Journal of Cleaner Production 275 (2020) 122776

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Optimal operation of water-energy microgrids; a mixed integer linear

programming formulation
Faegheh Moazeni a, *, Javad Khazaei b, c
a
Civil & Environmental Engineering Department, School of Science Engineering and Technology, Penn State Harrisburg, 777 W Harrisburg Pike,
Middletown, PA 17057, USA
b
Electrical Engineering Department at Penn State Harrisburg, 777 W Harrisburg Pike, Middletown, PA, 17057, USA
c
Architectural Engineering Department at Penn State University Park, State College, PA 16801, USA

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

Article history: Increasing energy efficiency in water distribution systems is one of the most important aspects of a
Received 8 March 2020 sustainable water infrastructure. Additionally, providing this energy from renewable sources is an
Received in revised form essential step towards a cleaner production in energy infrastructures. Therefore in this paper, an opti-
8 June 2020
mization model is developed to minimize the energy consumption of a water-energy microgrid system. A
Accepted 10 June 2020
Available online 19 July 2020
day-ahead economic dispatch model is developed to minimize the daily cost of energy in the water-
energy microgrid. The energy consumption of water system is minimized using tank’s and pump’s
Handling Editor: M.T. Moreira scheduling and operation, hydraulic factors, and daily demand. Particularly, the electricity consumption
of the pump is minimized by adjusting its head gain and flow rate via a variable speed. The energy unit is
Keywords: composed of an aggregated conventional power generation, solar photovoltaic, wind generation, and
Water-energy microgrid battery energy storage system. To offer a global optimum for the proposed non-linear programming
Cost optimization formulation, bivariate piecewise linear approximation is used to linearize the pump’s power consump-
Mixed integer non-linear programming tion and gain, and conservation of energy-mass. In addition, univariate piecewise linear approximation is
(MINLP)
used to linearize the energy consumption function of conventional power generation systems. The
Mixed integer linear programming (MILP)
optimization results of the mixed integer linear programming and mixed integer non-linear program-
Co-optimization
Piecewise linearization ming formulations for the studied water-energy microgrid system are compared and discussed. These
models are developed to concurrently minimize the electricity consumption of a micro water-energy
distribution network in two scenarios of (1) standalone water distribution system operation and (2)
an integrated islanded micro water-energy system with electrical loads.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction et al., 2013), or energy efficiency of water-energy nexus. One

The rapid pace of urbanization is constantly raising the demand
for water and energy resources, challenging the urban economy as
well as the sustainability of the environment. By the year 2035, the
global need for energy alone is estimated to be 40% higher than that
of 2010. Thus, it is imperative to explore the interlinks between
energy and water so that both resources are managed and
conserved sustainably (Dai et al., 2018). There has been some re-
ports on development and optimization of water-energy systems in
a coordinated framework, which can be divided into modeling and
regulatory challenges (Scott et al., 2011; Bragalli et al., 2012; Lele
* Corresponding author. Penn State Harrisburg, 777 W Harrisburg Pike, Middle-
town, PA, 17057, USA.
E-mail addresses: moazeni@psu.edu (F. Moazeni), khazaei@psu.edu (J. Khazaei).
main aspect of energy efficiency in water-energy networks is to
allocate electricity generation resources optimally to manage the
power consumption of pumps in a water distribution network and
meet the electricity demand of the water-energy network
(Scarazzato et al., 2017; Baleta et al., 2019). In addition, the demand
response capability of water distribution networks can be studied
by controlling the components of water distribution networks. The
main focus of this work is on optimization of water-energy systems
from the energy efficiency point of view and comparison between
linear and nonlinear formulation of the energy efficiency in water-
energy systems.
A few research papers are available that studied the energy ef-
ficiency of both water and energy networks simultaneously. For
instance, the cost of energy system with conventional energy
sources in a water-energy network was minimized using a mixed

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122776
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 F. Moazeni, J. Khazaei / Journal of Cleaner Production 275 (2020) 122776

Nomenclature Pnom Nominal wind power in kW

k
Ppump Power of pump k in kW
aDG
i ; bi ; gi
DG DG
Cost function coefficients of generation unit i max
PPV;i Maximum PV output power in kW
ai;j Unique continuous variable for each segment in min
PPV;i Minimum PV output power in kW
piecewise linearization of bivariate functions PSTC PV output power in standard temperature
Dhk Head gain of pump k in meters max
PW;i Maximum wind turbine output power in kW
li Unique continuous value for each breakpoint in min
PW;i Minimum wind turbine output power in kW
piecewise linearization QD Demand flow in m3 =h
gi;j ; gi;j Unique binary variable for each upper/lower triangle QR Flow injected to the pipe from the reservoir in m3 =h
R
Qmax Maximum amount of water in the reservoir m3 =h
in piecewise linearization of bivariate functions
R
Qmin Minimum amount of water in the reservoir m3 =h
A Water flow index matrix
ak , bk , ck Pump’s characteristics constants QT Flow to the tank in m3 =h
C Factor for relative roughness of the pipe. Q0T Initial amount of water in the tank m3 =h
T
Qmax Maximum amount of water required in the tank
D Pipe diameter in meters
EiBatt Available energy in battery in kWh m3 =h
QminT Minimum amount of water required in the tank m3 =h
FiDG cost of ith DG plant in $
Fi ðPi Þ Cost function of generation units as a function of Pi Q m;n Vector of pipe flows between nodes m and n in m3 =h
Gac ðtÞ Solar irradiance a time t in kW=m2 rk Normalized speed of the pump
GSTC Solar irradiance at standard temperature in W= m2 Rmax
down
Round down maximum limit of DG unit i
hi Unique binary variable for each segment in piecewise Rmax
up Round up maximum limit of DG units
linearization Sk Status of pump k
Hm , Hn Pressure head at nodes m and n, respectively, in Sdn
i Shut down status of DG unit i
meters. Sup
i
Startup status of DG unit i
K Temperature coefficient of PV panel. t Time in hour.
KiPV ; Kiwind ; Kibatt Cost coefficients of PV, wind, and BESS unit Tc ; Ti Reference and current temperature of solar cells in + C
Lm;n Length of the pipe connecting nodes m and n in ux ; uy Binary variables introduced to linearize up/down
meters status of DG units
PiW Active power of ith wind generation unit in kW UiDG Status of DG unit i
PiBatt Active power of ith battery unit in kW UT; DT Minimum up/down time
PiDG Active power of ith DG in kW vi Cut-in wind speed in .
PiPV Active power of ith PV unit in kW vo Cut-out wind speed in m=s
max
Pi;chg Maximum battery charging power in kW vt measured wind speed in m=s
max
Pi;dis Maximum battery discharging power in kW vnom Nominal wind speed m=s
PiDG;max Maximum DG output power in kW Zm ,Zn Static head at node m and n in m.
PiDG;min Minimum DG output power in kW

