Energy 138 (2017) 954e966

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

A general model for the optimization of energy supply systems of

buildings
E. Iturriaga a, U. Aldasoro b, A. Campos-Celador c, *, J.M. Sala d
a
LKS Ingeniería, Departamento de industria y energía, C/ Laida Bidea 207 C, 48160, Derio, Spain
b
BCAM e Basque Center for Applied Mathematics, Data Science Department, C/ Mazarredo 14, 48009, Bilbao, Spain
c
Grupo de Investigacio
n ENEDI, Departamento de Ma
quinas y Motores T
ermicos, Universidad del País Vasco, Escuela de Ingeniería de Gipuzkoa, Alda,
Otaola 29, 20600, Eibar, Spain
d
Grupo de Investigacio
n ENEDI, Departamento de Ma
quinas y Motores T
ermicos, Universidad del País Vasco, Escuela T

ecnica Superior de Ingeniería de
Bilbao, Alda, Urquijo s/n, 48013, Bilbao, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper, a general model for the optimization of the energy supply systems of buildings is proposed.
Received 6 March 2017 The model is based on a general superstructure that allows to include all the existing and future tech-
Received in revised form nologies, covering heating, domestic hot water, cooling and electricity. The model is linked to a Mixed
23 June 2017
Integer Linear Programming (MILP) problem that allows the selection of equipment and its operation,
Accepted 13 July 2017
Available online 18 July 2017
enabling the minimization of the annual cost for a set of constraints imposed by the designer, such as a
Non-Renewable Primary Energy (NRPE) consumption limit.
The model has been applied to a case study consisting of a domestic building located in Bilbao
Keywords:
Optimization
(Northern Spain). 13 different technologies were taken under consideration together with the specific
MILP conditions of the Spanish context. Three different objectives were determined: (i) the optimal cost; (ii)
nZEB the Zero Energy Building (ZEB); and (iii) the ZEB0 , an alternative ZEB where the whole electricity con-
ZEB sumption is considered for the calculation of the NRPE. The 3 cases were compared and analyzed and,
finally, a parametric evaluation was carried out, setting the aspects that limit the feasibility of low energy
buildings: economic feasibility and physical constraints such as roof availability for renewables.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction net non-renewable primary energy consumption. The specific

Climate change and resource scarcity drive the need for an en-
ergy transition based on lowering primary energy consumption,
increasing energy efficiency and promoting the production by
renewable energy sources. This energy transition strongly affects
buildings, which are responsible for 40% of the overall primary
energy consumption of the European Union [1]. Along these lines,
the Directive 2010/31/EU on the energy performance of buildings
[2] aims to cut this consumption enforcing that, in the next decade,
all new buildings, and gradually the existing stock, should be nearly
Zero Energy Buildings (nZEB).
nZEB is defined as a building of very high energy performance
and the nearly zero amount of energy required should be covered
to a very significant extent by energy from renewable sources. In
this context, a Zero Energy Building (ZEB) would be a nZEB with no
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: alvaro.campos@ehu.eus (A. Campos-Celador).
definition of nZEB is intended for independent implementation by
Member States according to a maximum Non-Renewable Primary
Energy (NRPE) consumption value and the analysis of the cost
optimality concept.
Thus, to reach optimal designs that fulfill the nZEB re-
quirements, it is necessary to identify the best designs which
comply with different legal or technical constraints that ensure a
reduction of the NRPE consumption below certain limits, at a
minimum cost. The best designs appear from the evaluation of all
possible technology combinations together with their operation,
which can be in the order of millions. Specifically, building design
optimization covers two different levels: (i) load level, acting over
the envelope and ventilation by energy saving methods [3]; or (ii)
consumption level, acting over the energy supply systems [4].
To date, several authors have studied this problem for nZEB
definition by means of parametric simulations, which allow us to
use standard building energy simulation tools. Noris et al. carried
out a parametric optimization of energy supply systems for different
net ZEB under different climatic conditions, including 6 different

