Energy and Buildings 129 (2016) 524534

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings

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

A GA-based system sizing method for net-zero energy buildings

considering multi-criteria performance requirements under
parameter uncertainties
Zhun (Jerry) Yu a , Jiayu Chen b , Yongjun Sun c, , Guoqiang Zhang a
a
College of Civil Engineering, National Center for International Research Collaboration in Building Safety and Environment, Hunan University, Changsha,
Hunan 410082, China
b
Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
c
Division of Building Science and Technology, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 18 June 2016
Received in revised form 5 August 2016
Accepted 6 August 2016
Available online 10 August 2016
Keywords:
Net-zero energy building
Uncertainty
Energy storage
System sizing
Genetic algorithm

a b s t r a c t
Net-zero energy buildings (NZEBs) are considered as an effective solution to current environmental and
energy problems. To achieve expected performance, system sizes in a NZEB must be properly selected.
Parameter uncertainties have been proved to have signicant impacts on system sizing and need to be
systematically considered. Due to complex uncertainty impacts, proper system sizing in a NZEB with
multi-criteria performance is always a real challenge. To deal with the challenge, this study presents a
genetic algorithm-GA based system sizing method for NZEBs. Taking users multi-criteria performance
requirements as constraints, the proposed method aims to minimize total system initial costs by selecting
proper sizes of ve different systems under uncertainties. The ve systems include an air-conditioning
system, photovoltaic panels, wind turbines, a thermal energy storage system and an electrical energy
storage system. The performance requirements come from three diverse criteria which are zero energy,
thermal comfort and grid independence. Using real weather data of 20 years in Hong Kong, the case studies
demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method in selecting proper system sizes corresponding
to user specied performance requirements. In addition, the results indicate conventional descriptions
of parameter uncertainties need to be improved for better system sizing of NZEBs.
2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Building accounts for about 40% energy use in worldwide and
it consumes more than 90% energy in Hong Kong [1,2]. With such
signicant energy consumption, building plays an important role
in energy conservation and environmental protection. Utilizing
renewables to meet their energy demands, net-zero energy buildings (NZEBs) are considered as an effective solution to the worlds
increasing energy and environmental problems [3]. Many countries
have set up clear targets through legislations for promoting NZEB
practical applications. For instance, the U.S. government has set a
zero-energy target for 50% of commercial buildings by 2040 and
for all commercial buildings by 2050 [3]. The Europe has planned
to transfer all its new buildings to be nearly net zero energy buildings after 2020 [4].

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yongjsun@cityu.edu.hk (Y. Sun).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.08.032
0378-7788/ 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Proper system sizing is crucial to ensure that NZEBs achieve the

expected performance in terms of energy balance, thermal comfort and grid friendliness [5]. A typical NZEB contains diverse types
of systems including renewable energy systems, energy consuming systems (e.g. HVAC) and energy storage systems [57]. Energy
storage systems can be further classied into thermal energy storage systems and electrical energy storage systems. In fact, energy
storage systems are essential for stand-alone NZEBs but optional
for grid-connected NZEBs since a grid could be viewed as a virtual
electrical energy storage system [6]. In a NZEB, the sizing of these
systems is not independent but interconnected [7]. For instance,
to achieve energy balance, the size of energy consuming systems,
which is primarily responsible for annual building energy demand,
is the basis to size the renewable energy system. Such intrinsic
connections make system sizing more complex for NZEBs than for
traditional buildings.
Different methods have been developed for system sizing
of NZEBs. Most conventional system sizing methods are based
on deterministic data/information without uncertainty analysis

Z. Yu et al. / Energy and Buildings 129 (2016) 524534

[11,1829]. As HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning)

systems account for large parts of building energy demand [8,9],
they are regarded as main energy-consuming systems in buildings.
Proper HVAC system sizing is critical to NZEB energy efciency
and indoor environment [10]. For indoor thermal comfort, HVAC
systems are sized to meet peak cooling/heating loads. In existing
methods, the peak cooling load were estimated through two simple methods: the worst case scenario method and the safety factor
method [11]. In the former method, all the inputs were chosen in
such a manner that they led to the largest peak cooling load. In the
latter method, a safety factor was deliberately added to the peak
cooling load that was calculated under typical design conditions
[12]. Both methods depend heavily on the empirical knowledge
of building designers. Although both methods have been practiced
for a long time, oversized design is still a popular problem in HVAC
sizing applications [13,14]. For example, more than 40% of rooftop
units were found to be oversized by more than 25% [15]. In another
study, a method was proposed to quantify the oversizing ratio and
found that it was common that systems were oversized by as much
as 100% [14]. Since energy savings of 0.2% is available for every
1% reduction in oversizing [16], signicant energy savings can be
achieved if proper uncertainty analysis is conducted to overcome
the HVAC oversized problems.
In a NZEB, the renewable energy system is designed to meet
the buildings annual energy demand. To meet the energy balance with improved efciency, stability and cost effectiveness, two
key questions need to be answered in the system design [17].
First, since multiple renewable resources are available (e.g. wind,
solar and geothermal), which of them should be used together
(i.e. system combination)? Second, with the selected renewable
resources, how to determine their individual sizes (i.e. individual
system sizing)? In the eld of renewable energy system combination and sizing, many studies have been conducted for distributed
energy systems. Note that NZEBs are also considered to be distributed energy systems from the perspective of renewable-energy
generation [17]. Some researchers used existing optimization software, such as HOMER [18,19] whereas others developed their own
optimal combination and sizing methods using different programming technologies, such as dynamic programming [20] and mixed
integer linear programming [21]. In addition, a few researchers simulated the problems with varying input values and analyzed the
results [22]. Most of the methods have not consider the related
uncertainties in a systematic way. For instance, signicant uncertainties have been observed in yearly wind-power density over the
last 10 years, i.e. approximately 11% for onshore sites and 30% for
offshore sites [31]. Ignoring these uncertainties, designers/decision
maker can easily be misled to improper renewable energy system
combination and sizing [32].
Due to the intermittent and unstable nature of renewable
resources, the power generated in NZEBs does not always meet
their demand, resulting in a power mismatch. This inherent power
mismatch leads to highly uctuating energy exchange between
NZEBs and grids, which exerts stress on the grids, jeopardizing
power balance and power-supply quality (e.g. voltage uctuations)
[23,24]. To mitigate the grid stress and improve the grid friendliness/independence of NZEBs, recently increasing attention has
been paid to the utilization of energy storage systems. This system
allows for correcting the mismatch between the energy demand
and supply through storing and discharging energy in different
periods [25]. The optimization of energy storage system sizing plays
a crucial role in successfully applying it to NZEBs, which mainly
involves nding the optimal energy capacities with an established
objective function [23,24]. Different optimization methods were
developed in prior studies, most of which used search heuristics
or optimization algorithms based on input parameter variations
to identify appropriate sizes [2325]. Meanwhile, the intermittent