integer non-linear programming (MINLP) formulation (Li et al.,
2018a). Another study proposed a co-optimization model of wa-
ter and energy systems using non-linear mathematical program-
ming (Santhosh et al., 2014). The energy system, however, was only
composed of grid-connected power plants and renewable energy
(RE) sources were excluded. In a different example, the impact of
various management strategies on energy consumption and cost of
two water utilities was investigated via energy and water quality
management systems (EWQMSs) (Cherchi et al., 2015). The results
offered insightful management and governing remarks about
water-energy nexus, but did not discuss modeling and optimization
of energy sources (whether RE or conventional). Also, a graph
theory-based network was developed to represent the water and
energy flows as a directed graph (Tsolas et al., 2018). To optimize
the water and energy generation, an optimization model was
developed to remove the redundant sub-graphs that would result
in maximum yield of water while minimized the energy con-
sumption in conventional energy systems. Mixed integer linear
programming models were used in (Oikonomou and Parvania,
2018; Oikonomou et al., 2018) to co-optimize the operation of
water distribution systems in a conventional power system. In a
recent study, an optimization model was proposed to co-optimize a
water desalination facility with variable speed pumps, water tanks,
and a conventional thermal power plant-based energy system to
provide day-ahead energy and frequency regulation (Oikonomou
and Parvania, 2019). Nonetheless, most of the existing studies in
energy efficiency and optimization of water-energy networks
ignored the fact that RE sources play an important role in
addressing the energy needs of future energy infrastructure and
considered conventional fossil-fuel-based power plants in their
formulation.
Microgrids have been introduced as promising solutions to
provide a flexible and cost-efficient energy in a decentralized
manner to isolated communities (Li et al., 2020; Nazari-Heris et al.,
2020) or when a natural disaster results in power shutoff from the
utility grid (Rezvani et al., 2015; Yin et al., 2017). Water-energy
microgrids are propitious solutions that can be applied to a wide
range of geographic or economic contexts such as islanded com-
munities (Guo et al., 2014; Lu et al., 2017). There exists a few
research on modeling the operation and performance of water-
energy microgrids. For example, the techno-economic potential of
a microgrid serving an industrial-scale drinking water plant was
studied in (Soshinskaya et al., 2014) and it was concluded that
adding solar and wind generation to the microgrid increases the
benefits received from the demand response strategy. The study,
however, did not include details of water distribution network and
mainly focused on energy supply modeling. In (Palma-Behnke
et al., 2011), a neural-network-based energy management system
was developed to minimize the cost of operation while supplying
the water and electric load demands. However, the water
 F. Moazeni, J. Khazaei / Journal of Cleaner Production 275 (2020) 122776
distribution system was treated as a constant load and detailed
modeling of variable speed pumps and constraints of water dis-
tribution network were ignored. A detailed legacy infrastructural
component study was conducted to investigate the parallel con-
cepts of electric and water distribution for resiliency of future
water-energy microgrids (Falco and Webb, 2015). Optimal sched-
uling of energy sources or water distribution network, however,
was not discussed in this work. A facility at University of Arizona
was used by National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in (Daw
et al., 2018) to investigate the feasibility of water-energy microgrids
in providing demand response and flexibility in energy supply us-
ing renewable energy sources. The study merely focused on
experimental validation and demonstration of capabilities of
microgrids in providing demand response rather than optimizing
the schedule of water-energy network simultaneously. Optimal
demand-side management of a micro water-energy network was
studied in (Li et al., 2018b). It was concluded that by controlling
water loads, the grid flexibility is significantly increased. The pro-
posed nonlinear optimization model was converted into a mixed-
integer convex programming problem using quasi-convex hull
relaxation. The studied method considered pumps with constant
speed, which simplified the pump’s output power as a univariate
function of head gain. In practice, pump’s output power is a
bivariate function of head gain and pump’s speed. In a recent study,
optimized scheduling of microgrids with high-inertia thermal dy-
namics and lossless water storage system was proposed (Nguyen
et al., 2020). It was concluded that energy saving was achieved if
water and energy demands are preserved at the same time.
While the existing research has made some progress in
advancing water-energy microgrids research, some limitations still
exist that need to be addressed for cooperation of these two critical
infrastructures. First, existing studies ignored a detailed modeling
in both water and energy networks. When the goal is to optimize
the operation of water-energy nexus, water and energy networks
should be optimized as a whole, and thus, all the properties, ele-
ments, and constraints of both systems must be built in the opti-
mization model. Second, prior studies on water-energy
optimization (e.g. (Oikonomou and Parvania, 2018; Oikonomou
et al., 2018; Oikonomou and Parvania, 2019)) often neglected that
future energy supply will come from isolated energy supplies with
the least need for the fossil-fuel-based power plants (Mariam et al.,
2016). Consequently, islanded microgrids with renewable energy
sources and storage units should be central to the energy produc-
tion of the water-energy network optimization models. Resource
allocation in islanded mode of operation significantly depends on
the availability of renewable energy sources and simultaneous
optimization of water demand and electric loads. Third, existing
studies mainly simplified the problem by considering constant-
speed pumps in water distribution networks and ignored the
bivariate non-linearities in pump’s output power formulation.
Furthermore, the relationship between the status of pumps close to
the water tanks in controlling the tank’s level was not considered.
As such, these detailed models should be added to the optimization
problem to result in a more accurate resource allocation and energy
management. To address these limitations, a novel formulation is
developed in this study to optimize the operation of a water-energy
microgrid such that.
1 Piecewise linear approximation of bivariate and univariate
functions are used to convert the mixed integer non-linear
optimization model of the system to a globally optimal mixed
integer linear programming (MILP) model,
2 A detailed comparison is carried out to compare the results of
proposed MILP model with MINLP model, and advantages and
3
disadvantages of each model are discussed in terms of compu-
tational efficiency and optimal error,
3 The energy usage of a water distribution network with fixed-
and variable-speed pumps in an islanded water-energy micro-
grid system with renewable energy sources and storage units is
minimized on a daily basis,
4 Distributed generation (DG)’s ramp rate limit, on/off status,
startup and shutdown statuses, and minimum up/down times
are considered in the formulation of the optimization problem
for islanded water-energy microgrid,
5 A detailed mathematical model was considered for the pumps in
the water systems relating the head gain and pump’s speed to
the consumed power, this realistic model makes the output
power of pump as a bivariate function of pump’s speed and head
gain,
6 To realistically model the water level in the tank, which is
controlled by a pump, a constraint representing the relationship
between the status of pump and tank level is formulated,
7 Effect of pump’s speed on resource allocation of water-energy
microgrid is studied through case studies.
The rest of the paper is organized in the following order. Section
2 explains the modeling procedure for the optimization of the
micro water system, section 3 discuses the electricity generation
modeling of the micro energy system supporting the micro water
system, section 4 presents the co-optimization model of an inte-
grated water-energy microgrid system, section 5 elaborates the
linearization of water and energy models using piecewise linear
functions, section 6 includes the case studies and results, and sec-
tion 7 concludes the paper.
2. Micro water system model
The water-energy microgrid system is illustrated in Fig. 1. The
energy network includes an aggregated wind farm with 500 kW
capacity, a battery energy storage system (BESS), a conventional
distributed generation (DG) unit, a 500 kW solar PV farm, and
aggregated electrical loads. The wind farm generates electricity
depending on the available wind speed on a daily basis. The con-
ventional DG will be scheduled by a unit commitment problem
including the ramp up/down limit rates, on/off status, and mini-
mum up/down times. Furthermore, the solar PV generates elec-
tricity depending on the available solar irradiance and outdoor
temperature. The BESS is a bi-directional system that can provide a
demand response capability or store the excess energy for demand
response purposes. The water distribution network includes seven
nodes, a reservoir, a tank, a pump and five residential nodes sup-
plying water to houses. On/off status of pump is considered in the
formulation to allow pumps to turn off when the power demand is
met. Summation of residential water usage at nodes 3e7 will be the
water demand of the water-energy system. The pump’s speed is
considered variable so that it can be adjusted to save the electricity
cost of the entire system. While a pump’s characteristic curve is
obtained for a certain motor speed and impeller diameter, it can be
developed in a way that is adaptable for any speed and any diam-
eter. Such is accomplished by applying the affinity laws (Walski
et al., 2003). The affinity laws present a direct relationship be-
tween the pump’s flow rate and its speed, and a direct correlation
between the pump’s head and the square of its speed. This means
that once the pump’s characteristic curve is obtained for a given
speed, variable speeds can change the pump’s head and flow rate.
Thus in this paper, a variable speed is contemplated for the pump so
that the pump’s head and flow rate could be adjusted to utilize the
lowest electrical power for a given water demand at any hour.
Pump’s electricity consumption is considered as the electricity
4 F. Moazeni, J. Khazaei / Journal of Cleaner Production 275 (2020) 122776
Fig. 1. Structure of the studied water-energy microgrid system.
demand of the energy network, which will be optimized in the
following section. The water sector is designed based on the tank’s
and pump’s operation and scheduling, the hydraulic elements and
physical properties such as flow rates, nodal heads, pipes’ lengths
and diameters, friction factor, and water demand diurnal pattern.
To validate the proposed models, the water-energy microgrid
system shown in Fig. 1 with seven water distribution nodes and a
common AC bus with distributed generation is designed. All
models are solved with the “OPTi” solver in MATLAB software. The
micro water model is designed to minimize the electricity usage,
while the hydraulic demands are met at all the nodes in the dis-
tribution system. To do that, a supervisory control and data
acquisition (SCADA) system is implemented in the water distribu-
tion network to collect data related to flow rates and status of the
pump via smart meters. The developed optimization model will
result in a daily operation schedule for the pump which minimizes
the cost of electricity consumption while meeting the daily water
demand. This schedule will be sent back to the SCADA in the form of
assignments. Following the given pattern or assignments, the
SCADA controls the physical elements of the system including
water levels in the tank and reservoir, opening/closing valves, or
switching the pumps on and off, which can eventually conclude
energy optimized conditions. Such cyber-physical elements in the
water network can be integrated into the micro energy network,
also a cyber-physical unit, where the physical components of the
two water and energy systems are operated together within one
single system. Since pumps are the most energy intensive in a
water distribution network, the output of the micro water opti-
mization model, i.e. the active power usage of the hydraulic pump,
will represent the total power consumption of the micro-water
system. Several papers have focused on managing power con-
sumption of pumps in residential applications (Al-Sumaiti et al.,
2017) or scheduling of water pumps and their impact on elec-
tricity consumption (Al-Sumaiti et al., 2019c, b). The readers are
encouraged to refer to these papers for more information on pump
scheduling and achieving energy efficiency by demand response. In
section 3 of this paper, i.e. the micro energy system modeling, this
power usage will be considered as one of the micro energy system’s
input loads. Equation (1) represents the electricity usage of kth
pump varying with the pump’s flow rate and its head gain at hour t
(Ulanicki et al., 2008)
k
Ppump;t ¼ Skt BQtm;n Dhkt (1)


