scenario” is activated.
Cases Commuting hours Eimp,a [kWh/m2.a] Eexp,a [kWh/m2.a] CEa [kg CO2,eq/m2.a] OEFe OEMe

(a) (a)
Case 3(c) Original: 6:00–8:00 & 18:00–21:00 102.2 104.8 −1.46 0.623 0.615(a)
Case 3(c).s5 1 h ahead: 5:00–7:00 & 17:00–20:00 101.9 (−0.29%) 104.5 (−0.29%) −1.45 (0.68%) 0.624 (0.16%) 0.616 (0.16%)
Case 3(c).s6 1 h later: 7:00–9:00 & 19:00–22:00 102.6 (0.39%) 105.2 (0.38%) −1.47 (−0.68%) 0.621 (−0.32%) 0.614 (−0.16%)

(a)
The results of the CEa, OEFe, and OEMe of the Case 3(c) are rounded to the values of −1.5 kg CO2,eq/m2.a, 0.62, and 0.62 in the Table 10, respectively.

18
S. Cao Applied Energy 251 (2019) 113347

Table 17
The sensitivity of the commuting hours on the energy interactions between the office building and the electric vehicles. The “Boundary Expansion Scenario” is
activated.
Cases Commuting hours EV , RE EB2V [kWh/m2.a] EV2B [kWh/m2.a]

Case 3(c) Original: 6:00–8:00 & 18:00–21:00 96.9% 18.73 14.87

Case 3(c).s5 1 h ahead: 5:00–7:00 & 17:00–20:00 97.2% 18.98 (1.33%) 15.13 (1.75%)
Case 3(c).s6 1 h later: 7:00–9:00 & 19:00–22:00 96.5% 18.40 (−1.76%) 14.57 (−2.02%)

Table 18
The adjustment of the key parameters with respect to the change of the daily EV energy consumption.
Increase percentage of the daily EV energy consumption

Variables 0%(a) 25% 50% 75% 100%

Daily EV energy consumption (kWh/day) 4.15(a) 5.1875 6.225 7.2625 8.3

Daily cruise range (km) 32(a) 40 48 56 64
Mandatory charging power during the mandatory charging mode (W) 500(a) 625 750 875 1000
The key FSOC equal or above which the mandatory charging mode is terminated; the key FSOC equal or 0.35(a) 0.3625 0.376 0.3885 0.4
below which the V2B discharging is terminated.
The “Boundary Expansion Scenario” Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N

(a)
The cases of the “0% increase” refer to the benchmark cases: “Case 2(c)” without the “Boundary Expansion Scenario”, and “Case 3(c)” with the “Boundary
Expansion Scenario”.

0.70 4
OEFe_No
Expansion

Annual Emission (kg CO 2,eq/m2 .a)

3

0.65 2 OEFe_Expansion

1
OEMe_No
Index

0.60 0 Expansion

-1 OEMe_Expansion

0.55 -2
CEa_No Expansion
-3 (Right axis)
0.50 -4 CEa_Expansion
0% 25% 50% 75% 100% (Right axis)
Increase percentage of the daily EV energy consumption
Fig. 18. The impact of the daily EV energy consumption on the matching capabilities and the equivalent CO2 emissions of the zero-emission system.

25 1.0
B2V_No
Expansion
20 0.9
Annual Energy (kWh/m2 .a)

B2V_Expansion
Annual Fraction

15 0.8
V2B_No
Expansion
10 0.7
V2B_Expansion

5 0.6 _No Expansion

(Right axis)

0 0.5 _Expansion
0% 25% 50% 75% 100% (Right axis)
Increase percentage of the daily EV energy consumption
Fig. 19. The impact of the daily EV energy consumption on the interactions between the office building and the EVs.