525

characteristics of energy demand and energy supply proles led

to promising stochastic approaches [2628]. In addition, since different objectives may be pursued simultaneously, multi-objective
optimization approaches were also undertaken [29]. Lack in the
consideration of associated uncertainties, these methods optimized
energy storage system sizes based on deterministic information of
energy demand and generation. In consequence, NZEB mismatch
uctuation may not be effectively mitigated and heavy stress is
still imposed by NZEBs on grid side.
The common limitation of the conventional system sizing methods is that they are based on deterministic data/information,
which prevents consideration of uncertainties relating to weather,
building energy demand and system performance degradation
[30,31]. For instance, deterministic weather data used at the
design stage may differ considerably from real weather during
use [30]. Lacking systematic uncertainty considerations, designers can be easily misled to improper system sizes which result in
poor NZEB performance in multiple dimensions including excessive initial costs, unsatisfying occupant comfort and poor grid
friendliness/independence. Such multi-dimension poor performance becomes a main hurdle to the wide applications of NZEBs
in practice and urgent effort is needed to overcome it [14,17,32]
Therefore, this study aims to develop a genetic algorithm-GA based
system sizing method for NZEBs considering multi-criteria performance requirements under uncertainties. The structure of the
paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the methodology and Section 3 presents the modelling of building and systems.
In Section 4, case studies are performed and associated results are
analyzed. The conclusive remarks are given in Section 5.
2. Methodology
Fig. 1 shows the basic idea of the GA based system sizing method
for NZEBs. GA is a search heuristic that mimics the process of natural selection. Due to its powerful searching capability, GA has been
widely used for optimal search [37]. The inputs mainly include
the system search ranges and the uncertainty descriptions. In this
study, the considered systems include a central air-conditioning
system, a photovoltaic panel system, a wind turbine system, a thermal energy storage system and an electrical energy storage system.
Following existing studies [10], the parameter uncertainties are
described using typical statistical distributions (i.e. normal distribution). In this study, scenario parameter uncertainties are mainly
considered. Random sampling method will be used to generate
uncertainty samples for the Monte Carlo-based performance evaluation. The tness function of the GA searching is established to
minimize the total initial cost of the ve systems with given unit
price of each system. Users performance requirements are considered as practical constraints and a noticeable economic penalty is
added if any of them is not satised. The outputs are the optimized
system sizes determined based on the GA searching method.
2.1. Uncertainty description and sampling
Scenario parameters are related to real-time operation of buildings and systems during their operation life (e.g. solar radiation and
wind speed) which are difcult to control [10]. Scenario parameters have uncertainties mainly because they are uncontrollable
and most of them are predicted either from existing data or by
rules of thumb [10]. Four scenario parameters will be considered and they are ambient temperature, relative humidity (RH),
solar radiation and wind speed. Previous studies have shown that
these scenario parameters are associated with uncertainties which
have signicant impacts on building system design [6,7,9]. The
characteristics of these uncertainties can be described by normal

526

Z. Yu et al. / Energy and Buildings 129 (2016) 524534

Fig. 1. Schematics of the GA based system sizing for NZEBs.

Table 1
Base values and uncertainty distributions of the four scenario parameters.
Parameters

Unit

Uncertainty distribution

Truncation

Ambient temperature
Ambient relative humidity
Solar radiation
Wind speed

N (1 , 3.22 )
N (2 , 112 )
N (3 , 562 )
N (4 , 2.32 )

[13,35]
[40,99]
[0,1111]
[0,45]

C
%
W/m2
m/s

distribution [14,33,34] In this study, normal distributions will be

used to describe the uncertainties associated with ambient temperature, RH, solar radiation and wind speed, as shown in Table 1. It is
worth noting that inaccurate uncertainty description may directly
lead to improper uncertainty analysis and system sizing.
For each uncertain parameter, a row of N samples is generated
from the assigned distribution using random sampling approach.
Formed by the 4 uncertain parameters, an input matrix with
dimensions 4 N is sent to the Monte Carlo simulation for system
performance evaluation. Monte Carlo simulation is a sample-based
method which relies on repeated sampling to obtain numerical
results. Due to its simplicity and convenience, Monte Carlo method
has been widely used to obtain output distribution especially in the
presence of multiple input uncertainties [10].