1 pump k is ON
Skt ¼ (2)
0 otherwise
where B is a constant representing the specific weight of water at
20  C and the efficiency of the pump (assuming it runs at 80% ef-
ficiency) and Dhkt is the head gain, which is the dissipated pump’s
energy gained by the water. This energy will help the water rectify
the head loss occurring due to the pipes’ friction or fittings. In (1), Skt
is a binary variable to indicate the on/off operating modes of the
pump at hour t and Qtm;n is the flow of the pipe from node m to node
n. When a pump is ON, the flow of the associated pipe, Qtm;n , is
equal to the flow of the pump and when the pump is OFF, the pipe is
considered to be closed. Also, Qtm;n  0 to ensure the water will not
flow backwards through the pump. The head gain, Dh, is obtained
from equation (3)
 2  2
Dhkt ¼ ak Qtm;n þ bk Qtm;n rtk þ ck rtk (3)
where ak ; bk ; ck are the pump’s characteristics coefficients (Ulanicki
et al., 2008). A pump is installed in a water distribution system to
serve two main purposes: 1) to compensate elevation differences
(also known as static head) and 2) to rectify head losses due to
pipe’s friction and fittings. This is done by adding some amount of
head by the pump to the water. While the static head is indepen-
dent of the pump’s flow rate, the head loss is highly dependent on it
(this is explained in details later in (7)). Therefore, the pump’s head
is a function of its flow rate and by extension, under affinity laws, is
a function of the speed (Walski et al., 2003). Due to the fact that the
 F. Moazeni, J. Khazaei / Journal of Cleaner Production 275 (2020) 122776 5

flow rate changes hourly with demand, the pump’s speed is also
considered to be variable. As shown in (3), the head gain is a
quadratic function of the water flow rate passing through the
pump, as well as the normalized speed of the pump (rtk ¼
where nm is the measured speed and nnom is the nominal speed of
the pump, both in revolutions per minute (rpm)). The gain (short
for energy head gain) is the dissipated pump’s energy gained by the
water.
The constraint (4) states that at any hour, the amount of water
supplied by the reservoir to a micro water network is equal to the
water accumulated in the water tank plus the amount consumed
(in the form of water demand) plus the amount flowing in the
pipes. This is known as conservation of mass theorem, which is
represented as
X
N wind energy sources, and energy storage devices. Moreover, the
A:Qtm;n  QtR þ QtT ¼ QtD
m;n¼1
where Q R is the flow injected to the pipe from the reservoir in m3 =
h, Q T is the flow to the tank in m3 =h, and Q D is the water demand in
m3 =h which is equal to the summation of water usage at each node
(Houghtalen et al., 2016). The left-hand side of equation (4) exhibits
the water flow in the network of pipes, where A is the index matrix
representing the water flow between nodes such that,
8
< 1 water flows from node m to n
Am;n ¼ 1 water flows from node n to m
: cost function of a distributed generation (DG) system (Fi;t DG ) is
0 no water flows between nodes m and n
Lm;n
F m;n ¼  1:85 (8)
0:278*C*D2:63
m;n
nkm
nknom
,
where Lm;n and Dm;n are the length and diameter of the pipe con-
necting nodes m and n, respectively, and C is the pipe’s roughness in
Hazen-Williams equation that captures the effect of friction in the
pipe, assumed to be 100 for this study, which is the pipe’s rough-
ness for a 20-year old cast iron pipe.
3. Modeling of microgrid
To obtain the optimal power dispatch of a water-energy
microgrid, the economic dispatch model is developed as a co-
optimization problem. The energy generation unit contains a
microgrid that operates with an aggregated DG unit, solar and
(4) electrical loads consist of a constant 24-h daily load plus the
active power consumption of the water system as illustrated in
Fig. 1. Parameters of the microgrid system can be found in
Table C1.
3.1. Conventional generation units
The input to a conventional generation system is fuel and the
output is the electrical power measured in kW. By drawing the
input-output curves of a conventional generation unit, also known
as heat-rate curve, and representing the fuel consumption in $/h,
the fuel-cost curve is calculated, which is represented as a
quadratic function of real power generation (Saadat, 1999). The
(5) represented as

To keep the water level in a tank within the minimum amount  2

T ) and the
DG
Fi;t ¼ aDG
i þ bi Pi;t þ gi
DG DG DG DG
Pi;t (9)
required to supply the network for one day (Qmin
maximum amount allowed to avoid overflowing the tank (Qmax T ),
DG is the cost of ith DG plant in $ (Wood et al., 2013). In (9),
where Fi;t
the status of the pump connected to the tank can be controlled such
that ai , bi , and gi are cost coefficients of generation units, which nor-
mally are given. To represent the constraints of the DG units in the
economic dispatch, a unit commitment formulation is utilized,
8
< if which is formulated in (10)-(14). This problem is well-studied in
Q0T þ QtT < Qmin
T
Turn the pump ON
(6) economic dispatch of smart grid systems and the readers are
: if Q0T þ QtT > Qmax
T
Turn the pump OFF encouraged to refer to (Morales-Espan ~ a et al., 2013) for more in-
formation. Equation (10) is the power limit constraint of DG unit i
In this equation, Q0T is the initial water level in a tank in m3 = h. and Ui;t DG 2f0; 1g is a binary variable indicating on/off status of DG
Water tanks are always set up at a high elevation to provide suffi- unit i. Ramp up and ramp down limits of the DG units are expressed
cient nodal pressure for the network. Therefore, a pump will be in equations (11) and (12), respectively. Also, two binary variables,
installed to provide the extra energy required to overcome the up
Si;t and Sdn
i;t , are added to represent the startup and shut down
negative static head between the two points. This can be expressed
by Bernoulli’s equation in (7) (Houghtalen et al., 2016), status of DG units, respectively, which are expressed in (13) and
(14).

   1:85 DG DG;min DG DG DG;max

Ui;t Pi  Pi;t  Ui;t Pi (10)
Hm;t  Hn;t þ Zm;t  Zn;t þ Dhkt ¼ Fm;n Qtm;n (7)
DG DG
which represents the difference between the energy head of two Pi;t  Pi;t1  Rmax DG
up Ui;t1 (11)
nodes of m and n in the water network is equal to the head loss
between the two nodes. This head loss can be compensated by the DG DG
Pi;t þ Pi;t1  Rmax DG
down Ui;t (12)
head gain from the pump(s) existing on the pipe(s) connecting the
two nodes (Houghtalen et al., 2016). In equation (7), Hm and Hn  
present the head (short for pressure head) of nodes m and n, Sup
i;t
DG
¼ Max 0; Ui;t DG
 Ui;t1 ; ci 2 DG; ct2T (13)
respectively, in meters, Zm and Zn are the elevations at nodes m and
n, respectively, in meters. According to Hazen-Williams equation,  
the head loss of a pipe (F m;n ) can be computed using equation (8) Sdn DG DG
i;t ¼ Max 0; Ui;t1  Ui;t ; ci 2 DG; ct2T (14)
(Houghtalen et al., 2016),
6 F. Moazeni, J. Khazaei / Journal of Cleaner Production 275 (2020) 122776

Equations are then converted to a standard linear programming cells in  C, respectively. The temperature data for April 11, 2020 was
format using (15) and (16). also adopted from the Penn State University (PSU) SURFRAD sta-
tion’s website (Global Monitoring Laboratory, 2020), which is
up
min
up
Si;t located on the grounds of PSU’s agricultural research farm. The 24-
Si;t
h temperature, solar irradiance, and output power of PV unit are
s:t:Sup
i;t
0 illustrated in Fig. 2.
up DG DG (15) The cost function of solar photovoltaic (PV) generation system is
Si;t  Ui;t  Ui;t1
represented by
up
Si;t  Mux  
PV PV
up DG DG Fi;t Pi;t ¼ KiPV Pi;t
PV
(21)
Si;t  Ui;t  Ui;t1 þ Mð1  ux Þ

where KiPV is a fixed purchased power generation coefficient of PV

min Sdn
i;t unit i in $/kW, which was adopted from (Jin et al., 2017). Some more
Sdn
i;t
sample cost coefficients of solar system can be found in (Al-Sumaiti
s:t:Sdn
i;t  0 et al., 2019d). The parameters of the PV system are provided in the
Sdn DG DG (16) Appendix section. The PV power generation is restricted to the
i;t  Ui;t1  Ui;t
maximum and minimum available power, represented by
Sdn
i;t  Muy
  min
PPV;i;t PV
 Pi;t max
 PPV;i;t (22)
Sdn DG DG
i;t  Ui;t1  Ui;t þ M 1  uy

max is usually expressed using the daily weather forecast of

where PPV;i;t
where ux ; uy 2f0; 1g are two new binary variables and M is a large
number. It is noted that
up
Si;t and Sdn the output PV power. Several studies focused on modeling uncer-
i;t will be added to the objective
tainty of PV generated power (Al-Sumaiti et al., 2019a) or optimally
function of the co-optimization problem with a fixed startup and
tracking and modeling the PV power output (Obukhov et al., 2020),
shutdown cost (Cup and Cdn ) and the other constraints in (15) and
however, a sample 24-h data was used in this study based on
(16) will be added to the constraints of the co-optimization
sample solar irradiance data.
model. The relationship between the generator’s on/off status,
startup, and shutdown status is called the logical DG constraint,
which is formulated by 3.3. Wind generation cost
DG
Ui;t DG
 Ui;t1 ¼ Sup
i;t
 Sdn
i;t (17) The wind power plant’s output generated power is highly un-
certain and is characterized as a random function of wind speed.
Minimum up and down time limits for DG unit i are also added
The wind turbine’s output power is a function of wind’s speed,
to the optimization problem, which are expressed as
expressed by
X
t 8
Stup;i  Ui;t
DG
; t2fUT; …; Tg > if vt < vi and vt > vo
(18) >0
>
>
i¼tUTþ1 < vt  vi
W
Pi;t ¼ Pnom if vi  vt  vnom (23)
>
> vnom  vi
X >
>
t :P if vnom  vt  vo
Stdn;i  1  Ui;t
DG
; t2fUT; …; Tg (19) nom
i¼tDTþ1
W is the wind power at time t, v is the wind speed at time t
where Pi;t t
where UT and DT are minimum up and down times of DG unit i in m/sec, vnom is the nominal wind speed in m/sec, vi is the cut-in
(Rajan et al., 2005). Parameters of the unit commitment problem wind speed in m/sec, vo is the cut-out wind speed in m/sec
for the DG were adopted from (Wood et al., 2013; Rajan et al., (Hetzer et al., 2008). In this study, a sample 24-h wind data was
2005), which can be found in Table C1 in the Appendix section. adopted for April 11, 2020 from the Pennsylvania State Climatolo-
gist website that provides detailed climatic information (The
3.2. Solar generation cost
15
T (° C)