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.07.094
0360-5442/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 E. Iturriaga et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 954e966
alternative energy supply systems [5]. Hamdy et al. presented a joint
optimization of energy saving methods and energy supply systems
by parametric analysis, finding the cost optimality for a single-
family house in Finland [6]. For this analysis, 8 different alterna-
tive systems where considered in total, covering heating, cooling
and electricity production. Analogously, Becchio et al. evaluate the
cost-optimality of the renovation of an ex-industrial building,
considering 4 different energy production and renewable energy
systems [7]. Owing to the computational expense of each evalua-
tion, parametric optimizations only consider a limited number of
alternatives that should be previously defined in detail by the user.
This limitation can be overcome by more sophisticated optimi-
zation routines, for instance, genetic algorithms. More specifically,
simple genetic algorithms have been extensively used to solve
many design and control problems in buildings with relative ease
[8]. In the literature, several works coupling genetic algorithms
with state-of-the-art building energy simulation programs can be
found, which minimize the number of evaluations. Ferrara et al. use
a computing environment that combines TRNSYS, a building
simulation environment, with GenOpt®, a generic optimization
program, to get cost-optimal designs for a case study situated in
France. Four different energy supply systems were used for that aim
and combined with other decision variables; more than ten thou-
sand building configurations were evaluated [9]. Analogously,
Ascione et al. analyzed the optimal energy retrofit of a hospital,
situated in southern Italy, using genetic algorithms through the
combination of EnergyPlus and MATLAB [10]. However, although
this approach reduces the number of required energy simulations,
these simulations are still costly, and require a detailed definition of
the building and the solutions to be previously defined ad-hoc by
the user, i.e. system configuration and operation strategy.
A different approach to these limitations is mathematical pro-
gramming, such as Mixed-Integer Linear Programming (MILP).
MILP-based optimization problems have largely been applied to
building design and operation. There is a substantial literature
regarding algorithms for solving MILP models that are used by the
state-of-the-art optimization engines, see the seminal work [11], a
review of the last fifty years in Ref. [12] and algorithmic and
computational examples in Ref. [13]. In general, the decision vari-
ables are, schematically, the number of units of each technology to
be integrated in the system (integer variables), and their load
condition for each time period (continuous variables).
Focusing on energy supply systems, MILP-based optimization
comprises two different aspects: the design or selection of the
technology and the operation of the selected technologies.
Regarding design optimization, Mehleri et al. presented a MILP
model for the optimal selection of technologies and pipeline
network design at neighborhood level [14]. Similarly, Omu et al.
used a MILP model for the optimization of the location and char-
acteristics of the generation nodes for a cluster of commercial and
residential buildings [15]. More recently, Di Somma et al. focused on
a Pareto optimal trade-off between total annual cost and exergy
efficiency for distributed energy systems design optimization [16].
On the other hand, there are in the literature several works con-
cerning operation optimization. Amongst them, Milan et al. pre-
sented an approach for determining, by linear programming, an
optimal energy supply system consisting of solar systems, energy
storage and heat pumps with the objective of getting a net ZEB for a
case study in Denmark [17], whereas Bischi et al. developed a
detailed MILP model for the optimal short-term operation schedule
of a cogeneration system [18]. Furthermore, some papers focus on
both design and operation optimization. Wang et al. optimized the
energy supply of a hotel in Beijing using the energy consumption
and the CO2 emissions by two different objective functions [19]. In a
bi-level perspective, Ruan et al. used HEATMAP, an energy system
955
simulation software, to perform a two-step design and operational
optimization applied to four commercial buildings in Japan [20],
whilst Ren and Gao developed a hierarchical process for the opti-
mization of unit selection and operating scheduling described on a
MILP model [21]. On the other hand, Rezvan et al. calculated the
optimal installation that minimizes the operation costs of the
distributed generation system for a hospital in Teheran [22]. Addi-
tionally, Lindberg et al. presented a MILP based optimization model
for the design and operation of energy supply systems considering a
broader set of technologies [23]. However, the set of technologies
and the connections between them were defined a priori, and only
continuous load regulation of the technologies was considered.
The aim of this paper is to present a general model based on
MILP for the optimization of energy supply systems of buildings
under the framework of the nZEB standard. The main contribution
of this paper is the development of a flexible and simple mathe-
matical optimization model that allows the selection of best energy
supply system designs, as well as their hourly operation from a
quasi-infinite set of solutions. It includes binary variables to cover
the operation of the technologies with restricted load regulation by
using a unit commitment approach. To the best knowledge of the
authors, this is an innovative approach not found in any related
research up to date, and presents a true potential for facing the
implementation of the nZEB standard.
The model is based on the definition of a general superstructure
that represents all possible technologies, integration patterns and
operation strategies for energy supply systems in buildings. The
mathematical model divides the whole energy supply systems into
different modules that make up the general superstructure. It aims
to include all the technologies available in the market, allowing the
energy flow interaction between these modules and the integration
within the building environment, such as electrical or district
heating and cooling networks. The time horizon has been dis-
cretized in a set of independent reference days, allowing the model
to be optimized by state-of-the-art solvers within acceptable
calculation times.
The model allows the partial load operation of the different
technologies within a certain range that depends on the technology
itself, as well as the unit commitment of the technologies. Even
though this leads to significantly higher computational expenses, it
represents the actual operation of some technologies, such as
cogeneration devices. The unit commitment problem has been
broadly studied in the past decades (see Ref. [24] for a generalized
formulation) and a series of works have presented specific models
for a vast variety of working conditions; see the literature surveys in
Refs. [25] and [26].
The method is applied to the energy supply system design and
operation of a residential building located in Bilbao (Northern
Spain) covering heating, Domestic Hot Water (DHW) and electricity
loads, defined by representative monthly reference days. Main
technologies available in the market have been included in the
model by self-tailored cost estimation models. Then, the optimal
energy supply systems configurations, which minimize the annual
cost, have been obtained for several NRPE consumption limits. The
case study has the objective of assessing the potential of the
method rather than showing its full potential; therefore, some
simplifications were taken for its adaptation to the legal and
technical constraints in northern Spain.
The rest of the paper is organized in 5 sections, as follows:
Section 2 presents the optimization methodology consisting of the
superstructure definition, the economic model and the optimiza-
tion itself. The methodology is applied to a case study in Section 3,
and the results are covered by Section 4. Section 5 discusses the
main implications of the model and, finally, the main contributions
of the paper and future research are summarized in Section 6.
956 E. Iturriaga et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 954e966
2. Methodology
2.1. Energy model
This section presents a general model for building energy supply
systems. In order to develop a systematic approach, a single su-
perstructure is proposed, comprising all the feasible cases that
could be found in a building energy supply system. Thus, any
building energy supply system could be considered a particular
case of this superstructure.
Any building energy supply system can be understood as
different energy modules integrated with the aim of meeting the
building energy loads, i.e., heating, DHW, cooling and electricity.
Thus, the following modules are identified: high temperature (HT)
heating module working at a temperature range of 110e130  C,
medium temperature (MT) heating module operating at 60e80  C,
low temperature (LT) heating module in the range of 40e55  C,
cooling module and electricity module. These modules can be in-
tegrated in different ways based on the different technologies un-
der consideration. The interaction between modules can be seen in
Fig. 1, where the general superstructure for building energy supply
systems that considers the current state-of-the-art technologies
and the interactions between them is presented.
The different building loads are outputs from different modules.
Thus, the cooling and electricity are outputs, respectively, from the
cooling and electricity modules. Analogously, the DHW is an output
from the MT heat module and the heating from the LT heat module,
which is a common trend nowadays considering the promotion of
low temperature heating systems. Nevertheless, this superstruc-
ture could be adjusted to old existing buildings by placing the
heating demand in the MT module. Fuels are divided into two
Fig. 1. Building energy supply system superstructure.
groups: manageable and non-manageable. Renewable sources,
such as solar and wind, belong to the second group, since their
operation cannot be optimized.
The modules are interrelated, enabling the outputs of some
modules to be the inputs of other modules. The temperature level
between the heat modules is reduced by means of heat exchangers
(HX). The heat flow between the medium temperature module and
the cooling module is represented as bidirectional, since the heat
can be sent from the cooling module as refrigeration heat, or from
the MT heat module as, for instance, the input for a single-effect
absorption chiller.
All the modules present a bidirectional connection with the
environment, allowing the energy to be bought from a source (i.e.,
electricity network) or sold to a sink (i.e., district heating or cooling
network). Additionally, HT and MT modules also present a bidi-
rectional connection with the electricity module, that accounts for
the electricity production or consumption of the technologies
included in these modules. However, LT and Cooling modules only
have unidirectional connection with the electricity module, since
these technologies do not produce electricity.
The proposed superstructure representation aims to capture any
possible energy supply system configuration from the existing and
future technologies for any of the defined modules. A compact
mathematical model, allowing all these possible configurations to
be modeled is illustrated next for the different levels: technology,
module and building.
2.1.1. Technology modeling
The different technologies are integrated within the different
modules presented before, according to their product. Thus, each
technology k relates its outputs to its inputs as depicted in Fig. 2.
 E. Iturriaga et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 954e966 957

In order to model the technology operation, a main product ( pk )

is defined by the user for each technology, so the rest of the inputs
and outputs can be defined in relation to it by specific ratios.

pk ;k;d;h ¼ hs;k $es;k;d;h

eOUT OUT OUT
cs2S ; k2K; d2D; h2Hd (1)

pk ;k;d;h ¼ hs;k $es;k;d;h

eOUT IN IN
cs2S; k2K; d2D; h2Hd (2)

pk ;k;d;h ¼ hf ;k $ef ;k;d;h

eOUT MAN MAN
cf 2FMAN ; k2K; d2D; h2Hd (3)
Fig. 3. Technology level energy balance examples.

eOUT
pk ;k;d;h ¼ hNMAN
f ;k $EfNMAN
;k;d;h cf 2FNMAN ; k2K; d2D; h2Hd (4)
2.1.2. Module modeling
Thus, constraint (1) defines the production ratio between the
The different modules include all the technologies with the
main product and the rest of the products. Similarly, equation (2)
same main product. Additionally, they may include any storage
calculates the need for energy consumption from other modules,
device that allows production and load decoupling. The integration
equation (3) defines the need for manageable fuel consumption
of the products of the technologies with the storage and outputs
and, finally, equation (4) defines the need for non-manageable fuel
from the module is schematically depicted by Fig. 4.
consumption; all of them to produce the main product ð pk Þ.
Additionally, equation (5) bounds the maximum production for Every module needs to satisfy the load (Ld;h
s ) at every interval h

the technology, considering all the installed units. Notice that only of every reference day d (for the high temperature heating module,
the production of technologies with full load regulation, set KFR , can this would be equal to zero for new or recently constructed
be aggregated in this way: buildings). Equation (8) defines a module energy balance where the
load should equal the sum of the produced energy ( eOUT s;k;d;h
), the
eOUT MAX
s;k;d;h  Es;k $nk cs2S; k2KFR ; d2D; h2Hd (5) resultant of the energy exchanged with the external environment
(the purchased energy, eBUY
s;d;h
, minus the sold energy, eSELL
s;d;h
), minus
The production of technologies with restricted load regulation,
the energy consumption within the system itself ( eIN ) and the
set KRR , is constrained by unit commitment binary variables (ud;h k
), s;k;d;h

see equation (6). As shown in equation (7), such technologies are energy transferred to the storage units, eSTOd;h
s;d;h
.
modeled disaggregated in a unit perspective. Therefore, replicas of
units must be provided to the model in order to allow solutions X X
eOUT BUY
s;k;d;h þ es;d;h  eIN SELL STO
s;k;d;h  es;d;h  es;d;h
with multiple units of these technologies. To ensure consistency, k2K k2K
the lower bound of the number of installed units ( nk ) is set to 1 if a
unit is active in at least one-time interval, or to 0 otherwise. ¼ Ld;h
s cs2S; d2D; h2Hd (8)