2.2. Fitness function and constraints

The GA-based system sizing method aims to minimize the total
system initial cost while satisfying users multi-criteria performance requirements under uncertainties, as shown in Eq. (1). Users
performance requirements mainly come from three criteria, i.e.
energy balance, thermal comfort and grid independence. The size of
each system has different and joint impacts on these criteria which
makes the aim complex. These performance requirements are considered as practical constraints in the GA method. Zero energy
constraint (i.e. Czero ) mainly considers whether the sized renewable
system can generate the same amount of energy as total energy use
in a NZEB. Thermal comfort constraint (i.e. Ccomfort ) mainly considers accumulated thermally dissatised hours caused by insufcient
cooling/heating supply from the sized systems. Grid independence
constraint (i.e. Cgrid ) mainly considers accumulated time of zero

power exchange between a NZEB and a grid. A longer accumulated

period of zero power ex ZEB from a grid.
J = min(AC CAPAC + PV CAPPV + WT CAPWT
+TS CAPTS + ES CAPES )

(1)

subject to Czero , Ccomfort , Cgrid

where, subscripts AC, PV, WT, TS and ES represent air-conditioning
system, photovoltaic system, wind turbine system, thermal energy
storage system and electrical energy storage system, respectively;
CAP represents system size and denotes the unit price of each
system.
Since uncertainties are considered via the Monte Carlo simulation, constraints are no longer described using single point values
but statistical distributions. To this end, the three constraints are
established using the means of cumulative probabilities in Eqs. (2),
(3), and (4). In these equations each individual constraint is dened
) and an expected cumulative
by a performance threshold (
probability (), which are determined by users. The performance
threshold indicates users specied performance requirement. For
comfort = 1 h and the
instance, if a user selects the threshold 
expected cumulative probability comfort = 90%, the corresponding
thermal comfort constraint is described as that in the presence of
uncertainties, the user expects 90% of all annual discomfort hours
(i.e.[comfort,1 , ...comfort,i , ...comfort,N ]) should not be more than
1 h.
zero ) zero
Czero cdf ([zero,1 , ...zero,i , ...zero,N ] 
Ccomfort

(2)

comfort ) comfort
cdf ([comfort,1 , ...comfort,i , ...comfort,N ] 
(3)
grid ) grid
Cgrid cdf ([grid,1 , ...grid,i , ...grid,N ] 

(4)

where, i represents the ith year and N is the total years in the
Monte Carlo simulation; cdf indicates the cumulative probabil denotes a user-dened performance threshold; and  is the
ity; 
expected cumulative probability selected by users.
With regard to the zero energy/energy balance evaluation
(zero ), relative difference between a buildings annual energy
demand (Edem ) and annual energy generation (Esup ) is used, as
described in Eq. (5). If the difference is smaller than a user-selected

Z. Yu et al. / Energy and Buildings 129 (2016) 524534

zero = 0.02), the building will be considered as a

threshold (e.g. 
NZEB since the annual energy supply only has 2% shortage to meet
the annual energy demand. It should be mentioned that a negative value of zero indicates the building is a plus energy building
in which its annual energy generation is larger than its energy
demand.
zero = (Edem Esup )/Edem

(5)

With regard to the thermal comfort evaluation (comfort ), the

comfort index developed in [10] is used. The comfort index mainly
considers the total failure time in which the supplied cooling cannot
meet actual loads, as shown in (6). The supplied cooling (CLsup )
is jointly determined by the sizes of the air-conditioning system
(CAPAC ) and the thermal energy storage system (CAPTS ).
comfort =

j

j = 1, if CLsup,j < CLj

j = 0, if CLsup,j CLj

(6)

where, j represents the value of the failure time at the jth hour;
CLsup and CL are hourly cooling supply and cooling load.
With regard to the grid dependence evaluation (grid ), the
no-grid interaction probability developed in [35] will be used to
calculate the time percentage of zero energy exchange between
the targeted NZEB and a grid. As calculated by Eq. (7), the no-grid
interaction probability varies in a range from 0 to 1 and a higher
value represents larger grid independence.
grid =

powexchange =0
tot

(7)

where, represents time duration; Powexchange is hourly power

exchange between a NZEB and a grid and subscript tot denotes total
duration.
3. Building and system modelling
In the study, a NZEB is simulated with systems including
a central air conditioning system, a renewable system and an
energy storage system. TRNSYS [36] will be used to simulate
the NZEB and associated systems. For providing thermal comfort,
the NZEB installs a typical primary constant-secondary variable
air-conditioning system. The renewable system consists of both
photovoltaic panel and wind turbine for renewable energy generation. The energy storage system includes both thermal energy
storage system and electrical energy storage system. The thermal
energy storage system is used to shift partial on-peak loads to
off-peak periods for reducing the capacity of the air-conditioning
system. The electrical energy storage system is mainly used to
improve NZEB independence on a grid through mitigating their
energy interactions. Meanwhile, the GA tool from MATLAB [37] will
be used for searching proper system sizes that meet the established
tness function and constraints.