The proposed microgrid model has an aggregated 500 kW PV

10
unit. The 24-h PV power profile was calculated via converting a
c

sample solar irradiance data into output power. The daily irradiance 5
5 10 15 20
(W/m2 )

data was adopted from (Global Monitoring Laboratory, 2020) for

April 11, 2020 and the output power of the PV was calculated using 1000
(20), 500
ac,t
G

Gac;t 0
PV 5 10 15 20
Pi;t ¼ PSTC ð1 þ KðTc  Ti ÞÞ (20)
GSTC
(kW)

500

250
PV

wherePiPV is the active power of ith PV unit in kW,PSTC is the PV

t
P

output power in standard temperature condition (STC),Gac;t is the 0

solar irradiance at time t, K is the temperature coefficient of the PV 5 10 15 20
Time (hour)
panel, which is equal to  0:0047(Hijjo et al., 2017). In addi-
tion,Tc and Ti are the reference and current temperatures of solar Fig. 2. 24-h temperature, solar irradiance, and PV output power data.
 F. Moazeni, J. Khazaei / Journal of Cleaner Production 275 (2020) 122776 7

Pennsylvania State Climatologist, 2020). Using the sample wind

speed data for 500 kW aggregated wind farm, cut-in, cut-out, and
Batt
Ei;t Batt
ðtÞ ¼ Ei;t1 Batt
þ Pi;t Dt (28)
nominal wind speed of 5, 45, and 15 m/s, respectively (Hetzer et al.,
2008), the wind farm’s output power data was calculated from (23) where Dt is the step size of the economic dispatch, which is
for a 24-h operating period. The results are illustrated in Fig. 3. considered as 1 h in this study. The energy level of the battery
The following equation presents the cost function of the wind should also be limited between the minimum and maximum
generation system (Augustine et al., 2012) available thresholds (Xiaoping et al., 2010)
  Min Batt Max
W
Fi;t W
Pi;t ¼ Kiwind Pi;t
W
(24) EBatt;i  Ei;t  EBatt;i (29)

The cost function of battery energy storage unit is expressed by

and Kiwind is the fixed purchased power coefficient of the wind  
Batt Batt
generation system, which was adopted from (Jin et al., 2017). Fi;t Pi;t ¼ Kibatt Pi;t
Batt
(30)
Similar to solar power, the wind energy generation is also bound to
the maximum and minimum available power, represented by
and Kibatt is a fixed purchased power coefficient for the battery
min W max storage, and is adopted from (Jin et al., 2017). In this study, the
PW;i;t  Pi;t  PW;i;t (25)
strategy for charging and discharging the battery is to ensure the
max is the maximum available wind power at time t, which is demand is always met. The storage will be charged to keep the
and PW;i;t
energy between the maximum and minimum limits as forced by
calculated by the sample wind speed data using (23) and is illus- the battery constraints. The charging happens with the cheapest
trated in Fig. 3. available energy in the micogrid during the hours that the demand
is completely met and more energy is available. More information
can be found in (Xiaoping et al., 2010; Pazheri et al., 2012;
3.4. Battery energy storage cost Mahmoodi et al., 2015; Jin et al., 2017).

In the economic dispatch model, the energy storage can operate

4. Co-optimization of micro water and microgrid
in both charging and discharging modes. Additionally, the model
incorporates the state of charge (SoC) of the storage unit to account
In the co-optimization model, the main objective is to minimize
for the availability of the battery. The storage operation is formu-
the total cost of power generation in an integrated water-energy
lated as the following (Xiaoping et al., 2010)
microgrid system shown in Fig. 1. The optimization problem de-
8 cides on choosing the cheapest energy resource depending on its
>
> Batt
>0 ðCharging ModeÞ
>
> if Pi;t availability (during the day), amount of hourly load, and cost of
<
if Batt
Pi;t <0 ðDischarging ModeÞ (26) generation. The proposed system is designed for an islanded water-
>
> energy microgrid, it resembles an islanded community that is
>
> Batt
: if Pi;t ¼ 0 ðStandby ModeÞ supported by a microgrid. The microgrid controller will manage all
the resources in this system at the point of interconnection. The
Batt is the storage power in kW at time t. The constraint
where Pi;t microgrid controller defines the operating points of the system
considering customers’ needs (Ton and Reilly, 2017). The co-
associated with charging or discharging mode of the battery can be
optimization model, presented by (31), aims to simultaneously
calculated by (Xiaoping et al., 2010; Eyisi et al., 2019)
minimize the overall cost of the combined micro water and energy
Max Batt Max systems, while meeting all the constraints of each individual sys-
Pi;chg  Pi;t  Pi;dis (27)
tem. In this model, the power requirement of the water network
becomes one of the constraints, in the form of an electrical load, to
Max and P Max are the maximum charging and discharging
where Pi;chg i;dis be met by the objective function.
powers available at time t. The dynamics of the energy generation
of the battery, at time t, can be represented by (Xiaoping et al., XTi X
NG;i

2010; Eyisi et al., 2019) Min DG

Fi;t PV
þ Fi;t W
þ Fi;t Batt
þ Fi;t þ Cup Sup
i;t
þ Cdn Sdn
i;t (31)
t¼1 i¼1

12 X
N G;i NX
pump
DG PV W Batt k
Pi;t þ Pi;t þ Pi;t þ Pi;t ¼ Pload þ Ppump;t (32)
v (m/sec)

10 i¼1 k¼1

8
t

6
5 10 15 20 5. Linearization of non-linear functions in the MINLP model
400
5.1. Linear approximation of cost functions in energy systems
(kW)

200 (univariate functions)

w,t
P

Cost functions of DGs expressed in (9) are univariate functions.

0
5 10 15 20 Piecewise linear approximation can be achieved by dividing the
Time (hour) overall cost function to n breakpoints (or sampling coordinates)
and approximating each segment with linear segments
Fig. 3. 24-h wind speed and output power data. ½ðPi ; Fi ðPi ÞÞ; ðPiþ1 ; Fi ðPiþ1 Þ; ði ¼ 1; …n 1Þ as illustrated in Fig. 4.
8 F. Moazeni, J. Khazaei / Journal of Cleaner Production 275 (2020) 122776

(39) ensure that only two consecutive l values take nonzero values
referring to (33). Equations 35e39 represent the linear approxi-
mation of generator cost functions for each DG unit.

5.2. Linear approximation of water system constraints (bivariate

functions)

In this section, the non-linear behavior of pump powers and

Bernoulli’s equation will be approximated using linear functions.
Let us define
 
DP Qtm;n ; rtk ¼ BQtm;n Dhkt (40)
Fig. 4. Piecewise linear approximation of a univariate cost function.

By replacing Dhkt from (3), the non-linear bivariate function of

For any given active power generation, e.g., Pi  P i  Piþ1 , the pump power is represented as

cost function value (Fi ðP i Þ) can be approximated by convex com-   h  2  2 i

bination of Fi ðPi Þ and Fi ðPiþ1 Þ via a unique continuous value, l2 DP Qtm;n ; rtk ¼ BQtm;n ak Qtm;n þ bk Qtm;n rtk þ ck rtk (41)
½0; 1 for each breakpoint i, such that
k
The pump’s output power is then represented by Ppump;t ¼
P i ¼ li Pi þ ð1  li ÞPiþ1 (33) Skt DPðQtm;n ; rtk Þ, which is a non-linear combination of pump’s
bivariate function (DPðQtm;n ; rtk Þ) and binary variable Sk , which can
Fi;t ðP i Þ ¼ li Fi ðP i Þ þ ð1  li ÞFi ðPiþ1 Þ (34) be linearized using Big M method (Copeland and Carter, 2014) as
the following
The above equations can be written for a standard linear pro-  
gramming solver by defining model variables and constraints that MSkt  DP Qtm;n ; rtk  MSkt (42)
force any Pi to be associated with an appropriate pair of consecutive
breakpoints. Each breakpoint will be associated with a continuous      
variable l2½0; 1, and each segment will be associated with a binary k
Ppump;t  M 1  Skt  DP Qtm;n ; rtk  Ppump;t
k
þ M 1  Skt
variable, h, (e.g., for segment i in interval ½Pi ; Piþ1 , li 2 ½0; 1 and a
(43)
binary variable hi are defined). Therefore, for n breakpoints and n
1 segments, n continuous values and n  1 binary variables are The bivariate function DPðQtm;n ; rtk Þ should then be approxi-
defined. The readers are encouraged to refer to (D’Ambrosio et al., mated to a linear function using piecewise linearization technique.
2010) for more information on piecewise linear functions and Next, referring to (7), let us consider DHðQtm;n ; rtk Þ as a bivariate
their MILP representation for univariate functions. The piecewise
function representing the Bernoulli’s equation.
linear approximation of cost function Fi ðPi Þ is expressed using the
following constraints
     1:85
DH Qtm;n ; rtk ¼ Hm;t  Hn;t þ Zm;t  Zn;t ¼ Fm;n Qtm;n  Dhkt
X
n
(44)
x
Pi;t ¼ li Pi ; x ¼ DG1 ; DG2 ; …; DGN (35)
i¼1 By replacing Dhkt from (3), one can find
   1:85  2  2
  X n
DH Qtm;n ; rtk ¼ Fm;n Qtm;n  ak Qtm;n  bk Qtm;n rtk  ck rtk
x
Fi;t Pi;t ¼ li Fi ðPi Þ (36)
i¼1 (45)