Energy evacuation is modeled as energy sold at price zero. This

MIN
Es;k $ud;h
k
 eOUT MAX d;h
s;k;d;h  Es;k $uk cs2S; k2KRR ; d2D; h2Hd (6) happens at time intervals when the production exceeds the load
and the surplus cannot be stored (due to a lack of storage avail-
ability), nor exported to the network (due to lack of electricity or
ud;h
k
 nk  1 ck2KRR ; d2D; h2Hd (7)
district heating network).
With this approach, any kind of system could be modeled. For Additionally, from the point of view of design, the installed peak
instance, as shown in Fig. 3, a natural gas boiler converts power of the manageable technologies, set KMAN , may need to be
manageable fuel (eMAN ) into medium or low temperature heat higher than a maximum thermal load (LPEAK s ) that should be an
(eOUT ) as a function of its thermal efficiency (hMAN ); hOUT , hIN and input by the user, see equation (9). This is usually the case when
hNMAN being null in that case. Analogously, a compressor chiller unit designing heating and cooling installations, where the installed
power should be high enough to face any eventual load condition.
converts electricity from the electricity module (eIN ) into two
outputs: cooling and low temperature heat (eOUT ) by its EER (hIN ) X
MAX
and the cooling to heat release ratio (hOUT ); resulting in hMAN and Es;k $nk  LPEAK
s cs2S (9)
k2KMAN
hNMAN being null values in this case. Thus, hOUT , hIN , hMAN and hNMAN
are generic ratios that can represent the performance of different Any module (s) can include a storage system whose energy
technologies to be included within the model. balance is described by equation (11). The energy stored at the

Fig. 2. Technology level energy balance at any time interval.

958 E. Iturriaga et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 954e966

Fig. 4. View of the energy balance at module level.

beginning of the time interval (qd;h s ) and the energy transferred " #
X X X   X
during the interval (eSTO
s;d;h
) are equal to the available storage energy BUY SELL
es;d;h  es;d;h $Ws þ OUT
es;k;d;h $Ws;k
for the next interval (qd;hþ1
s ) multiplied by the corresponding effi- s2S d2D h2Hd k2K
0
ciency that accounts for the storage losses ðhQ s Þ: It is important to  NRPE LIM (14b)
note that, in order to get a continuous series of daily cycles, the
Secondly, the surface used by the technologies is bounded by
storage units need to be discharged at the first and last interval,
jHd j, of every reference day, see equations (10) and (12). Finally, the the facility area availability, AMAX
j , in the building, see equation (15).
stored energy of each module is upper bounded by the sum of the X
maximum storage capacity, see equation (13), where nTESs is the Aj;k $nk  AMAX
j cj2J (15)
number of storage units installed. k2K

Additionally, other constraints could be defined in order to

qd;0
s ¼0 cs2S; d2D (10) include specific input requirements by the designer.


s þ es;d;h ¼ hs qs
qd;h STO Q d;hþ1
cs2S; d2D; h2Hd 0 < h < jHd j (11)
2.2. Economic model

d;jHd j
qs þ eSTO
s;d;jHd j ¼ 0 cs2S; d2D (12) Energy supply systems imply an economic impact consisting of
fixed and variable costs. In this paper, the methodology proposed
by the Buildings Performance Institute Europe (BPIE) is considered
qd;h MAX
s  Qs $nTESs cs2S; d2D; h2Hd (13) as a reference [28]. This methodology is based on the net present
value method defined by the standard En 15459 [29]. Thus, the
annual cost (Cannual ), considering a lifespan (LS), is defined as
2.1.3. Building constraints follows:
Some complementary constraints could be applied to the " #
XLS  
building level. Specifically, a non-renewable primary energy con- annual 1 INI OP
C ¼ C þ Ci $Ri  V (16)
sumption goal and facility area availability, such as space on the LS i¼0
roof for renewable or other technologies and space in the boiler
room for the location of the equipment, are here defined. where:
The annual non-renewable primary energy consumption limit is
specified as a new constraint expressed, alternatively, by equations X  
CINI ¼ CkINV $nk $ 1 þ fkO&M (17)
(14a) or (14b), where the final energy values were translated into
k2K
primary energy according to [27], using the module and technology
based weighting factors Ws;k and Ws . Constraint (14a) excludes the 2
electricity module from the balance (uses set SNE ), whereas X X X  X
CiOP ¼ 4 CsBUY $eBUY SELL SELL
constraint (14b) includes it.
Nd s;d;h  Cs $es;d;h þ
d2D h2Hd s2S f 2FMAN
" # 3
X X X   X X
eBUY SELL
s;d;h  es;d;h $Ws þ eOUT
s;k;d;h $Ws;k  CfMAN $eMAN 5
f ;k;d;h
s2SNE d2D h2Hd k2K k2K
 NRPELIM (14a) (18)
 E. Iturriaga et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 954e966 959

Ri ¼ ð1 þ rÞi (19) eSTO

s;d;h 2ℝ cs2S; d2D; h2Hd (24)