527

Table 1 shows the statistical descriptions of the scenario parameter uncertainties. In the table, 1 , 2, 3 and 4 represent the base
values of hourly temperature, RH, solar radiation and wind speed
extracted from the typical year for system design. In the Monte
Carlo simulation, the samples taken from the uncertainty distributions are used. Note that truncation is used to limit the uncertainty
samples within the given ranges by users.
3.2. Air-conditioning system modelling
The air-conditioning system is shown in Fig. 3. In the chiller
plant, constant speed pumps are used on the primary side while
variable speed pumps are used on the secondary side. The temperature set-point for the chilled water supply is 7 C and the supply
air temperature is set to 16 C. The supply air temperature is controlled by adjusting the speed of the pumps in the secondary loop.
The condenser water loop mainly consists of constant speed pumps,
cooling towers equipped with variable speed fans. The outlet water
temperature of cooling towers is set to be 5 C above the wet-bulb
ambient temperature. Such temperature difference is maintained
through adjusting the speed of the fan in the cooling towers.
The main steps for the component power estimations are illustrated as follows. The power consumption of the chiller Powchiller is
calculated according to the nominal COP, its actual supplied cooling Q, and the fraction of full load power-FFLP [36]. Note that Q is
limited by the system capacity, as described in Eq. (9).
Powchiller = FFLP Q/COPnom

(8)

Q = min(CL, CAPAC )

(9)

On the primary side, the rated chilled water ow rate

r,chw kg/s is determined as Eq. (10). The rated ow rate of the
m
variable speed pump on the secondary side is set the same value as
on the primary side.
r,chw =
m

CAPAC
Cp,w Tchw

(10)

where, Cp,w J/ (kg K) is the specic heat of water and Tchw ( C)

is the designed temperature difference between the chilled return
water and the chilled supply water.
With
 regard
 to the condenser water pump, its water ow
r,cow kg/s is calculated as
m
r,cow =
m

Q + Powchiller
Cp,w Tcow

(11)

where, Tcow ( C) is the temperature difference between the cooling water return and the cooling water supply.
Pipes are selected based on the calculated ow rate, and the
associated pressure drop through each part of the pipes can be estimated [39]. Based on the ow rate and pressure drop, the power
Powpump (W ) for all the pumps is calculated as
r,w h
Powpump = m

3.1. Building modelling

Using the multi-zone model (Type 56) in TRNSYS [36], a threeoor ofce building is simulated with each oor being identical in
size, i.e. 20 m in length and 10 m in width. The building has four windows facing four different orientations. Each window has the size of
4m 1.5m. The indoor temperature is set to 25 C, and the RH is set
to 55%. The ventilation rate is 15 l/s/person and the inltration rate
is 0.2 ACH (Air Changes per Hour). Following the Building Energy
Code in Hong Kong [38], the designed occupant capacity in the
ofce building is 60. The maximum equipment power density and
lighting power density are 25W/m2 and 15W/m2 respectively. The
occupancy schedule, equipment operating schedule and lighting
schedule are shown in Fig. 2.

(12)

r,w kg/s is the mass ow rate of water and h (m) is the

where, m
associated water head.

With regard to the AHU fan, its air volumetric ow rate V air
is calculated by Eq. (13). The associated fan power Powfan (W ) is
estimated by Eq. (14).

V air =

CLsup
(hrtn,air hsup,air )
air

Powfan = V air P

where hrtn,air J/kg

(13)
(14)

is the enthalpy of the return air, and

hsup,air J/kg is the enthalpy of the supply air; P (Pa) is the pres-

sure difference;
air kg/m3 is air density.

528

Z. Yu et al. / Energy and Buildings 129 (2016) 524534

Fig. 2. Occupancy schedules (a), equipment operating schedules (b) and lighting schedules (c) in the ofce building.

Fig. 3. Schematics of the air-conditioning systems.

With regard to the cooling tower, the heat rejection capacity is

dened by the inlet and outlet water temperatures, the entering air
wet bulb temperature and the water ow rate [36]. The rated air
mass ow rate is determined by a given water-air ratio which is set
to be 1.3 in the study (i.e. L/G = 1.3). With the determined air mass
ow rate, the associated fan power can be estimated by Eq. (14).
L/G =

r,cow
m
r,tow,a
m

(15)

r,tow,a kg/s is the mass ow rate of ambient air.

where, m

Table 2
Parameters used in the PV panel model.
Parameter

Unit

Back resistance
Top emissivity coefcient
Back emissivity coefcient
Absorptance coefcient
Refractive index
Cover conductivity
Cover thickness
Extinction coefcient

m2 K/W

W/ m K
m
1/m

Value
0.28
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.526
18.14
0.00635
4

indicates dimensionless unit.

3.3. Renewable system modelling

Both PV panels and wind turbines are used for renewable energy
generation. With given solar radiation, Type 562 in TRNSYS is used
to estimate the power supply of the PV panel system. Eq. (16) is used
to calculate PV panel power output (i.e. PowPV ) with a selected size
of PV panels (i.e. CAPPV ). The parameters used in this model are
listed in Table 2.
PowPV =  IAM IT  CAPPV

(16)

where,  is the transmittance-absorptance product of the PV cover

for solar radiation at a normal angle of incidence, varying from 0
to 1; IAM is the combined incidence angle modier for the PV cover

material, varying from 0 to 1 and it can be calculated based on

the entered information about the cover materials refractive index,
thickness, thermal conductivity, and extinction coefcient; IT is the
total amount of solar radiation incident on the PV collector surface
(W/m2 );  is the overall efciency of the PV array; and CAPPV is the
PV surface area (m2 ).
Type 90 in TRNSYS, i.e. wind energy conversion system (WECS),
is chosen to estimate the power supply of the wind turbines. Eq. (17)
represents the relation between the wind turbine power output (i.e.
PowWT ) and the wind velocity (i.e.U0 ). The capacity of wind turbine
(i.e. CAPWT ) is the wind turbine power output as wind speed larger

Z. Yu et al. / Energy and Buildings 129 (2016) 524534

than or equal to the rated output speed (i.e. U0 14m/s).