Expansion Scenario” is not activated, the building-vehicle interactions consumptions (up to around 23% change with a 100% increase of ve-
are sensitively affected by the office-parking hours (up to around 30% hicle consumption). However, in case the “Boundary Expansion
change with a 3-hours longer parking) and the vehicle energy Scenario” is activated, the building-vehicle interactions are much less

19
S. Cao Applied Energy 251 (2019) 113347

sensitively affected by the variation of the commuting hours (within 5% design and control of the interactive infrastructures between buildings
change with a 50% longer or shorter duration) and the vehicle energy and vehicles in practice.
consumptions (up to 10.5% change with a 100% increase of con-
sumption), as the interactive duration is significantly expanded to in-
clude the remote home-parking while the EV batteries are fully utilized Acknowledgement
for both the transportation and building usage. This further proves the
importance of the “Boundary Expansion Scenario”, with which the This study is supported by the HK RGC (Research Grants Council)
building-vehicle interactions are much more stable, facilitating the Research Project 25215618.

Appendix A

The design parameters of the building envelopes, insulations and services systems are listed in Table 19.

Table 19
The design parameters of the building envelopes, insulations and services systems.
Parameters Values

Insulation (U-value, External roof 0.345

W/m2.K) External wall 2.308
Adjacent wall 2.299
Window glazing 2.78
Ground floor layer of the 0.718
underground parking floor
Soil layer below the ground 1.493
floor layer
The external walls of the 0.635
underground parking floor

Infiltration (h−1) According to the guideline of the Performance-based Building Energy Code of Hong Kong [26]:
When the ventilation is on, the infiltration is 0.26 h−1;
When the ventilation in off, the infiltration is 0 h−1.

Occupants Number 44 occupants in each office floor above the ground

Activity level MET [43] 1.2

Ventilation, AHU Ventilation Type
cooling and AHU Total supply flow rate (h−1)
heating Fresh air ratio in the total
supply air flow rate
Ventilation schedule
AHU cooling method
AHU heating method
In-blown supply air
temperature Tsup (°C)
Sensible effectiveness of the
rotary heat recovery device
Latent effectiveness of the
rotary heat recovery device
Energy recovery efficiency of
the run-around heat recovery
coils
Specific ventilation fan
power (W/(m3/s))
Mechanical supply and exhaust ventilation with return air mixing and rotary heat recovery.
5.09 (when the fan is on) [44]
0.23
Follow the ventilation schedule listed in [26].
7/12 °C cooling coil, while the run-around heat recovery coils are equipped before and after the cooling coil to
simultaneously reduce the reheating energy and the cooling coil load.
Electric heating
A function with respect to the exhausted indoor air temperature Texh,indoor:
(1)Tsup = 17 °C (Texh,indoor 24 °C)
(2)Tsup = 21 °C (Texh,indoor 21 °C)
(3)Tsuplinearly increases from 17 to 21°C (Texh,indoor drops from 24 to 21 °C)
0.85
0.5
0.7
Supply fan: 800
Exhaust fan: 800

Space cooling Type 15/17 °C hydronic chilled ceiling system

Room air set point (°C) 24 °C for all thermal zones except the ground parking floor which is at 28 °C
Cooling schedule Follow the cooling schedule listed in [26].

Space heating Type Electric heating

Room air set point (°C) 21 °C for all thermal zones except the ground parking floor which is at 18 °C
Heating schedule Follow the heating schedule listed in [26].

DHW heating Set point (°C) 55

Daily consumption volume 1.9
(m3)
DHW Schedule Follow the DHW schedule listed in the [26].