X  
LSk 1 eOUT IN
V¼ CkINV $nk $ 1 $ (20) s;k;d;h ; es;k;d;h  0 cs2S; k2K; d2D; h2Hd (25)
k2K
LS ð1 þ rÞLS
d;h
C INI is the initial investment, which is the sum of the annual eBUY SELL
s;d;h ; es;d;h ; qs  0 cs2S; d2D; h2Hd (26)
amortization of the technologies CkINV , multiplied by the number of
installed units, nk , of the corresponding technology. The operation eMAN
f ;k;d;h  0 cf 2FMAN ; k2K; d2D; h2Hd (27)
and maintenance cost is added as a percentage of the investment of
each technology (fkO&M Þ.
CiOP are the yearly variable costs of each technology and consider 3. Case study
the costs and incomes of the system operations throughout the time
In this Section, the optimization method is applied to a case
horizon, in this case discretized in reference days d and intervals h.
study. A recently constructed residential building located in Bilbao
It is calculated by adding the energy bought in each module, eBUY s;d;h
,
(Spain) is considered for this purpose. The scope of the analysis is to
multiplied by the corresponding price, CsBUY , subtracting the income evaluate the optimal installation design for different NRPE con-
obtained from energy sold, eSELL
s;d;h
, multiplied by its price, CsSELL , and sumption limits. For the sake of clarity, only heating, DHW and
finally, by adding the consumed manageable fuel, eMAN , multiplied electric loads are considered in the case study, which is usual in
f ;k;d;h
residential buildings Bilbao owing to the temperate climate in
by the corresponding price of each fuel, CfMAN . northern Spain. The building is grid-connected, but there is no
Finally, Ri is the discount rate for year i and V, the final value of connection for the sale or purchase of thermal energy (i.e. district
technology j at the end of the lifespan of the project, which assigns heating), only heat release is eventually considered as energy sold
an extra cost or benefit when the lifespan of the technology, LSk , is at 0 V/kWh.
lower or higher than the lifespan of the project. The building consists of a new construction building of 9 levels
and 72 dwellings (8 per level) with an average useful area per
2.3. Optimization problem dwelling of 80.6 m2, giving rise to an overall area of 5805 m2. The
building has a total roof area of 687.5 m2, but only 25% is considered
Next, the optimization problem is presented by the objective as net available area for facilities, which means 175 m2. This limi-
function and the bounds for the variables used in the model. The tation to the maximum amount of solar thermal collectors and PV
optimization problem is subjected to the constraints defined by panels to be installed is due to the distance to be kept between
equations (1)e(15), where the energy balance of the different ele- them in order to avoid shading effects. The maximum thermal load
ments of the superstructure is covered. calculation (LPEAK ) of 286 kW was set up for the manageable
S
technologies (150 kW for DHW at MT and 136 for heating at LT).
2.3.1. Objective function Heating, DHW and electricity loads are respectively 20.20 kWh/
The objective function (21) minimizes the annual cost of satis-
m2y (Ld;h 2 d;h 2 d;h
LT ), 19.56 kWh/m y (LMT ) and 35 kWh/m y (LE ) which were
fying the load of each system module. Therefore, the optimization
get from the energy label of the building. These loads are consid-
problem integrates the energy model and the economic models
ered in an aggregated way since the European directive establishes
holistically.
a building-wise balance. These loads are hourly distributed into 12
reference days corresponding to each month. The distribution of
minCannual (21)
the DHW load was made following the guidelines of the Spanish
subject to: Institute for Diversification and Energy Saving (IDAE) [30]. Heating
load distribution was derived from the use of degree-days [31],
Technology energy balance constraints (1) to (7) considering occupation periods and standard daily outdoor tem-
Energy supply systems constraints (8) to (13) perature profiles. The European Electrical Standard profiles, by
Building constraints (14) to (15) Annex 42 of the IEA's ECBCS [32,33], were used for the electricity
Variable bounds (22) to (27) load distribution, where three different periods are defined. Addi-
tionally, global irradiance profiles were obtained for a 45 tilted
surface applying the method proposed by Gudalfajara [34]. These
profiles are presented in detail in Appendix A.
2.3.2. Variable bounds
The technologies considered in the case study are listed in
Variable nk counts the number of installed units of each tech-
Table 1, grouped in different modules, as formerly defined. Addi-
nology; therefore, it is integer and non-negative, see (22). The bi-
tionally, cost and efficiency values for each technology are included
nary variable ud;h
k
defines the commitment status of a unit, see (23). using cost and efficiency estimation models obtained from a self-
Variable eSTO
s;d;h
keeps track of the energy transferred towards the tailored top-down analysis of the Spanish market. In order to deal
storage unit and can be positive (charge) or negative (discharge), with the nonlinearities of these expressions for the integration into
see (24). The rest of the variables are continuous and non-negative, MILP programming, the cost and efficiency correlations for each
see constraints (25) to (27). technology were discretized into a finite set of equipment sizes. The
discretization was made by setting a lower power bound of 0 kW
nk 2Z; nk  0 ck2K (22) and an upper bound equal to the already defined peak power. Thus,
6 equally distributed sizes were taken for each technology. In the
ud;h 2f0; 1g ck2K; d2D; h2Hd (23) case of the solar technologies, the discretization base was the
k
number of panels.
The variable costs associated to the purchase and sale of energy
960 E. Iturriaga et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 954e966

Table 1
Technologies under consideration.

Technology Efficiency Specific cost Module

Compound parabolic collectora h0 ¼ 64:5 %; c ¼ 2; 900:8 n0:211 (V/u) HT

k1 ¼ 0:858; k2 0:005
Organic Rankine CHP 0:8517 Pe0:0112 (thermal) c ¼ 32; 617 Pe0:503 (V/kWe) HT
0:0675 Pe0:0177 (electricity)
Thermal Energy Storage e c ¼ 63:353 V 0;646 (V/l) HT, MT, LT
Evacuated tube collectora h0 ¼ 79:6 %; c ¼ 3; 169:4 n0:176 (V/u) MT
k1 ¼ 1:282; k2 ¼ 0:008
Internal Combustion Engine CHP 0:7805 Pe0:039 (thermal) c ¼ 12; 480 Pe0:548 (V/kWe) MT
0:2042 Pe0:1367 (electricity)
Gas Turbine CHP 0:7754 Pe0:131 (thermal) c ¼ 7; 900:2 Pe0:397 (V/kWe) MT
0:1551 Pe0;129 (electricity)
Biomass boiler 0:9391 Pt0:006 c ¼ 1; 584:4 Pt0:305 (V/kWth) MT
Conventional natural gas boiler 0:9833 Pt0:002 c ¼ 1; 243:2 Pt0:415 (V/kWth) MT
Flat plate collectorsa h0 ¼ 79:2 %; c ¼ 2; 574:7 n0:302 (V/u) LT
k1 ¼ 3:666; k2 ¼ 0:013
Condensing natural gas boiler 1:0492 Pt0:0021 c ¼ 1; 589:7 Pt0:475 (V/kWth) LT
Air-to-water heat pump 3:7035 Pt0:026 c ¼ 381:99 Pt0:144 (V/kWth) LT
Amorphous photovoltaic modulesb h0 ¼ 7:83 % ; g ¼-0.19%/ C c ¼ 553:48 n0:205 (V/u) Electricity
Mono & Polycrystalline photovoltaic modulesb h0 ¼ 15:3 % ; g ¼-0.40%/ C c ¼ 719:34 n0:042 (V/u) Electricity
2
a
The solar thermal collector efficiency is given by h ¼ h0  k1 $ðTmGTamb Þ  k2 $ðTmGTamb Þ [35].
b
The photovoltaic collector efficiency is given by h ¼ h0 $f1 þ g$ðTC  TREF Þg [36].

are presented in Table 2. and operation.

It should be born in mind that Combined Heat and Power (CHP)
units should present a Primary Energy Save (PES) over a specific
given limit by power and technology [37]; this limits the heat
release and was included in the model as an additional constraint.
Annual maintenance and operating costs were included as 2.5% of
the plant cost, while an interest rate of 2.5% per year and a lifetime
of 20 years were considered. It has been considered that all the
technologies can regulate their load capacity from 0 to 100%, except
CHP units, which can only regulate from 60% to 100%.
Considering all these assumptions and simplifications, the
optimization problem will give suboptimal results. However, these
simplifications follow the European Directive's approach, consider
the climatic zone where the building is located and the stage of
development of the available technologies, so the results can be
understood as a true indicator of the actual potential of the building
towards nZEB.
4. Results
The model has been generated and solved with CPLEX v12.6.2
[38] within MatLab R2014a [39]. A computer with Intel Core i5-
2430M CPU @ 2.40 GHz processor and 8 GB of RAM was used for
the resolution. The problem consists of 51,282 constraints, 37,440
continuous variables, and 6963 integer variables, from which 6912
are binary ones.
Elapsed time is case dependent. As stop criteria the following
was taken: simulations were run until a gap of 1% or, alternatively,
2 h of operation were reached. In any case gap was higher than 3%
and no significant influence was seen in the resulting configuration
Table 2
Variable costs under consideration.
Fuel
MAN
Natural gas - CNG
MAN
Biomass (Pellet) - CBIO
BUY
Electricity (purchase) - CELE
SELL ; C SELL ; C SELL
Heat (sale) - CHT
MT LT
SELL
Electricity (sale) - CELE
The optimization method is applied to the case study with the
aim of getting the optimal energy supply system configuration and
its hourly operation for two different cases: (a) cost optimal solu-
tion and (b) Zero Energy Building (ZEB). However, different criteria
exist for the definition of NRPE. Usually, official definitions only
include the electricity consumption due to lighting and do not
consider the consumption associated to other electrical appliances
[39]. To analyze the implications, two NRPE limits are introduced;
one without considering the domestic electricity consumption
(NRPE) and the other considering it (NRPE0 ).
Regarding the energy supply system configuration, the results
are summarized in Table 3. All the configurations include an in-
ternal combustion engine cogeneration linked with a medium
temperature thermal energy storage system. A tank capacity of
1000 l is considered, except in ZEB0 , where a 2000 l water tank was
selected. The installation is completed by a conventional natural
gas boiler that ensures peak power. In the optimal cost and ZEB0
cases, this boiler is only included to meet the peak power
constraint, but does not run for the selected reference days. Addi-
tionally, ZEB and ZEB0 solutions include a PV power plant on the
roof. It should be noticed that, in both cases, the need for roof space
overpasses the roof availability, and the PV production should be
installed near the building.
Apart from the configuration, the optimization also covers the
operation of the selected energy supply system. The operation of
the engines is summarized by Table 4. Substantial changes are
encountered when this is analyzed, while the optimal cost case
prioritizes economic effectiveness, ZEB and ZEB0 take into account
the energy consumption associated with it.
Even though the three configurations are similar, significant
differences can be seen regarding its operation, both for the ther-
mal and electricity production. The thermal load is mainly covered
by the CHP internal combustion unit in all the cases. Although the
Unitary cost (V/kWh) same unit is installed, the CHP unit runs more hours in the optimal
cost case. This increases the need for heat release, which at the
0.054
same time reduces the energy savings in favour of a bigger amount
0.041
of self-produced electricity. However, the PES still lies above the
0.223
minimum value (0% for power below 50kWe). The ZEB and ZEB0
0.000
cases aim to maximize the operation of the CHP unit, but the NRPE
0.0496
limit reduces heat release. This fact justifies the increase in storage
 E. Iturriaga et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 954e966 961