PowWT =

Table 3
Performance thresholds and expected cumulative probabilities used in the study.

if U0 3
Cp
air AR U03 otherwise
CAPWT

where, AR is rotor area (m2 ); U0 is wind velocity in the free stream

(m/s); power coefcient Cp is a function of the axial induction factor.
3.4. Thermal energy storage system modelling
Through shifting on-peak loads to off-peak periods, the thermal
energy storage system (CAPTS ) is mainly used to help reduce the
size of the air-conditioning system (CAPAC ). The relation between
CAPTS and the shifted load CLj can be described as Eq. (18). CAPAC
after the load shifting can be described as Eq. (19).

CLj

The electrical energy storage model is adopted to estimate

the stored electrical energy and simulate the charging and discharging processes. As described by Eq. (20), the stored energy
at the jth hour (i.e.Estore,j ) is calculated by adding up the hourly
charging/discharging power (i.e. Powcharge ) in previous hours. A
positive value of Powcharge indicates a charging process while a
negative value indicates a discharging process. Since the electrical
storage system is used to reduce grid dependence through mitigating power mismatch, its hourly charging/discharging power (i.e.
Powcharge ) is determined by the hourly power mismatch (i.e. Powmis )
and the stored energy (i.e. Estore ). As described by Eq. (21), the excessive renewable energy is rstly stored in the storage system. After
the storage system is fully charged, the rest part is exported to the
grid. In contrast, the insufcient renewable energy is rstly supplemented by the stored energy. After the storage system is fully
discharged, the rest part is imported from the grid. Power mismatch (Powmis ) refers to the difference between the total renewable
power generation and the total power demand in the building,
as described by Eq. (22). In this case, the hourly power exchange
between the building and a grid (i.e. Powexchange ) is determined by
Powmis and Powcharge , as described by Eq. (23).
(20)

n=1


Powcharge,j =

min((CAPES Estore,j ), Powmis ) if Powmis > 0

max(1 Estore,j , Powmis )

if Powmis < 0
(21)

Powmis,j = PowPV,j + PowWT,j (PowAC,j + Powlight,j + Powequip,j )

(22)

Powexchange,j = Powmis,j Powcharge,j

Expected cumulative probability

2%
1 (hour)
0.5
60%/80%/100%

match; and Powexchange is power exchange between the building

and the grid.
4. Results and discussion
In this section, the optimized system sizes determined by the
GA-based method were rst presented. Then, using 20 years real
weather data, the multi-criteria performance of the sized systems
was evaluated. Last, the results were analyzed and discussed.
4.1. System sizes using the GA-based method

3.5. Electrical energy storage system modelling

Powcharge,n

Values

zero

comfort

grid


(19)

where, CLj is the reduction of the on-peak cooling load.

j1


Symbol

Performance threshold

(18)

CAPAC = max(CLj CLj )

Estore,j =

Category

if U0 14
(17)

CAPTS =

529

(23)

where, Powcharge denotes hourly charging/discharging power in the

electrical energy storage system; Powmis represents power mis-

The unit prices of systems took the values as

AC = 1200 HKD/kW ;PV = 4000 HKD/m2 ;WT =
10000 HKD/kW ;TS = 600 HKD/kWhandES = 1400 HKD/kWh
[10,4042]. Note that these prices may uctuate wildly from time
to time due to technology development and policy changes. In
the GA-based system sizing method, three important parameters
including PopulationSize, TolFun and Generations were
assigned the values of 100, 1e-6 and 250 respectively. The parameter PopulationSize indicates the number of individuals; TolFun
is the termination tolerance; and Generations represents the
maximum number of generations. In addition, the crossover
fraction was set to 0.6. In order to ensure the GA search was
terminated by reaching its tness limit instead of other reasons
(e.g. no feasible point found or stall time limit exceeded), the above
parameters have been tuned using the trial and error method. In
the Monte Carlo simulation, the uncertainty sample number was
438,000. Regarding the three practical constraints, Table 3 shows
) and the expected cumulative
the performance thresholds (
probabilities () used in the study.
Table 4 shows the searched systems sizes using the GA-based
method under different expected cumulative probabilities. From
the data in this table, it is apparent that a lower cumulative probability led to smaller system sizes. For instance, as  = 60%, the
system sizes were the smallest among the three cases. The main
reason was that a lower expected cumulative probability requires
fewer years to meet the user-dened constraints and thus smaller
system sizes can be selected. Taking  = 60% as an example, the corresponding system sizes only require 60% of the operation years to
meet the constraints. In other words, 40% of the years are allowed
to fail the constraint satisfactions.
As the expected cumulative probability  increased from 60% to
80%, the CAPAC and CAPPV did not largely increased (i.e. smaller than
1.5%). In contrast, the other system sizes increased by more than
12.5%. In particular, CAPTS increased by 48.8%. Such inconsistent
system size variations indicated the different and complex impacts
of each system on the established performance requirements as
uncertainties considered. In consequence, the total system initial
cost was increased by 11.5%.
As the expected cumulative probability  increased from 60% to
100%, all the system sizes (except CAPTS ) dramatically increased.
For instance, CAPPV , CAPWT and CAPES had increased by more than
60%. Consequently, the total system initial cost was increased by
62%. In comparison with the case as  increased from 60% to 80%,
the system sizes and cost variations were much larger as  increased
from 80% to 100%. The main reason was that with full consideration

530

Z. Yu et al. / Energy and Buildings 129 (2016) 524534

Table 4
System sizes selected by the proposed method under expected cumulative probabilities.
Expectedcumulative probabilities

CAPAC (kW)

CAPPV (m2 )

CAPWT (kW)

CAPTS (kWh)

CAPES (kWh)

Total cost (HKD)

 = 60%
 = 80%
 = 100%

148 ()
150(1.4%)
165(11.5%)

50()
50()
100(100%)

60()
70(16.7%)
100(66.7%)

41()
61(48.8%)
42(2.4%)

80()
90(12.5%)
130(62.5%)

1,114,200()
1,242,600(11.5%)
1,805,200(62.0%)

Fig. 4. Building annual energy use and generation as systems sized under  = 60%.