20
S. Cao
References
[1] EIA, U.S. Energy Information Administration. Appendix F of the International
Energy Outlook 2017. DOE/EIA-0484(2017), September; 2017. [Online] Available:
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/ieo_tables.php.
[2] Electrical & Mechanical Services Department (EMSD), The Government of the Hong
Kong Special Administrative Region. Hong Kong Energy End-use Data 2018. Issue in
September; 2018. [Online] Available: https://www.emsd.gov.hk/filemanager/en/
content_762/HKEEUD2018.pdf.
[3] Environment Bureau, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region. Hong Kong’s Climate Action Plan 2030+. January 2017. [Online]
Available: https://www.enb.gov.hk/sites/default/files/pdf/ClimateActionPlanEng.
pdf.
[4] Munkhammar J, Grahn P, Widén J. Quantifying self-consumption of on-site pho-
tovoltaic power generation in households with electric vehicle home charging. Sol
Energy 2013;97:208–16.
[5] Munkhammar J, Bishop JDK, Sarralde JJ, Tian W, Choudhary R. Household elec-
tricity use, electric vehicle home-charging and distributed photovoltaic power
production in the city of Westminster. Energy Build 2015;86:439–48.
[6] Munkhammar J, Widén J, Rydén J. On a probability distribution model combining
household power consumption, electric vehicle home-charging and photovoltaic
power production. Appl Energy 2015;142:135–43.
[7] Sehar F, Pipattanasomporn M, Rahman S. Demand management to mitigate impacts
of plug-in electric vehicle fast charge in buildings with renewables. Energy
2017;120:642–51.
[8] Flores RJ, Shaffer BP, Brouwer J. Electricity costs for a Level 3 electric vehicle
fueling station integrated with a building. Appl Energy 2017;191:367–84.
[9] Zhao J, Kucuksari S, Mazhari E, Son YJ. Integrated analysis of high-penetration PV
and PHEV with energy storage and demand response. Appl Energy 2013;112:35–51.
[10] Andersen FM, Baldini M, Hansen LG, Jensen CL. Households’ hourly electricity
consumption and peak demand in Denmark. Appl Energy 2017;208:607–19.
[11] Buonomano A, Calise F, Cappiello FL, Palombo A, Vicidomini M. Dynamic analysis
of the integration of electric vehicles in efficient buildings fed by renewables. Appl
Energy 2019;245:31–50.
[12] Ioakimidis CS, Thomas D, Rycerski P, Genikomsakis KN. Peak shaving and valley
filling of power consumption profile in non-residential buildings using an electric
vehicle parking lot. Energy 2018;148:148–58.
[13] Alirezaei M, Noori M, Tatari O. Getting to net zero energy building: Investigating
the role of vehicle to home technology. Energy Build 2016;130:465–76.
[14] Zhang L, Li Y. Regime-switching based vehicle-to-building operation against elec-
tricity price spikes. Energy Econ 2017;66:1–8.
[15] Tanguy K, Dubois MR, Lopez KL, Gagné C. Optimization model and economic as-
sessment of collaborative charging using vehicle-to-Building. Sust Cities Soc
2016;26:496–506.
[16] Kuang Y, Hu M, Dai R, Yang D. A collaborative decision model for electric vehicle to
building integration. Energy Proc 2017;105:2077–82.
[17] Thomas D, Deblecker O, Ioakimidis CS. Optimal operation of an energy manage-
ment system for a grid-connected smart building considering photovoltaics’ un-
certainty and stochastic electric vehicles’ driving schedule. Appl Energy
2018;210:1188–206.
[18] Fathabadi H. Utilizing solar and wind energy in plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
Energy Convers Manage 2018;156:317–28.
[19] Jin X, Wu J, Mu Y, Wang M, Xu X, Jia H. Hierarchical microgrid energy manage-
ment in an office building. Appl Energy 2017;208:480–94.
[20] Panwar LK, Reddy KS, Kumar R, Panigrahi BK, Vyas S. Strategic Energy manage-
ment (SEM) in a micro grid with modern grid interactive electric vehicle. Energy
Convers Manage 2015;106:41–52.
[21] Cao S, Alanne K. Technical feasibility of a hybrid on-site H2 and renewable energy
system for a zero-energy building with a H2 vehicle. Appl Energy 2015;158:568–83.
[22] Cao S, Alanne K. The techno-economic analysis of a hybrid zero-emission building
system integrated with a commercial-scale zero-emission hydrogen vehicle. Appl
Energy 2018;211:639–61.
21
Applied Energy 251 (2019) 113347
[23] Robledo CB, Oldenbroek V, Abbruzzese F, Wijk AJM. Integrating a hydrogen fuel