X
n1 which is another bivariate function that needs to be approximated
hi ¼ 1 (37) by piecewise linearization technique to represent the MINLP model
i¼1 by a linear programming model.
The approximation process can be explained by taking a look at
li  hi1 þ hi (38) bivariate functions plotted in Fig. 5 where x sampling coordinates
on Q-axis and t sampling coordinates on r axis can be considered.
X
n The functions DPðQtm;n ; rtk Þ and DHðQtm;n ; rtk Þ can then be evaluated
li ¼ 1 (39)
i¼1

In the above equations, (35) expresses the fact that any given
point Pi  P i  Piþ1 can be represented as a linear combination of
two consecutive breakpoints weighted by li as represented in (33).
In this equation, liþ1 ¼ 1  li . Equation (36) is a linear approxi-
mation of non-linear function Fi;t x as a convex combination of

function values at breakpoints weighted by li referring to (34) and

considering the fact that only two consecutive l values will be
nonzero only for any point. Furthermore, (37) ensures that only one
binary variable h out of n  1 takes a value of 1. Constraints (38) and Fig. 5. Piecewise linear approximation of bivariate functions (DH and DP).
 F. Moazeni, J. Khazaei / Journal of Cleaner Production 275 (2020) 122776 9

for each breakpoint (Qi ; rj )(i ¼ 1; …; x, j ¼ 1; …; t). For any given intervals ½Qi ; Qiþ1 Þ and ½rj ; rjþ1 Þ in Fig. 5, binary variables gi;j and gij
point say (Q ; r) with Qi  Q  Qiþ1 and rj  r  rjþ1 , a rectangle of and will be associated to the upper and lower triangles in the right
vertices ðQi ;rj Þ, ðQiþ1 ;rj Þ, ðQi ;rjþ1 Þ, and ðQiþ1 ; rjþ1 Þ can be considered side rectangle. Furthermore, (54) imposes that only non-zero aij
(see Fig. 5). By drawing a diagonal for this rectangle, two triangles values are the ones associated with three vertices of the triangle
known as upper and lower triangles are formed (see the right-side chosen in (53). Therefore, Equations (48)-(54) are linear approxi-
plot on Fig. 5). The lower triangle is differentiated by a binary mation of (1), (3), and (7). Furthermore, equation (16) represents
variable g and the upper triangle is differentiated by g. The function the non-linear behavior of tank level, which can be linearized using
value at (Q ; r) is approximated by convex combination of the the big M method as the following (Copeland and Carter, 2014)
function values evaluated at the vertices of the triangle containing  
T
Qmin  MSkt < Q0T þ Q T < Qmax
T
þ M 1  Skt (55)
(Q ; r). For example, if the bivariate function is considered to be
DPðQtm;n ; rtk Þ, the function’s value at (Q ; r) is represented by
According to equation (55), when Skt ¼ 1, the left-hand
      inequality does not impose any constraint, and thus Q0T þ
DPðQ ; rÞ ¼ li DP Qi ; rj þ mj DP Qiþ1 ; rjþ1 þ 1  li  mj Pn
Q T < Qmax
T . Otherwise, the right-hand inequality does not impose
(46) T < Q T þ Q T . The tank flow is therefore
any constraint, meaning Qmin 0
8   bounded by the minimum and maximum amounts. Consequently,
> rjþ1  rj
< DP Qiþ1 ; rj if r  rj þ ðQ  Qi Þ the overall optimization model is converted to a linear program-
P¼ Qiþ1  Qi (47)
>   ming model, which has a global feasible solution.
:
DP Qi ; rjþ1 Otherwise
6. Case studies
where li 2½0; 1, mj 2½0; 1, and ð1 li mj Þ2½0; 1 are continuous
variables representing the weights for the convex combination of A water-energy microgrid presented in Fig. 1 is studied. It is
the vertices of the appropriate triangle which includes the point (Q ; noted that the system size in an islanded water-energy network is
r). The above convex combination of the bivariate function can be normally limited to a few nodes. However, for large-scale imple-
extended to DHðQtm;n ; rtk Þ similarly. In linear programming, (46) and mentation of the economic dispatch problem in a smart grid system
(47) and two equations developed for linear approximation of with hundreds of nodes, the readers are encouraged to refer to
(Hansen et al., 2015; Mokarram et al., 2019).
DHðQtm;n ; rtk Þ are formulated by introducing x  t continuous vari-
The electrical loads accounted in the micro-energy system
ables ai;j 2½0; 1 and extending the equations to a three-
indicate the total electricity consumption of micro-energy system
dimensional space such that
over a 24-h period of operation. A typical profile for the load of a
x X
t
community is adopted from (Mariam et al., 2016) and demon-
X
ai;j ¼ 1 (48) strated in Fig. 6.
i¼1 j¼1 The total water demand in the studied system is equal to the
summation of all the demands at the nodes where the end-
customers take out the water (i.e.
x X
X t
QD ¼ QD3 þ QD4 þ QD5 þ QD6 þ QD7 in Fig. 1). It is worth mentioning
Qtm;n ¼ ai;j Qi (49)
i¼1 j¼1
that the water demand is the water that is taken out of the system
at each node, and will not be recycled back into the water-energy
microgrid but instead will enter the wastewater system. The pa-
x X
X t
rameters of the system are provided in the Appendix section.
rtk ¼ ai;j rj (50)
Two optimization problems will be considered; 1) optimization
i¼1 j¼1
of water demand (“Opt W”), where the objective function is to
minimize the power consumption of the pump with constraints
  x X
X t   represented in (1)-(7) and 2) co-optimization of water-energy
DH Qtm;n ; rtk ¼ ai;j DH Qi ; rj (51)
microgrid (“Co-opt W-E00 ) represented in (31). For each model,
i¼1 j¼1
the non-linear functions in the optimization formulations were
approximated to MILP models using piecewise linear functions for
  x X
X t   n ¼ 3 (two segments) and n ¼ 11 (10 segments). The results ob-
DP Qtm;n ; rtk ¼ ai;j DP Qi ; rj (52) tained from linear formulations were then compared with the
i¼1 j¼1
original MINLP models. Table 1 provides the properties of each
model for micro water system optimization (Opt W) and water-
x1 X
X t1  energy microgrid system co-optimization (Co-opt W-E). In this
gi;j þ gij ¼ 1 (53)
i¼1 j¼1

P Load
aij  gi;j þ gi;j þ gi;j1 þ gi1;j1 þ gi1;j1 þ gi1;j (54) 600
Power (kW)

Constraint (48) denotes that there exists only two consecutive a 400
values with nonzero values. Constraints (49) (50) represent the
liner approximation of flows and pump speeds, respectively. Con- 200
straints (51) and (52) denote the linear approximation of DH and 0 5 10 15 20 25
DP, respectively. Constraint (53) represents the fact that any given Time (Hour)
solution will be located in only one triangle for the convex com-
bination. For example, consider the rectangle corresponding to Fig. 6. 24-h electrical load data.
10 F. Moazeni, J. Khazaei / Journal of Cleaner Production 275 (2020) 122776

Table 1
Problem properties of MINLP and MILP methods. MINLP MILP (n=3) MILP (n=11)

Power Consumption (kW)

300
Co-opt Opt

W-E W
# MINLP MILP MILP MINLP MILP MILP 200
of n¼3 n ¼ 11 n¼3 n ¼ 11
Vars 17 45 397 8 33 369
Bin vars 4 24 256 1 19 243
Const 56 155 1213 22 106 1114 100
Lin ineq 14 33 155 4 18 130
Lin eq 4 9 9 1 4 4
Nonlin equ 3 0 0 2 0 0 0
Bounds 31 89 793 14 19 737 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (hour)

table, the number of decision variables (vars), the number of binary Fig. 8. 24-h power consumption of micro water via MINLP and triangle method MILP
variables (bin vars), the number of constraints (const), number of with n ¼ 3 and n ¼ 10.