Fig. 5. Building annual energy use and generation as systems sized under  = 80%.

of uncertainties, the cumulative probability changes in a non-linear

way. In particular, as the cumulative probability approaches to
100%, a large system size increase merely causes a small increase of
cumulative probability. Such non-linear system size increase also
indicates that taking  = 100% in practical applications may cause
unnecessarily large system sizes and high costs.
4.2. Performance validations of the sized systems
The performance validations were conducted in terms of energy
balance, thermal comfort and grid independence as below. Purchased from the Hong Kong Observatory, the 20 years real weather
data (from 1979 to 1998) were used in the performance validations.
4.2.1. Energy balance validation
Figs. 46 show the buildings annual energy use and generation
as systems were sized under different expected cumulative probabilities. It can be found that the wind turbine systems produced
much more renewable energy than the PV systems. In average,
more than 75% renewable energy was generated from the wind

turbine systems which led to a large wind turbine system. Such

large wind turbine systems were selected mainly because their
lower initial costs in producing renewable energy. Since 1 m2 PV
had rated power much less than 0.4 kW, the initial cost of PV system was much higher than that of wind turbine in producing the
same amount of renewable energy at the given unit prices.
As  = 60%, the selected renewable system enabled 12 of the
total 20 years to achieve the zero energy or plus energy target, as
shown in Fig. 4. The other 8 years (i.e. 40%) cannot achieve energy
balance in which the total renewable energy generated was less
than the total energy use. As the expected cumulative probability
 increased from 60% to 80%, the wind turbine size increased from
60 kW to 70 kW while the PV system size remained at 50 kW, as
shown in Table 4. Such a wind turbine size increase resulted in the
increased renewable energy generation and thus 16 of the total 20
years achieved the zero energy or plus energy target, as shown in
Fig. 5. The number of years failed to achieve energy balance was
reduced from 8 to 4, relatively 40% to 20%.
As the expected cumulative probability  nally increased to
100%, both sizes of the PV system and the wind turbine increased

Z. Yu et al. / Energy and Buildings 129 (2016) 524534

531

Fig. 6. Building annual energy use and generation as systems sized under  = 100%.

Fig. 7. Discomfort hours (comfort ) in each year as systems sized under different expected cumulative probabilities.

signicantly. The wind turbine size increased from 70 kW to

100 kW (i.e. 43%) and the PV system size increased from 50 kW
to 100 kW (i.e. 100%), as shown in Table 4. Such signicant size
increases allowed all 20 years to achieve the zero energy or plus
energy target, as shown in Fig. 6. But the obvious limitation was that
excessively high renewable energy was generated in many years in
terms of annual building energy use. For instance, in the 4th year
and the 15th year, more than doubled annual energy demand was
generated from the oversized renewable system. Thus, targeting at
satisfying all uncertain conditions in practice may eventually lead
to oversized systems and unnecessarily high initial costs.

4.2.2. Thermal comfort validation

Fig. 7 shows the comfort index (comfort ) of each year with systems sized under different expected cumulative probabilities. The
comfort index indicates the accumulated discomfort hours due
to the sized systems unable to provide the required amount of
cooling. It should be mentioned that the thermal comfort in the
building are mainly inuenced by the sizes of the air-conditioning
system and the thermal energy storage system. In the study, as the
comfort took the value of 1 h, any year
comfort-related threshold 
with comfort > 1 was considered as a year in which the thermal
comfort constraint was not met. It can be observed that the number of years failing to meet the comfort constraint was reduced
with the increase of the expected cumulative probability, as shown
in Fig. 7.

As  increased from 60% to 80%, the number of years failing to

meet the constraint was reduced from 6 (i.e. 30% of all 20 years) to 3
(i.e. 15% of all 20 years). The main reason was that a larger expected
cumulative probability led to increased sizes of the air-conditioning
system and/or the thermal storage system which enabled more
cooling supply for improved comfort. In the case of  = 100%, an airconditioning system with much larger size (around 15 kW larger
than that in the case of  = 60% and 80%) was selected which reduced
discomfort hours to zero in each year.
Using the thermal energy storage system, cooling load can be
shifted from the afternoon peak-load period to early morning
period. Such load shifting can effectively reduce the required size
of the air-conditioning system. Fig. 8 shows the hourly cooling load
proles of one day after the load shifting using the thermal energy
storage systems sized under different expected cumulative probabilities. As  = 60% and 100%, the sizes of the thermal energy storage
systems were very close, i.e. 41 kWh and 42 kWh, as shown in
Table 4. Thus, after the load shifting, the corresponding cooling
load proles were almost overlapped in Fig. 8. The peak cooling
load was reduced from 172 kW to 157 kW. As  = 60%, the size of
the air-conditioning system was 148 kW which cannot provide the
required cooling (i.e. 157 kW) and thus thermal discomfort happened. In contrast, as  = 100%, the size of the air-conditioning
system was 165 kW which still can provide the required cooling
and thermal comfort was guaranteed. Unlike the cases of  = 60%
and 100%, the size of the thermal energy storage system was larger,
(i.e. 61 kWh) as  = 80%. Due to the larger storage system size, more