cell electric vehicle with vehicle-to-grid technology, photovoltaic power and a re-
sidential building. Appl Energy 2018;215:615–29.
[24] Solar Energy Laboratory of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, TRANSSOLAR
Energietechnik GmbH, CSTB – Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment, TESS
– Thermal Energy Systems Specialists. Section 8.7 Meteonorm data. Volume 8
Weather Data. TRNSYS 18 document package, 2017.
[25] Meteotest AG. Meteonorm. [Online] Available: https://meteonorm.com/en/.
[26] Electrical & Mechanical Services Department (EMSD), The Government of the Hong
Kong Special Administrative Region. Performance-based Building Energy Code.
2007. [Online] Available: https://www.emsd.gov.hk/filemanager/en/content_724/
pb-bec_2007.pdf.
[27] Hong Kong Green Building Council (HKGBC). Hong Kong Green Office Guide, 2016.
[Online] Available: https://www.hkgbc.org.hk/eng/gog.aspx.
[28] Tesla Motors. Model S. 2015. [Online]. Available: http://www.teslamotors.com/
models.
[29] Cao S. Comparison of the energy and environmental impact by integrating a H2
vehicle and an electric vehicle into a zero-energy building. Energy Convers Manage
2016;123:153–73.
[30] The University of Wisconsin Madison, US. TRNSYS – Official Website. [Online]
Available: http://sel.me.wisc.edu/trnsys/features/features.html.
[31] Solar Energy Laboratory of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, TRANSSOLAR
Energietechnik GmbH, CSTB – Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment, TESS
– Thermal Energy Systems Specialists. TRNSYS 18 Documentation. TRNSYS 18
document package, 2018.
[32] TESS – Thermal Energy Systems Specialists, LLC of Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Section 6.17 Type 666: Water Cooled Chiller. Volume 06 HVAC Library
Mathematical Reference of the TESSLibs Document Package, 2014: 57-60.
[33] Carrier. Water-Cooled Liquid Chillers 30XW-30XWH. Order No. 13457-20, 10.
2009. Supersedes order No. 13457-20, 01.2009.
[34] Daikin. Water-Cooled Scroll-Compressor Chillers, Catalog 613. Model WGZ-D • 30
to 200 Tons • R-410A • 60Hz/50Hz. CAT 613 (4/13); 2013.
[35] TESS – Thermal Energy Systems Specialists, LLC of Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Section 11.4 Type 534: Vertical Cylindrical Storage Tank With Immersed Heat
Exchanger. Volume 11 Storage Tank Library Mathematical Reference of the
TESSLibs Document Package; 2014: 46-58.
[36] Solar Energy Laboratory of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, TRANSSOLAR
Energietechnik GmbH, CSTB – Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment, TESS
– Thermal Energy Systems Specialists. Volume 4 Mathematical Reference of the
standard types of the TRNSYS document package; 2018.
[37] TESS – Thermal Energy Systems Specialists, LLC of Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Section 3.6 Type 567: Glazed Building-Integrated PV System (Interacts w/ Type 56).
Volume 03 Electrical Library Mathematical Reference of the TESSLibs Document
Package; 2013: 71-88.
[38] Solar Energy Laboratory of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, TRANSSOLAR
Energietechnik GmbH, CSTB – Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment, TESS
– Thermal Energy Systems Specialists. Volume 5 Multizone Building modeling with
Type56 and TRNBuild of the TRNSYS document package; 2017.
[39] Vestas. Vestas V39. wind-turbine-models.com [Online] Available: https://en.wind-
turbine-models.com/turbines/383-vestas-v39.
[40] CLP Holdings Limited. CO2e emissions intensity of electricity sold by CLP Power
Hong Kong (kg CO2e/kWh), 2013-2017. [Online] Available: https://sustainability.
clpgroup.com/en/Data-and-Downloads.
[41] Cao S, Hasan A, Sirén K. On-site energy matching indices for buildings with energy
conversion, storage and hybrid grid connections. Energy Build 2013;64:423–38.
[42] Cao S, Hasan A, Sirén K. Matching analysis for on-site hybrid renewable energy
systems of office buildings with extended indices. Appl Energy 2014;113:230–47.
[43] Fanger PO. Thermal Comfort. US: McGraw-Hill Inc.; 1973.
[44] Buildings Department, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region. Practice Note for Authorized Persons, Registered Structural Engineers and
Registered Geotechnical Engineers. ADM-2. May 2011.