Table 3
Configuration for the three analyzed cases.

Technology Module ZEB’ (NRPE’ ¼ 0) ZEB (NRPE ¼ 0) Optimal Cost

Compound parabolic collector HT e e e

Organic Rankine CHP HT e e e
HT Thermal Energy Storage HT e e e
Evacuated tube collector MT e e e
Internal Combustion Engine CHP MT 40 kWe 40 kWe 40 kWe
Gas Turbine CHP MT e e e
Biomass boiler MT 50 kW e e
Conventional natural gas boiler MT 175 kW a 250 kW 250 kW a

MT Thermal Energy Storage MT 2000 l 1000 l 1000 l

Flat plate collectors LT e e e
Condensing natural gas boiler LT e e e
Air-to-water heat pump LT e e e
LT Thermal Energy Storage LT e e e
Mono & Polycrystalline photovoltaic modules Electricity 1177b (1103%)c 135b (126.5%)c e
a
Only for covering peak periods, do not run under reference days.
b
Number of PV modules of 260Wp.
c
Percentage of occupation of available roof.

Table 4
Operation results for the three analyzed cases.

ZEB’ (NRPE’ ¼ 0) ZEB (NRPE ¼ 0) Optimal Cost

2
NRPE NRPE (kWh/m y) 91.1 0 13.8
NRPE' (kWh/m2 y) 0 91.1 104.9
Thermal Energy Thermal energy load (kWh/y) 231,040 231,040 231,040
CHP IC engine (kWh/y) 247,762 344,230 405,142
Conventional boiler (kWh/y) 0 15 0
Biomass boiler (kWh/y) 60,015 0 0
Stored energy (kWh/y) 111,647 66,369 64,865
Heat release (kWh/y) 76,736 113,205 174,102
Electricity Electricity load (kWh/y) 203,175 203,175 203,175
Electricity generated (kWh/y) 347,681 197,784 202,571
CHP IC engine (kWh/y) 123,881 172,115 202,571
CHP PES (%) 13.96 12.88 6.73
PV panels (kWh/y) 223,800 25,669 0
Exported electricity (kWh/y) 155,015 27,563 17,318
Self-consumed electricity (kWh/y) 192,666 170,222 185,253
Imported electricity (kWh/y) 10,508 32,953 17,921

capacity in the ZEB0 case, as well as the substitution of part of its
operation by a biomass boiler.
The electricity load is covered by the CHP and PV production, as
well as the electricity imported from the grid. In this case, the
electricity surplus is exported to the grid. The main difference be-
tween the 3 cases is caused by the presence of the PV power plant,
whose operation cannot be controlled and produces whenever it
receives radiation, irrespective of whether there are electricity
needs in the building. Electricity production by the CHP is related to
what was explained for the heat production. The highest amount of
imported electricity occurs in the ZEB case. In this case, the NRPE
limits the heat release and, therefore, the CHP operation
(PES ¼ 12.88%), while, at the same time, the PV plant is much
smaller than in the ZEB0 case.
The economic analysis is presented below. The investment
required for the different cases is presented in Fig. 5, where the
contribution of each technology to the total can be observed. It can
be seen that the PV power plant has the greatest impact on overall
investment, especially when the electric consumption of the
dwellings is taken into consideration (ZEB0 ).
The economic analysis is evaluated by comparing the invest-
ment with the annual savings. The feasibility is evaluated by simple
Payback and all the data is summarized in Table 5.
The variable costs represent the cost of the fuel needed for the
operation of the plant plus the maintenance costs. The annual cost
includes, on an annual basis, the variable costs plus the amortiza-
tion traceable to a single year. Then, the annual savings are
calculated, referenced to a base case consisting of a 300 kW natural
gas boiler where all the electricity is imported from the grid. As the
annual savings are of the same order for all cases, Payback shows a
trend of its variation with the NRPE limit similar to that shown by
the overall investment in Fig. 5.
The optimization problem has been parametrically solved to
draw the optimal cost curve. Fig. 6 presents the optimal cost so-
lutions for different NRPE (NRPE and NRPE0 ) consumption limits. In
this curve, the ZEB and ZEB0 cases are represented and the region of
feasible solutions is shadowed in grey.
It can be seen that the optimal energy supply system solutions
are not economically feasible for NRPE limits below 26 kWh/m2y
(NRPE’ ¼ 66.1 kWh/m2y), owing to payback values higher than the
lifespan of the plant (20 years). Thus, the ZEB case is achievable, but
not if the electricity load is considered within the energy con-
sumption of the building, that is, ZEB0 is not achievable for the case
study under consideration. Additionally, the solution where the
roof limit of the building is reached is represented in Fig. 6. As
stated, this limit occurs for an NRPE consumption slightly higher
than 0 (2 kWh/m2y), meaning that all the optimal energy supply
solutions below this NRPE value require the installation of a PV
power plant nearby.
5. Discussion
This work has presented a general model for the optimization of
energy supply systems of buildings. The framework is based on the
962 E. Iturriaga et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 954e966

Fig. 5. Investment for each of the selected cases.

Table 5 into groups within a district optimization environment.