532

Z. Yu et al. / Energy and Buildings 129 (2016) 524534

Fig. 8. Cooling load proles with load shifting using sized thermal storage systems.

peak load reduction was achieved, i.e. from 172 kW to 149 kW. With
the 150 kW air-conditioning system, the reduced peak cooling load
can be met as  = 80%.
4.2.3. Grid independence validation
Fig. 9 shows the no-grid interaction probability (grid ) in each
year as systems sized under different expected cumulative probabilities. The index indicates the time percentage of zero power
interaction between the building and the grid. A larger index value
means higher grid independence of the NZEB. In the study, as the
grid took the value of 0.5, any year
related performance threshold 
with grid < 0.5 was considered as a year in which the grid independence constraint was not met. Similarly, the number of years
failing to meet the grid independence constraint was reduced with
the increase of the expected cumulative probability, as shown in
Fig. 9. As  increased from 60% to 80%, the number of years failing
to meet the constraint was reduced from 7 (i.e. 35% of all years) to
4 (i.e. 20% of all years). The main reason was that a larger expected
cumulative probability led to an increased capacity of the electrical
energy storage (see Table 4), which enabled more electrical energy
charge and discharge. In the case of  = 100%, the size of electrical
energy storage system was much larger which caused much higher
no-grid interaction probabilities in comparison with the other two
cases.
Using the electrical energy storage system, power interactions
between the building and the grid can be reduced. As more renewable energy was generated than the demand, the excessive part can
be stored in the storage system and thus did not need to be exported
to the grid. In contrast, as less renewable energy was generated
than the demand, the insufcient part can be discharged from the
storage system and thus did not need to be imported from grid. It
should be mentioned that the no-grid interaction probability was
not solely determined by CAPES but also inuenced by other system
sizes and actual weather data. For instance, in most of the years, a
larger CAPES resulted in a smaller no-grid interaction probability.
But in the 4th and 15th years, the larger CAPES under  = 80% led to
smaller no-grid interaction probabilities than the smaller one with
 = 60%.
Fig. 10 shows the load duration curves in one year using the
electrical energy storage systems sized under different expected
cumulative probabilities. As there was no electrical energy storage system, only 20% of the year (i.e. grid = 0.2) had zero power
interaction between the building and the grid. In other words,
the other 80% time required the supports of the grid (e.g. energy
import/export). In this case, the building heavily depended on the

Table 5
Expected cumulative probabilities and actual ones of meeting.
the multi-criteria constraints
Expected
cumulative
probability ()

Actual cumulative
probability in
energy balance
(cdfzero )

Actual cumulative
probability in
thermal comfort
(cdfcomfort )

Actual cumulative
probability in grid
independence
(cdfgrid )

60%
80%
100%

60%
80%
100%

70%
95%
100%

65%
80%
100

grid for normal function. As  = 60% and 80%, the sizes of the electrical energy storage systems were selected as 80 kWh and 90 kWh
respectively. Utilizing such sized storage systems, the no-grid interaction probability (grid ) have been increased from 0.2 to 0.5 and
0.51 which achieved the users specied performance requirement,
grid = 0.5. As  = 100%, the selected size of the electrical energy
i.e. 
storage system was largely increased to 130 kWh and thus the nogrid interaction probability (grid ) has been signicantly inreased
from 0.2 to 0.59.
4.3. Discussions
The above study results demonstrated that as uncertainties
were taken into consideration, the proposed method can effectively nd proper system sizes which well met the established
constraints. As shown in Table 5, the obtained actual cumulative
probabilities were equal to or slightly higher than the expected
cumulative probabilities in terms of energy balance, thermal comfort and grid independence. The slightly higher actual probabilities
were mainly caused by that the uncertainties in reality were different from those used in the GA method. For instance, the wind speed
uncertainty in urban area should consider the increasing effects of
the high-rise buildings. As more tall buildings constructed in the
urban area, less wind energy can be utilized. However, such characteristic has not been considered in the traditional uncertainty
description method using typical statistical distributions. Thus,
uncertainty description/characterization needs to be improved for
better system sizing of NZEBs under uncertainties.
With the increase of the cumulative probability, the variations of
ve system sizes are different and inconsistent. The size increase of
particular systems is much larger than that of others. Such inconsistent system size variations demonstrate the different and complex
impacts of each system on the established performance requirements as uncertainties considered. Meanwhile, as  = 100%, the

Z. Yu et al. / Energy and Buildings 129 (2016) 524534

533

Fig. 9. No-grid interaction probability (grid ) in each year as systems sized under different expected cumulative probabilities.

Fig. 10. Load duration curves in one year using electrical energy storage systems sized under different expected cumulative probabilities.

system sizes were signicantly larger than the other two cases. In
other words, such a high cumulative probability was realized at
the expense of oversized systems and thus excessively high initial
costs.
It is worth noting that the proposed method may also face
some limitations: 1) possible excessive computation load caused
by repeated Monte Carlo simulation; and 2) potential premature
convergence at the local optimum rather than the global optimum.
Regarding the rst limitation, computation load can be lightened by
reducing the associated uncertainty distribution sample size. Latin
Hypercube Sampling, a stratied sampling method, is an effective
means to reduce sample size and help solve the computation problem. Regarding the second limitation, the premature-convergence
problem could be solved by increasing the rate of mutation and/or
using random offspring generation to maintain a diverse population of solutions.
5. Conclusions
Due to complex uncertainty impacts, proper system sizing in
a NZEB with multi-criteria performance considered is a real challenge. In order to deal with the challenge, this study presents
a genetic algorithm-GA based system sizing method for NZEBs.
Impacts of scenario parameter uncertainties have been considered
via Monte Carlo simulation. The tness function has been established to minimize the total initial costs of ve systems while users
performance requirements are considered as constraints.