linear inequality (lin ineq), linear equality (lin eq) and non-linear
equality (nonlin equ), and number of bounds are given.
water usage, following the peak hours of the water demand. The
As shown in Table 1, the original MINLP model includes 17
numerical results of these models are presented in Appendix B,
variables and 56 constraints for the co-optimization model and 8
Table B1. The total CPU time over 24-h period of operation associ-
variables and 22 constraints for the optimization of water demand
ated with MINLP model of the standalone water system is 1.043 s,
problem. Conversion of MINLP models to MILP has significantly
while it is 11.49 s in MILP model with n ¼ 3 and 3272 s in MILP with
expanded the size of optimization problems as it can be verified in
n ¼ 11. This is justified based on the high number of variables and
Table 1. For example, the MILP model with 11 breakpoints for the
constraints in MILP models, particularly with 10 segments. A
co-optimization of water-energy microgrid resulted in introducing
comparison between the results of the two MILP models clarifies
397 variables and 1213 constraints. Although the MILP models
that as the number of breakpoints increased, the results were closer
guarantee a global optimum, larger computing times are expected
to those from MINLP, thereby smaller error percentage (computed
for the central processing unit (CPU) for these models.
using (56)). As confirmed, in the MILP with n ¼ 11, the errors were
almost zero. This also agreed with the graphs in Fig. 8. However, as
6.1. Optimization of water and standalone energy networks expected from the size of the MILP with n ¼ 11 from Table 1, the
computing time of this model is very large, which is one of its
Water demand continuously fluctuates on an hourly and sea- drawbacks. None of the three models concluded any unsolved
sonal basis. During the day, the hours at which families are involved nodes within the time limit. The error was estimated using the
in more water-related activities, such as cooking and cleaning, following equation
show higher usage in the 24-h water demand profile. In the sum-  
mertime, the average daily usage of water is about 25% higher than Linear solution  Nonlinear solution
Error ð%Þ ¼ *100% (56)
the annual daily average (Viessman et al., 1998). Therefore, the Nonlinear solution
water demand calculations for this study was based upon an hourly
pattern of water usage throughout a summer day, with peaks
occurring at 7AM, 11AM, and 6PM (as shown in Fig. 7).
Solving the optimization model for the water demand (“Opt W00 )
6.1.1. Co-optimization of water-energy microgrid
resulted in power consumption of the studied water system (prior
Co-optimization of the studied water-energy microgrid using
to its integration with the energy system) for the water demand
both MINLP and MILP (n ¼ 3 and 11) models is done in this section.
shown in Fig. 7. Solution of the “Opt W00 problem for the daily water
Results of the daily operation of the system with each optimization
demand using MINLP and MILP models are presented in Fig. 8.
model are shown in Figs. 9e11, where the top subplots depict the
As can be seen in Fig. 8, the results of MINLP and MILP with 10
economic dispatch with a constant-speed pump set at 75% of its
segments (n ¼ 11) are perfectly identical, which is due to the larger
nominal speed, and the bottom subplots illustrate the effect of
breakpoints and thus tighter gap between the non-linear and linear
variable-speed pump on the daily dispatch.
lines within each segment. In addition, the hourly power con-
The network is developed to supply power to the electrical load
sumption in all three models mimicked the diurnal pattern of the
exhibited in Fig. 6 and the electrical consumption of the water
network (pump) shown in Fig. 8. The model would also result in
charging the BESS module if extra energy is available. It is evident
2500
from Figs. 9e11 that the daily contribution of DG is much less than
the generation of the renewable sources, which contributes to
Water Usage (m3 /h)

2000
reducing CO2 emissions, hence a cleaner power generation in all
1500 three case studies. In all three cases, the battery charging occurred
1000 during the hours of the day that the electrical demand was low and
extra renewable energy power was available, agreeing with the
500 pattern presented in Figs. 6 and 7. Comparing the results of power
generation profiles of MINLP and the two MILP models, one can
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 identify the almost identical patterns of MINLP and MILP with
Time (hour) n ¼ 11. It is also observed that minimum up/down limit constraints
of the DG unit have limited the scheduling of the DG throughout
Fig. 7. 24-h water demand for the studied network. the day. Therefore, the DG unit’s operation occurs during the initial
 F. Moazeni, J. Khazaei / Journal of Cleaner Production 275 (2020) 122776 11

DG PV Wind Battery Load

DG PV Wind Battery Load

1000
Power (kW)

1000

Power (kW)
500
500

0
0

-500 -500
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25

1000 1000
Power (kW)

Power (kW)
500 500

0 0

-500 -500
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (Hour) Time (Hour)

Fig. 9. 24-h electrical load dispatch of water-energy microgrid for an MINLP co- Fig. 11. 24-h electrical load dispatch of water-energy microgrid for an MILP co-
optimization considering two conditions of constant pumps’ speed (top subplot) and optimization with n ¼ 11 considering two conditions of constant pumps’ speed (top
variable pump’s speed (bottom subplot). subplot) and variable pump’s speed (bottom subplot).

MINLP MILP (n=3) MILP (n=11)

DG PV Wind Battery Load 60

40
1000
20
Power (kW)

Cost ($/h)

500 0
0 5 10 15 20 25
60
0
40
-500
0 5 10 15 20 25 20

1000 0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Power (kW)

Time (hour)
500

Fig. 12. Total hourly cost of electricity generation via the studied methods.
0

-500
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (Hour)
Fig. 10. 24-h electrical load dispatch of water-energy microgrid for an MILP co-
optimization with n ¼ 3 considering two conditions of constant pumps’ speed (top
subplot) and variable pump’s speed (bottom subplot).
hours of the day, when PV generation has not started yet and BESS
does not have enough energy to supply the load, and during the
night, when the PV generation becomes zero. It can also be
observed that batteries are charged during hours 1, 2, when the
load is minimum and hours 12e15, when renewable sources have
excess power. The electrical load trend was almost the same for all
three models. Second row subplots in Figs. 9e11 show the effect of
variable-speed pumps on economic dispatch of the system. The
pump’s normalized speed (r) was allowed to change between 0.5
and 1 during the day. Comparing the results with constant-speed
pumps in Figs. 9e11, it is observed that the total demand has
reduced significantly throughout the day. It is also noted that the
operation of DG has significantly reduced throughout the day,
which contributes to reduction in CO2 emissions and cleaner pro-
duction. The peak demand reductions during hours 8, 12, and 18
can also be observed in all three optimization models, indicating
savings on daily peak demand charges with variable-speed
operation of the pumps in water distribution systems. Finally,
compared to constant-speed cases, the variable-speed of pump
allowed more charging of energy storage during hours 12e16 for all
three cases, which is justified by the fact that the power con-
sumption of pump is reduced at lower speeds.
The numerical results are presented in Appendix B, Table B2.
Similar to the standalone water system optimization, the MILP co-
optimization with n ¼ 11 has the largest computational times
(2647 s) among the three co-optimization models, which was ex-
pected based on the large number of variables and constraints
involved in computation. However, compared with the standalone
optimization, a considerable improvement in CPU time of the co-
optimization is observed, indicating a more efficient optimization
compared to standalone water optimization. The error percentages
in all three co-optimization models (computed from (56)) are zero
or close to zero.
Furthermore, the hourly cost of energy generation resulted from
the three optimization models with variable and fixed pump speed
are shown in Fig. 12. The upper plot demonstrates the hourly cost in
constant-speed scenario and the lower plot depicts the variable-
speed case study. As it can be seen, the hourly cost of operation is
enforced by the DG unit cost as it provides a more expensive cost
compared to PV, wind, or BESS. This can also be verified by looking
at the economic dispatch of the DG unit in Figs. 9e11. In addition,
12 F. Moazeni, J. Khazaei / Journal of Cleaner Production 275 (2020) 122776
the results of the MILP with large number of breakpoints (n ¼ 11)
are very close to those of the MINLP model. There is a small dif-
ference between the MILP with n ¼ 3 outcomes and the MINLP
results, which agree with the error percentages provided in table
B2. Furthermore, the average hourly costs achieved from the
variable-speed pump are lower compared to the fixed-speed case
study. For example, the maximum hourly cost of generation during
hours 7e10 and 17e20 is around $45, but the price is less than $40
for the same hours in variable-speed case (bottom subplot in
Fig. 12). Therefore, significant savings can be achieved by incorpo-
rating variable-speed operation of pumps during the day in water
distribution networks.
6.2. Implications for theory and practice
The day-ahead economic dispatch proposed in the MINLP and
MILP co-optimization models result in significant cost reduction
and energy saving at the micro water-energy system due to the
minimization of the power demand of the pumps, reduction of the
peak demands, and allocation of the cheapest source for power
generation at any hour in the micro energy system. Additionally,
incorporating renewable sources in the models helps moving the
micro water-energy system towards sustainability and clean power
production, while contributes to carbon management and green-
house gas mitigation. This becomes a considerable source of energy
saving and cost offsetting parameter in metropolitan water-energy
networks, where there are hundreds of pumps and several water
tanks and reservoirs with high demands for electricity.
7. Conclusion
In this paper, a mixed integer nonlinear programming (MINLP)
model was formulated to minimize the cost of operation of a water-
energy microgrid. To add global optimality to the MINLP formula-
tion, piecewise linear functions were used to approximate the
nonlinear behavior of cost function of conventional power plants,
pump’s output power, and conservation of energy-mass as linear
functions. In addition, the MINLP model and MILP formulation with
11 breakpoints are in agreement with minimum error, however, the
CPU computational time and number of variables have significantly
reduced the convergence speed of the MILP formulation with 11
breakpoints. The MILP formulation with 3 points provides a fast
convergence time and CPU time close to MINLP formulation,
however, there is a small percentage error on the final answer. The
MILP model with 11 breakpoints results in global optimum with
minimum error, however, the convergence time and number of
variables/constraints are significantly increased. The co-
optimization of the water-energy microgrid provides the mini-
mum cost and maximum use of renewable energy sources to
reduce the power consumption of water distribution systems. The
proposed models can directly be applied in SCADA center of water-
energy systems for daily economic dispatch problem that utilizes
renewable energy sources and storage units to meet the water
demands of a community. As a result, the reduced power demand
of the water sector is satisfied at a lower cost, while contributing to
a cleaner power production at the energy sector. It was concluded
that daily energy savings can be achieved by incorporating
variable-speed pumps in the water distribution network. Use of
variable-speed pumps allowed reduction in power consumption of
water distribution network, which reduced the daily power gen-
eration of conventional DG units. Also, reduction of the load
resulted in more charging of battery energy storage units during
afternoon, when excess renewable energy generation was available.
The main challenge in applying the proposed models could be the
lack of SCADA system in many water networks in the United States,
which is an economic burden for these facilities to upgrade their
process to an autonomous control system. A combined water-
energy system’s operation offers significant savings that can
justify the cooperation of interlinked water and energy sectors in
future. Future work will focus on integration of water treatment
facilities and grid-connection capabilities of the water-energy
microgrid systems in presence of uncertainties and load changes.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Faegheh Moazeni: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,
Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - original draft,
Writing - review & editing, Visualization. Javad Khazaei: Concep-
tualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing,
Visualization.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Appendix A
The base water demand, pressure head of the tank, pipe’s di-
ameters, and pump’s flow are calculated from the following equa-
tions for Middletown, PA, where Penn State campus is located. In
reality, these data are available as part of the SCADA recordings
(Rasekh, Amin and Hassanzadeh, Amin and Mulchandani, Shaan
and Modi, Shimon and Banks, M Katherine, 2016).
The base water demand for each street is calculated as
Water demand ¼ NB  NO  R  P
where NB is the number of buildings obtained from Google Earth
NO ¼ number of occupants per building assumed based on the type
of the building, R ¼ average rate of water usage (m3 =d=capita)
which is obtained from PA’s water system design manual for each
building’s application (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, 2014), and P ¼ peaking factor (%) obtained from
Goodrich formula (Brie re, 2014)
P ¼ 180t 0:1
where t is the time in day. The base demand is then multiplied by
the 24-h multipliers from (Walski et al., 2003) to acquire the hourly
water demand profile presented in Fig. 7. According to the mass
continuity equation, the pipe’s diameter can be calculated from the
in-pipe flow and velocity of the water inside the pipe, assuming a
full-flow model, such that (Houghtalen et al., 2016)
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
4Q
D¼
pV
where Q is the in-pipe flow calculated from mass balance at each
node (m3 =s), V is the velocity, assumed to be 0.9 m=s which is a
typical velocity according to PA’s design manual, and D is the pipe’s
diameter (m). The calculated diameter will be rounded up to the
next commercially available pipe size.
 F. Moazeni, J. Khazaei / Journal of Cleaner Production 275 (2020) 122776 13