Economic results for the three analyzed cases. On the other hand, the discretized time horizon allows the
ZEB’ (NRPE’ ¼ 0) ZEB (NRPE ¼ 0) Cost Optimal yearly behavior to be represented, while maintaining the solvable
Investment (V) 895,260 191,203 103,044
problem size. Therefore, the number of candidate technologies
Variable costs (V/y) 30,893 29,936 29,809 could be larger than in most approaches present in the literature.
Annual cost (V/y) 75,656 39,496 34,962 Regarding the computational performance, the solving process
Annual savings(V/y) 15,078 16,035 16,162 could require a high computational effort because of the MILP na-
Payback (y) 57.1 9.7 4.2
ture of the problem. In any case, computing time is tractable with
no need for great computation clusters, depending on whether the
case study is between 15 and 60 min. However, in contrast with
alternative Linear Programming approaches, our model ensures
that any intermediate solution is feasible, since the unit commit-
ment feature is included. Therefore, this work has presented a
robust model. Additionally, unlike multistage or multilevel opti-
mization frameworks, this work has presented a holistic approach,
where the selection of the technologies is optimized together with
their operation. As an additional advantage, it is important to un-
derline that the use of CPLEX as the solver provides the user with
constant knowledge about the maximum optimality gap that is
obtained; in other words, the quality of the incumbent solution is
known throughout the solving process. This allows the user to stop
the calculation process if a user-defined acceptable suboptimal
Fig. 6. Minimum annual cost for different NRPE values. solution is reached.
The results acquired through the case study illustrate the po-
tential of the proposed model. The case study allowed the tech-
following key points: (i) a multilevel superstructure and (ii) a dis- nological set to be selected so as to minimize costs under certain
cretized time horizon. constraints. Apart from the installed technology, the operation
On the one hand, the multilevel topology of the superstructure demonstrates a great effect which, in fact, evidences the need for its
aims to describe the nonlinear behavior of the energy supply sys- consideration. The model allows the unit commitment which, at
tem by disaggregated linear layers. In doing so, the optimization the cost of more time expensive optimizations, can be determined
model can be written as a general MILP problem, which supposes a as crucial depending on the results (Table 4). The case study has
great advantage, considering the quasi-infinite number of solutions helped us to see the great potential of the tool in several aspects:
under consideration and the vast literature of available algorithms analyzing the effect of specific constraints on the design of the nZEB
to efficiently solve the problem. In particular, a bilevel modeling is (i.e. country specific legislation) and determining the limits in the
proposed in this work, notably the energy module and the tech- development of the nZEB (economic, technical, etc.). The tool could
nology ones. Interestingly, it is crucial to point out that the general be used for energy planning and policy-making, since it sheds light
model ontology could incorporate additional levels to increase its on the costs and potentials associated with promoting certain
flexibility. A micro-perspective example could correspond to technologies and/or legislations.
separating different power positions of a technology, assigning ef- As stated in the Introduction section, at European level there is a
ficiency and working conditions to each of them. Additionally, as a need for designing cost effective buildings fulfilling the nZEB goals,
macro-perspective example, we could think of clustering buildings which, at the same time, comprises a joint optimization of energy
 E. Iturriaga et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 954e966 963

supply systems and energy saving measures. Energy supply sys- KMAN Manageable technologies ðKMAN 4KÞ, k
tems were covered by this work, but further research is needed KFR Technologies with full load regulation ðKFR 4KÞ, k
dealing with the integration of energy saving alternatives in the KRR Technologies with restricted load regulation ðKRR 4KÞ, k
optimization model. This entails the challenge of discretizing the S Modules, s
effects of the energy saving measures, i.e. facades, windows, etc., S Principal output module of a technology (pk 2S), pk
throughout the time horizon and will be covered in the near future. SNE Modules, excluding electricity ðSNE 4SÞ, k
FMAN Manageable fuels, f
6. Conclusions FNMAN Non-manageable fuels, f
D Reference days, d
In a context of energy transition and, specifically, under the need Hd Intervals in a reference day, h
for defining and developing the nZEB concept; a general model for J Facility location, j
the optimization of the design and operation of energy supply
systems of buildings has been proposed. Even though several Decision variables
optimization models can be found in the bibliography, none include nk Number of installed units of a technology
such a detailed treatment of the different elements that play a ud;h Commitment state of a unit
k
significant role in the energy supply system operation. In this paper,
eOUT
s;k;d;h
Total produced energy (kWh/h)
a general superstructure has been presented, making it possible to
include all the existing and future technologies covering heating, eIN
s;k;d;h
Total consumed energy (kWh/h)
DHW, cooling and electricity. The model allows the selection of eBUY Energy bought by the system (kWh/h)
s;d;h
equipment and its operation for a given set of load profiles. The
eSELL
s;d;h
Energy sold by the system (kWh/h)
operation includes the unit commitment of technologies with
limited load regulation capacity through binary control. This is a eSTO
s;d;h
Energy transferred to storage (kWh/h)
novel approach for this kind of analysis, allowing a more realistic eMAN Manageable fuel input (kWh/h)
f ;k;d;h
characterization of the hourly behavior of the technologies, at the
price of a significantly longer elapsed time for resolution. qd;h
s Stored energy at the beginning of the interval (kWh)
Thus, the proposed method allows the design energy supply
system for new and existing buildings; in the former, the optimi- Constant parameters
zation should be made along with the load optimization through Nd Yearly number of days of a reference day
energy saving methods. The model can be applied to minimize the Ld;h
s Load (kWh/h)
annual cost, but other different objective functions could be LPEAK
s Maximum load (kW)
applied, as well as constraints imposed by the designer. MAX
Es;k Production at maximum power (kW)
The model has been applied to a case study consisting of a do- MIN
Es;k Production at minimum power (kW)
mestic building located in Bilbao (Northern Spain) to get the
MAX
Qs;k Maximum storage capacity (kWh)
optimal energy supply system to meet heating, DHW and electricity
load. Cost estimation models have been determined and used to NPRELIM Non-renewable primary energy consumption limit,
include the performance and cost of each one of the 13 technologies excluding electricity (kWh/y)
under consideration. Three cases have been evaluated: the optimal NPRE LIM
0
Non-renewable primary energy consumption limit,
cost, the ZEB and the ZEB0 , an alternative ZEB where the whole including electricity (kWh/y)
electricity consumption is also considered for the calculation of the
AMAX
j Available area in a facility location (m2)
NRPE. The model offered different energy supply system configu-
rations, as well as its operation. The implications of the 3 cases were Aj;k Facility location area used by a technology unit (m2)
compared and analyzed and, finally, a parametric evaluation was Ws Module based primary energy weighting factors
carried out in order to set the aspects that limit the feasibility of low Ws;k Module and technology based primary energy weighting
energy buildings: economic feasibility and physical constraints factors
such as roof availability for renewables. EfNMAN
;k;d;h
Non-manageable fuel input (kWh/h)
Thus, the model showed a capacity for energy planning and fast
hQs Storage efficiency
estimation of the impact of different systems for the goals of
hOUT Production ratio with respect to the principal
reducing the NRPE towards the NZEB definition. s;k
hIN
s;k
Consumption ratio with respect to the principal
Acknowledgements hMAN
f ;k
Manageable fuel input ratio with respect to the principal
hNMAN
f ;k
Non-manageable fuel input ratio with respect to the
This research is supported by the Bizkaia Talent and European
principal
Commission through the COFUND program, awarded in the 2015
Aid Programme for Researchers with request reference number CkINV Initial investment cost (V)
AYD-000-280, and also by the Basque Government through the CsBUY Purchase cost (V/kWh)
BERC 2014e2017 program and by Spanish Ministry of Economy and CsSELL Sale income (V/kWh)
Competitiveness MINECO: BCAM Severo Ochoa excellence accred- CfMAN Purchase cost of manageable fuels (V/kWh)
itation SEV-2013-0323.
Appendix B. Definition of reference days for the case study
Appendix A. Nomenclature

Sets and indices

K Technologies, k
964 E. Iturriaga et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 954e966

Table A.1
DHW energy load (kWh/h). Hourly distribution for monthly reference day

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.