The elevations at each node, Z values, are from Google Earth.

Also, the pipes’ lengths are equal to the streets’ lengths, estimated Table C2
from Google Earth. All pipes are assumed to be 20-year old cast- Parameters of water distribution system

iron with the roughness of C ¼ 100 in the Hazen-Williams head- Parameter Values Parameter Values
loss equation (Houghtalen et al., 2016). The tank and reservoir B 2:75e3 Ti 78 $/MWh
pressure heads are exported from EPANET (a hydraulic simulator)
Q0T 0 m3 =h L12 300 m
design of the network. The pumps’ properties, i.e., a; b; c, are T
Qmin 763:4070 m3 =h D12 1m
adopted from (Ulanicki et al., 2008). T
Qmax 1:2723e3 m3 =h C 100
R
Qmin 1:272e3 m3 =h a  1:0941e4
R
Qmax 1:0e6 m3 =h b 3:9929e2
Appendix B Z1 ; Z2 20; 60 m c 223.32
Z3 ; Z4 44; 43 m Z5 ; Z6 ; Z7 40; 37; 34 m

Computational results of the standalone micro water optimi-

zation, as well as micro water-energy co-optimization are pre-
sented in Tables B1 and B2.

References

Al-Sumaiti, A.S., Salama, M.M., El-Moursi, M., 2017. Enabling electricity access in
Table B1
developing countries: a probabilistic weather driven house based approach.
Results for Micro Water Optimization
Appl. Energy 191, 531e548.
MINLP Al-Sumaiti, A.S., Ahmed, M.H., Rivera, S., El Moursi, M.S., Salama, M.M., Alsumaiti, T.,
2019a. Stochastic PV model for power system planning applications. IET Renew.
CPU time #of #of Ave. Error Unsolved Power Gener. 13 (16), 3168e3179.
Al-Sumaiti, A.S., Salama, M., El-Moursi, M., Alsumaiti, T.S., Marzband, M., 2019b.
(sec) nodes Iter. (%) nodes Enabling electricity access: a comprehensive energy efficient approach miti-
1.043 0 0 NA 0 gating climate/weather variabilityePart II. IET Generation. Transm. Distrib. 13
MILP (n ¼ 3) (12), 2572e2583.
11.489 25 483 0.36 0 Al-Sumaiti, A.S., Salama, M., El-Moursi, M., Alsumaiti, T.S., Marzband, M., 2019c.
MILP (n ¼ 11) Enabling electricity access: revisiting load models for AC-grid operation-part I.
3272 3147 117,033 0.0003 0 IET Generation. Transm. Distrib. 13 (12), 2563e2571.
Al-Sumaiti, A.S., Salama, M., Konda, S.R., Kavousi-Fard, A., 2019d. A guided pro-
cedure for governance institutions to regulate funding requirements of solar PV
projects. IEEE Access 7, 54203e54217.
Augustine, N., Suresh, S., Moghe, P., Sheikh, K., 2012. Economic dispatch for a
microgrid considering renewable energy cost functions. In: 2012 IEEE PES
Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (ISGT). IEEE, pp. 1e7.
Table B2 Baleta, J., Mikulci
c, H., Klemes, J.J., Urbaniec, K., Dui
c, N., 2019. Integration of energy,
Results for Water-Energy Microgrid Co-Optimization water and environmental systems for a sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod.
215, 1424e1436.
MINLP Bragalli, C., D’Ambrosio, C., Lee, J., Lodi, A., Toth, P., 2012. On the optimal design of
water distribution networks: a practical MINLP approach. Optim. Eng. 13 (2),
CPU time #of #of Ave. Error Unsolved 219e246.
re, François G., 2014. Drinking-water Distribution, Sewage, and Rainfall
Brie
(sec) nodes Iter. (%) nodes
Collection. Presses inter Polytechnique.
2.488 0 0 NA 0
Cherchi, C., Badruzzaman, M., Gordon, M., Bunn, S., Jacangelo, J.G., 2015. Investi-
MILP (n ¼ 3)
gation of cost and energy optimization of drinking water distribution systems.
14.80 18 0 0.078 0 Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (22), 13724e13732.
MILP (n ¼ 11) Copeland, C., Carter, N.T., 2014. Energy-water Nexus: the Water Sector’s Energy Use,
2647 342 8934 0.000 0 vol. 43200. Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC, USA.
Dai, J., Wu, S., Han, G., Weinberg, J., Xie, X., Wu, X., Song, X., Jia, B., Xue, W., Yang, Q.,
2018. Water-energy nexus: a review of methods and tools for macro-assess-
ment. Appl. Energy 210, 393e408.
Daw, J.A., Kandt, A.J., Macknick, J.E., Giraldez Miner, J.I., Anderson, K.H.,
Appendix C Armstrong, N., Adams, J., 2018. Energy-water Microgrid Opportunity Analysis at
the University of arizona’s Biosphere 2 Facility. Tech. Rep. National Renewable
The parameters used in the water and energy systems are pro- Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO (United States).
D’Ambrosio, C., Lodi, A., Martello, S., 2010. Piecewise linear approximation of
vided in this section in Tables C1 and C2. functions of two variables in milp models. Oper. Res. Lett. 38 (1), 39e46.
Eyisi, C., Al-Sumaiti, A.S., Turitsyn, K., Li, Q., 2019. Mathematical models for opti-
mization of grid-integrated energy storage systems: a review. In: 2019 North
American Power Symposium (NAPS). IEEE, pp. 1e5.
Falco, G.J., Webb, W.R., 2015. Water microgrids: the future of water infrastructure
resilience. Procedia Eng. 118, 50e57.
Global Monitoring Laboratory, 2020. Pennsylvania state university SURFRAD
Table C1
network. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/pennstat.html.
Parameters of microgrid system
(Accessed April 2020).
Parameter Values Guo, L., Liu, W., Li, X., Liu, Y., Jiao, B., Wang, W., Wang, C., Li, F., 2014. Energy
management system for stand-alone wind-powered-desalination microgrid.
DG aDG ¼ 1:82, bDG ¼ 0:065, gDG ¼ 0:000044 IEEE Trans. Smart Grid. 7 (2), 1079e1087.
P DG;min ¼ 0, P DG;max ¼ 500 kW, Rmax max
up ¼ Rdown ¼ 200 kW
Hansen, T.M., Roche, R., Suryanarayanan, S., Maciejewski, A.A., Siegel, H.J., 2015.
DT ¼ UT ¼ 3, Cup ¼ 0:01 $/kW, Cdn ¼ 0:01$/kW Heuristic optimization for an aggregator-based resource allocation in the smart
grid. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid. 6 (4), 1785e1794.
PV K PV ¼ 0:001 $/kW, PPV
min ¼ 0,
Hetzer, J., David, C.Y., Bhattarai, K., 2008. An economic dispatch model incorporating
PSTC ¼ 500 kW, GSTC ¼ 1000 W=m2 wind power. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 23 (2), 603e611.
Wind K wind ¼ 0:001 $/kW, PWmin ¼ 0, P
nom ¼ 500 kW Hijjo, M., Felgner, F., Frey, G., 2017. Pv-battery-diesel microgrid design for buildings
Batt K batt ¼ 0:65, Pchg
Max ¼ 500, P Max ¼ 500 kW
dis subject to severe power outages. In: 2017 IEEE PES PowerAfrica. IEEE,
0
EBatt Min ¼ 0, E Max ¼ 800 kWh
¼ 700, EBatt pp. 280e285.
Batt
Time Dt ¼ 1, Ti ¼ 24 H Houghtalen, R.J., Osman, A., Hwang, N.H., 2016. Fundamentals of Hydraulic Engi-
neering Systems. Prentice Hall, New York.
14 F. Moazeni, J. Khazaei / Journal of Cleaner Production 275 (2020) 122776
Jin, X., Mu, Y., Jia, H., Wu, J., Jiang, T., Yu, X., 2017. Dynamic economic dispatch of a
hybrid energy microgrid considering building based virtual energy storage