1 3.96 3.88 3.88 3.88 3.72 3.56 3.39 3.39 3.48 3.56 3.80 3.88
2 1.65 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.55 1.48 1.41 1.41 1.45 1.48 1.58 1.62
3 1.32 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.24 1.19 1.13 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.27 1.29
4 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.62 0.59 0.57 0.57 0.58 0.59 0.63 0.65
5 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.62 0.59 0.57 0.57 0.58 0.59 0.63 0.65
6 1.98 1.94 1.94 1.94 1.86 1.78 1.70 1.70 1.74 1.78 1.90 1.94
7 8.91 8.73 8.73 8.73 8.36 8.00 7.64 7.64 7.82 8.01 8.55 8.73
8 33.01 32.34 32.34 32.32 30.98 29.63 28.29 28.29 28.96 29.65 31.67 32.34
9 23.11 22.64 22.64 22.63 21.69 20.74 19.80 19.80 20.27 20.75 22.17 22.64
10 24.76 24.26 24.26 24.24 23.23 22.22 21.21 21.21 21.72 22.24 23.75 24.26
11 20.47 20.05 20.05 20.04 19.21 18.37 17.54 17.54 17.95 18.38 19.63 20.05
12 18.49 18.11 18.11 18.10 17.35 16.59 15.84 15.84 16.22 16.60 17.73 18.11
13 15.85 15.52 15.52 15.52 14.87 14.22 13.58 13.58 13.90 14.23 15.20 15.52
14 15.85 15.52 15.52 15.52 14.87 14.22 13.58 13.58 13.90 14.23 15.20 15.52
15 13.54 13.26 13.26 13.25 12.70 12.15 11.60 11.60 11.87 12.16 12.98 13.26
16 10.89 10.67 10.67 10.67 10.22 9.78 9.33 9.33 9.56 9.78 10.45 10.67
17 12.88 12.61 12.61 12.61 12.08 11.56 11.03 11.03 11.29 11.56 12.35 12.61
18 12.55 12.29 12.29 12.28 11.77 11.26 10.75 10.75 11.00 11.27 12.03 12.29
19 17.17 16.82 16.82 16.81 16.11 15.41 14.71 14.71 15.06 15.42 16.47 16.82
20 23.11 22.64 22.64 22.63 21.69 20.74 19.80 19.80 20.27 20.75 22.17 22.64
21 18.82 18.43 18.43 18.43 17.66 16.89 16.12 16.12 16.51 16.90 18.05 18.43
22 20.80 20.38 20.38 20.36 19.52 18.67 17.82 17.82 18.24 18.68 19.95 20.38
23 15.85 15.52 15.52 15.52 14.87 14.22 13.58 13.58 13.90 14.23 15.20 15.52
24 17.17 16.82 16.82 16.81 16.11 15.41 14.71 14.71 15.06 15.42 16.47 16.82

Table A.2
Space heating load (kWh/h). Hourly distribution for monthly reference day

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.

1 32.06 31.57 26.58 22.96 13.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.74 22.28 29.87
2 33.37 33.02 28.17 24.53 14.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.32 23.61 31.13
3 34.57 34.35 29.63 25.98 16.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.76 24.84 32.29
4 35.73 35.63 31.04 27.37 17.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.16 26.03 33.40
5 36.65 36.66 32.16 28.48 18.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.27 26.97 34.29
6 36.79 36.81 32.33 28.65 18.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.43 27.11 34.42
7 35.48 35.36 30.74 27.08 17.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.86 25.78 33.17
8 42.11 41.66 36.72 33.09 23.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.88 32.34 39.91
9 37.78 36.86 31.44 27.87 17.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.90 35.73
10 33.02 31.59 25.65 22.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.02 31.14
11 28.72 26.82 20.42 16.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.62 27.00
12 25.33 23.06 16.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.73
13 22.85 20.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.33
14 21.16 18.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.71
15 20.40 17.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.97
16 20.87 18.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.43
17 22.77 20.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.26
18 25.79 23.58 16.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.18
19 29.25 27.41 21.07 17.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.16 27.51
20 32.42 30.92 24.92 21.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.41 30.56
21 34.95 33.72 28.00 24.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 33.00
22 36.92 35.91 30.40 26.84 16.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.02 34.90
23 38.63 37.80 32.48 28.89 19.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.68 28.77 36.55
24 30.59 29.94 24.79 21.18 11.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.97 20.77 28.45

Table A.3
Electricity load (kWh/h). Hourly distribution for monthly reference day

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.

1 19.22 19.22 16.44 16.44 16.44 18.67 18.67 18.67 16.44 16.44 16.44 19.22
2 15.65 15.65 13.76 13.76 13.76 15.95 15.95 15.95 13.76 13.76 13.76 15.65
3 13.27 13.27 11.44 11.44 11.44 13.11 13.11 13.11 11.44 11.44 11.44 13.27
4 12.34 12.34 11.18 11.18 11.18 12.94 12.94 12.94 11.18 11.18 11.18 12.34
5 11.83 11.83 11.02 11.02 11.02 12.18 12.18 12.18 11.02 11.02 11.02 11.83
6 12.01 12.01 11.63 11.63 11.63 11.78 11.78 11.78 11.63 11.63 11.63 12.01
7 14.36 14.36 14.53 14.53 14.53 12.94 12.94 12.94 14.53 14.53 14.53 14.36
8 21.88 21.88 19.29 19.29 19.29 14.81 14.81 14.81 19.29 19.29 19.29 21.88
9 24.95 24.95 22.41 22.41 22.41 18.74 18.74 18.74 22.41 22.41 22.41 24.95
10 25.53 25.53 23.29 23.29 23.29 20.18 20.18 20.18 23.29 23.29 23.29 25.53
11 24.12 24.12 23.96 23.96 23.96 22.16 22.16 22.16 23.96 23.96 23.96 24.12
12 25.13 25.13 23.82 23.82 23.82 24.04 24.04 24.04 23.82 23.82 23.82 25.13
 E. Iturriaga et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 954e966 965

Table A.3 (continued )

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.

13 25.61 25.61 25.01 25.01 25.01 24.83 24.83 24.83 25.01 25.01 25.01 25.61
14 26.78 26.78 24.38 24.38 24.38 24.88 24.88 24.88 24.38 24.38 24.38 26.78
15 26.05 26.05 24.19 24.19 24.19 23.78 23.78 23.78 24.19 24.19 24.19 26.05
16 28.82 28.82 24.86 24.86 24.86 23.87 23.87 23.87 24.86 24.86 24.86 28.82
17 35.57 35.57 28.82 28.82 28.82 24.80 24.80 24.80 28.82 28.82 28.82 35.57
18 41.40 41.40 30.17 30.17 30.17 27.90 27.90 27.90 30.17 30.17 30.17 41.40
19 44.98 44.98 32.15 32.15 32.15 27.90 27.90 27.90 32.15 32.15 32.15 44.98
20 43.99 43.99 34.94 34.94 34.94 28.41 28.41 28.41 34.94 34.94 34.94 43.99
21 41.04 41.04 34.70 34.70 34.70 27.60 27.60 27.60 34.70 34.70 34.70 41.04
22 37.41 37.41 32.11 32.11 32.11 29.45 29.45 29.45 32.11 32.11 32.11 37.41
23 31.92 31.92 27.65 27.65 27.65 28.01 28.01 28.01 27.65 27.65 27.65 31.92
24 24.76 24.76 21.54 21.54 21.54 23.83 23.83 23.83 21.54 21.54 21.54 24.76

Table A.4
Irradiance (kW/m2) on a 45 inclined surface. Hourly distribution for monthly reference day

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.

1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00
8 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.12 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.14 0.13 0.10 0.02 0.00
9 0.08 0.14 0.19 0.20 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.22 0.23 0.21 0.10 0.06
10 0.16 0.23 0.28 0.27 0.34 0.32 0.34 0.30 0.33 0.32 0.18 0.12
11 0.22 0.30 0.36 0.33 0.40 0.37 0.40 0.35 0.41 0.40 0.25 0.18
12 0.26 0.34 0.40 0.36 0.43 0.40 0.44 0.39 0.45 0.45 0.29 0.21
13 0.26 0.34 0.40 0.36 0.43 0.40 0.44 0.39 0.45 0.45 0.29 0.21
14 0.22 0.30 0.36 0.33 0.40 0.37 0.40 0.35 0.41 0.40 0.25 0.18
15 0.16 0.23 0.28 0.27 0.34 0.32 0.34 0.30 0.33 0.32 0.18 0.12
16 0.08 0.14 0.19 0.20 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.22 0.23 0.21 0.10 0.06
17 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.12 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.14 0.13 0.10 0.02 0.09
18 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00
19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

References reference building: a new approach to assess cost-optimality. Appl Energy

2016;174:37e68.
[11] Nemhauser GL, Wolsey LA. Integer and combinatorial optimization. New
[1] European Commission. Energy, transport and environment indicators. Euro-
York: John Wiley and Sons; 1988.
stat. 2012. Retrieved from:, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/
[12] Jünger M, Liebling ThM, Naddef D, Nemhauser GL, Pulleyblank WR, Reinelt G,
portal/product_details/publication?p_product_code¼KS-DK-12e1001. at
et al. 50 Years of integer programming 1958-2008. Springer; 2009.
March 18th, 2013.
[13] Conejo AJ, Castillo E, Mínguez R, García-Bertrand R. Decomposition techniques
[2] EPBD recast: Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the
in mathematical programming. Springer; 2006.
Council of 19 May 2010 on the Energy Performance of Buildings (recast).
[14] Mehleri ED, Sarimveis H, Markatos NC, Papageorgiou LG. A mathematical
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency/buildings.
programming approach for optimal design of distributed energy systems at
[3] Huang Y, Niu J-L. Optimal building envelope design based on simulated per-
the neighbourhood level. Energy 2012;44:96e104.
formance: history, current status and new potentials. Energ Build 2016;117:
[15] Omu A, Choudhary R, Boies A. Distributed energy resource system optimisa-
387e98.
tion using mixed integer linear programming. Energy Policy 2013;61:249e66.
[4] Sharafi M, ElMekkawy TY, Bibeau EL. Optimal design of hybrid renewable
[16] Di Somma M, Yan B, Bianco N, Graditi G, Luh PB, Mongibello L, et al. Design
energy systems in buildings with low to high renewable energy ratio. Renew
optimization of a distributed energy system through cost and exergy as-
Energ 2015;83:1026e42.
sessments. Energy Procedia 2017;105:2451e9.
[5] Noris F, Musall E, Salom J, Berggren B, Østergaard Jensen S, Lindberg K, et al.
[17] Milan C, Bojesen C, Nielsen MP. A cost optimization model for 100% renewable
Implications of weighting factors on technology preference in net zero energy
residential energy supply systems. Energy 2012;48:118e27.
buildings. Energ Build 2014;82:250e62.
[18] Bischi A, Taccari L, Martelli E, Amaldi E, Manzolini G, Silva P, et al. A detailed
[6] Hamdy M, Hasan A, Siren K. A multi-stage optimization method for cost-
MILP optimization model for combined cooling, heat and power system
optimal and nearly-zero-energy building solutions in line with the EPBD-
operation planning. Energy 2014;74:12e26.
recast 2010. Energ Build 2013;56:189e203.
[19] Wang J-J, Jing Y-Y, Zhang C-F. Optimization of capacity and operation for CCHP
[7] Becchio C, Giuseppe Ferrando D, Fregonara E, Milani N, Quercia C, Serra V. The
system by genetic algorithm. Appl Energy 2010;87:1325e35.
cost-optimal methodology for the energy retrofit of an ex-industrial building
[20] Ruan Y, Liu Q, Zhou W, Firestone R, Gao W, Watanabe T. Optimal option of
located in Northern Italy. Energ Build 2016;127:590e602.
distributed generation technologies for various commercial buildings. Appl
[8] Attia S, Hamdy M, O'Brien W, Carlucci S. Assessing gaps and needs for inte-
Energy 2009;86:1641e53.
grating building performance optimization tools in net zero energy buildings
[21] Ren H, Gao W. A MILP model for integrated plan and evaluation of distributed
design. Energ Build 2013;60:110e24.
energy systems. Appl Energy 2010;87:1001e14.
[9] Ferrara M, Fabrizio E, Virgone J, Filippi M. Energy systems in cost-optimized
[22] Rezvan AT, Gharneh NS, Gharehpetian GB. Optimization of distributed gen-
design of nearly zero-energy buildings. Automation Constr 2016;70:109e27.
eration capacities in buildings under uncertainty in load demand. Energ Build
[10] Ascione F, Bianco N, De Stasio C, Mauroa GM, Vanoli GP. Multi-stage and
2013;57:58e64.
multi-objective optimization for energy retrofitting a developed hospital
966 E. Iturriaga et al. / Energy 138 (2017) 954e966
[23] Lindberg KB, Fischer D, Doorman G, Korpås M, Sartori I. Cost-optimal energy
system design in Zero Energy Buildings with resulting grid impact: a case
study of a German multi-family house. Energ Build 2016;127. 860e845.
[24] Baldick R. The generalized unit commitment problem. IEEE Trans Power Syst
1995;10:65e475.
[25] Sheble GB, Fahd GN. Unit Commitment literature synopsis. IEEE Trans Power
Syst 1994;9:28e135.
[26] Padhy NP. Unit commitment-a bibliographical survey. IEEE Trans Power Syst
2004;19:1196e205.
[27] Factores de emisio
n de CO2 y coeficientes de paso a energía primaria de
diferentes fuentes de energía final consumidas en el sector de edificios en
Espan~ a. Ministerio de Industria, Energía y Turismo; 2016. Documento reco-
nocido vigente a partir del 14 de Enero del.
[28] Optimality Cost. Discussing methodology and challenges within the recast
energy performance of buildings directive. Buildings Performance Institute
Europe (BPIE) Factsheet. 2010.
[29] EN 15459-Energy performance of buildings. Economic evaluation procedure
for energy systems in buildings.
[30] Condiciones de aceptacio
n para programas informa
ticos alternativos a LIDER y
CALENER. IDAE (Ministerio de Industria, Consumo y Comercio) y Direccio
n
general de urbanismo y política de vivienda. 2009. p. 23. Anexo III.
[31] Erbs DG, Klein SA, Beckman WM. Estimation of degrees-days and ambient
temperature bin data from monthly average temperatures. Ashrae J 1983;25:
60e5.
[32] Standard European Electrical Profiles. IEA/ECBCS Annex 42. The simulation of
building-integrated fuel cell and other cogeneration systems. 2006.
[33] Kreutzer N, Knight I. Social housing electrical energy consumption profiles in
the United Kingdom. In: 2nd international solar cities congress; 2006.
[34] Guadalfajara M. Evaluacio
n de centrales solares te
rmicas con acumulacio
n
estacional para el sector residencial en Espan ~ a. Trabajo Fin de Ma

ster. Uni-
versidad de Zaragoza; 2013.
[35] Duffie John A, Beckman William A. Solar engineering of thermal processes.
third ed. Wiley; 2006.
[36] Alonso Abella M, Chenlo F. Estimacio
n de la energía generada por un sistema
fotovoltaico conectado a red. CIEMAT. Laboratorio de sistemas fotovoltaicos;
2005.
[37] Real Decreto 616/2007, de 11 de mayo, sobre fomento de la cogeneracio
n.
[38] IBM ILOG CPLEX optimizer. Website. http://www01.ibm.com/software/
commerce/optimization/cplex-optimizer/.
[39] MATLAB version R2014a. Natick. Massachusetts: The MathWorks Inc.; 2014.