system. Appl. Energy 194, 386e398.
Lele, U., Klousia-Marquis, M., Goswami, S., 2013. Good governance for food, water
and energy security. Aquatic Procedia 1, 44e63.
Li, Q., Yu, S., Al-Sumaiti, A., Turitsyn, K., 2018a. Modeling and co-optimization of a
micro water-energy nexus for smart communities. In: 2018 IEEE PES Innovative
Smart Grid Technologies Conference Europe (ISGT-Europe). IEEE, pp. 1e5.
Li, Q., Yu, S., Al-Sumaiti, A.S., Turitsyn, K., 2018b. Micro watereenergy nexus:
optimal demand-side management and quasi-convex hull relaxation. IEEE
Trans. Control. Network Sys. 6 (4), 1313e1322.
Li, Cuiping, et al., 2020. Economic dispatching strategy of distributed energy storage
for deferring substation expansion in the distribution network with distributed
generation and electric vehicle. J. Clean. Prod. 253, 119862.
Lu, X., Zhou, K., Yang, S., 2017. Multi-objective optimal dispatch of microgrid con-
taining electric vehicles. J. Clean. Prod. 165, 1572e1581.
Mahmoodi, M., Shamsi, P., Fahimi, B., 2015. Economic dispatch of a hybrid microgrid
with distributed energy storage. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid. 6 (6), 2607e2614.
Mariam, L., Basu, M., Conlon, M.F., 2016. Microgrid: architecture, policy and future
trends. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 64, 477e489.
Mokarram, M.J., Niknam, T., Aghaei, J., Shafie-khah, M., Catalao, J.P., 2019. Hybrid
optimization algorithm to solve the nonconvex multiarea economic dispatch
problem. IEEE Sys. J. 13 (3), 3400e3409.
Morales-Espan ~ a, G., Latorre, J.M., Ramos, A., 2013. Tight and compact MILP
formulation for the thermal unit commitment problem. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.
28 (4), 4897e4908.
Nazari-Heris, M., Mirzaei, M.A., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B., Marzband, M., Asadi, S.,
2020. Economic-environmental effect of power to gas technology in coupled
electricity and gas systems with price-responsive shiftable loads. J. Clean. Prod.
244, 118769.
Nguyen, H., Al-Sumaiti, A.S., Turitsyn, K., Li, Q., El Moursi, M.S., 2020. Further
optimized scheduling of micro grids via dispatching virtual electricity storage
offered by deferrable power-driven demands. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.
Obukhov, S., Ibrahim, A., Diab, A.A.Z., Al-Sumaiti, A.S., Aboelsaud, R., 2020. Optimal
performance of dynamic particle swarm optimization based maximum power
trackers for stand-alone PV system under partial shading conditions. IEEE Ac-
cess 8, 20770e20785.
Oikonomou, K., Parvania, M., 2018. Optimal coordination of water distribution en-
ergy flexibility with power systems operation. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid. 10 (1),
1101e1110.
Oikonomou, K., Parvania, M., 2019. Optimal participation of water desalination
plants in electricity demand response and regulation markets. IEEE Sys. J.
https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2019.2943451.
Oikonomou, K., Parvania, M., Khatami, R., 2018. Optimal demand response sched-
uling for water distribution systems. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 14 (11), 5112e5122.
Palma-Behnke, R., Benavides, C., Aranda, E., Llanos, J., Saez, D., 2011. Energy man-
agement system for a renewable based microgrid with a demand side man-
agement mechanism. In: 2011 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence
Applications in Smart Grid (CIASG). IEEE, pp. 1e8.
Pazheri, F., Othman, M., Malik, N., Safoora, O., 2012. Economic and environmental
dispatch at highly potential renewable area with renewable storage. Int. J. En-
viron. Sustain Dev. 3 (2), 177.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 2014. PA water system
design manual, Part II. http://www.depgreenport.state.pa.us/elibrary/.
(Accessed April 2020).
Rajan, D., Takriti, S., et al., 2005. Minimum up/down polytopes of the unit
commitment problem with start-up costs. IBM Res. Rep 23628, 1e14.
Rasekh, Amin, Hassanzadeh, Amin, Mulchandani, Shaan, Modi, Shimon, Banks, M
Katherine, 2016. Smart Water Networks and Cyber Security.
Rezvani, A., Gandomkar, M., Izadbakhsh, M., Ahmadi, A., 2015. Environmental/
economic scheduling of a micro-grid with renewable energy resources. J. Clean.
Prod. 87, 216e226.
Saadat, H., 1999. Power System Analysis. WCB/McGraw-Hill.
Santhosh, A., Farid, A.M., Youcef-Toumi, K., 2014. Real-time economic dispatch for
the supply side of the energy-water nexus. Appl. Energy 122, 42e52.
Scarazzato, T., Panossian, Z., Teno rio, J., Perez-Herranz, V., Espinosa, D., 2017.
A review of cleaner production in electroplating industries using electrodialysis.
J. Clean. Prod. 168, 1590e1602.
Scott, C.A., Pierce, S.A., Pasqualetti, M.J., Jones, A.L., Montz, B.E., Hoover, J.H., 2011.
Policy and institutional dimensions of the watereenergy nexus. Energy Pol. 39
(10), 6622e6630.
Soshinskaya, M., Crijns-Graus, W.H., van der Meer, J., Guerrero, J.M., 2014. Appli-
cation of a microgrid with renewables for a water treatment plant. Appl. Energy
134, 20e34.
The Pennsylvania State Climatologist, 2020. Hourly climatology data. http://climate.
psu.edu/data/. (Accessed April 2020).
Ton, D., Reilly, J., 2017. Microgrid controller initiatives: an overview of R&D by the
US Department of Energy. IEEE Power Energy Mag. 15 (4), 24e31.
Tsolas, S.D., Karim, M.N., Hasan, M.F., 2018. Optimization of water-energy nexus: a
network representation-based graphical approach. Appl. Energy 224, 230e250.
Ulanicki, B., Kahler, J., Coulbeck, B., 2008. Modeling the efficiency and power
characteristics of a pump group. J. Water Resour. Plann. Manag. 134 (1), 88e93.
Viessman, W., Hammer, M.J., Perez, E.M., Chadik, P.A., 1998. Water Supply and
Pollution Control.
Walski, T.M., Chase, D.V., Savic, D.A., Grayman, W., Beckwith, S., Koelle, E., 2003.
Advanced Water Distribution Modeling and Management.
Wood, A.J., Wollenberg, B.F., Sheble , G.B., 2013. Power Generation, Operation, and
Control. John Wiley & Sons.
Xiaoping, L., Ming, D., Jianghong, H., Pingping, H., Yali, P., 2010. Dynamic economic
dispatch for microgrids including battery energy storage. In: The 2nd Interna-
tional Symposium on Power Electronics for Distributed Generation Systems.
IEEE, pp. 914e917.
Yin, S., Zhang, S., Andrews-Speed, P., Li, W., 2017. Economic and environmental
effects of peak regulation using coal-fired power for the priority dispatch of
wind power in China. J. Clean. Prod. 162, 361e370.