The main ndings are as below. First, as uncertainties taken

into consideration, the proposed GA-based method is able to
nd proper system sizes which satisfy the established multicriteria performance requirements. The proposed method provides
a new way for complex system sizing of NZEBs considering multiple practical constraints under uncertainties. Second, with the
increase of the cumulative probability, the variations of ve system sizes are different and inconsistent. Due to varying and
complex impacts of each system on the established performance
requirements and interactions between different systems, the size
increase of particular systems is much larger than that of others. Third, as uncertainties are considered, NZEB system sizes
do not change in a linear way with the cumulative probability.
As the cumulative probability approaches to 100%, a large system size increase only causes its small variation. Thus, taking
the expected cumulative probability  = 100% in practical applications may cause unnecessarily large system sizes and high
costs.
Meanwhile, conventional uncertainty descriptions are based on
simple distribution assumptions and thus they may not be able
to consider signicant inuential factors such as micro-climate
change, urban development and new technology application.
Lacking systematic considerations of the inuential factors, conventional uncertainty descriptions could be inaccurate or even
completely false which directly lead to false uncertainty analysis.
Thus, accurate uncertainty characterization are needed in future
studies and they can be derived from related eld data.

534

Z. Yu et al. / Energy and Buildings 129 (2016) 524534

Acknowledgements
The research work presented in this paper is supported by the
Early Career Scheme from the University Grants Committee of Hong
Kong (Project No. 9048038) and China State Construction Engineering Corporation Limited (Project No. CSCEC-2015-Z-15).
References
[1] IEA, IEA Statistics: World Energy Statistics and Balances, http://www.iea.org/
statistics-/topics/energybalances/, 2014.
[2] EMSD, Hong Kong Energy End-use Data http://www.emsd.gov.hk/
lemanager/-en/content 762/HKEEUD2014.pdf, 2014.
[3] D. Crawley, S. Pless, P. Torcellini, Getting to net zero, ASHRAE J. 51 (2009)
1825.
[4] Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19
May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings, Ofcial Journal of the
European Union, Legislation, 153, 2010. 1335.
[5] Y.J. Sun, P. Huang, G.S. Huang, A multi-criteria system design optimization for
net zero energy buildings under uncertainties, Energy Build. 97 (2015)
196204.
[6] P. Torcellini, S. Pless, M. Deru, D. Crawley, Zero energy buildings: a critical
look at the denition, in: ACEEE Summer Stud, Pacic Grove, CA USA, 2006.
[7] A.J. Marszal, P. Heiselberg, R.L. Jensen, J. Nrgaard, On-site or off-site
renewable energy supply options? Life cycle cost analysis of a net zero energy
building in Denmark, Renew. Energy 44 (2012) 154165.
[8] S. Attia, E. Gratia, A.D. Herde, J.L.M. Hensen, Simulation-based decision
support tool for early stages of zero-energy building design, Energy Build. 49
(2012) 215.
[9] A. Scognamiglio, F. Garde, H.N. Rstvik, How net zero energy buildings and
cities might look like? New challenges for passive design and renewables
design, Energy Procedia 61 (2014) 11631166.
[10] P. Huang, G.S. Huang, HVAC system design under peak load prediction
uncertainty using multiple-criterion decision making technique, Energy
Build. 91 (2015) 2636.
[11] S.K. Wang, Handbook of Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, 2nd edition,
McGraw-Hill, Two Penn Plaza, NY, USA, 2000.
[12] A.A. Bell, HVAC Equations, Data, and Rules of Thumb, 2nd edition,
McGraw-Hill, Two Penn Plaza, NY, USA, 2007.
[13] D. Woradechjumroen, Y.B. Yu, H.R. Li, D.H. Yu, H.J. Yang, Analysis of HVAC
system oversizing in buildings through eld measurements, Energy Build. 69
(2014) 131143.
[14] E. Djunaedy, K.V.D. Wymelenberg, B. Acker, H. Thimmana, Oversizing of HVAC
system: signatures and penalties, Energy Build. 43 (2011) 468475.
[15] D. Felts, P. Bailey, The state of affairspackaged cooling equipment in
California, ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efciency in Buildings (2000).
[16] H.A. McLain, D. Goldberg, M.A. Karnitz, S.D. Anderson, S.Y. Ohr, Benets of
Replacing Residential Central Air Conditioning Systems, Washington DC, USA,
American Council for an Energy-Efcient Economy, 1985.
[17] J. Salom, A.J. Marszal, J. Widn, J. Candanedo, K.B. Lindberg, Analysis of load
match and grid interaction indicators in net zero energy buildings with
simulated and monitored data, Appl. Energy 136 (2014) 119131.
[18] G. Bekele, G. Tadesse, Feasibility study of small Hydro/PV/Wind hybrid system
for off-grid rural electrication in Ethiopia, Appl. Energy 97 (2012) 515.
[19] S. Rehman, M.M. Alam, J.P. Meyer, L.M. Al-Hadhrami, Feasibility study of a
windpvdiesel hybrid power system for a village, Renew. Energy 38 (2012)
258268.

[20] Y. Hu, P. Solana, Optimization of a hybrid diesel-wind generation plant with

operational options, Renew. Energy 51 (2013) 364372.
[21] M. Ranaboldo, B.D. Lega, D.V. Ferrenbach, L. Ferrer-Mart, R.P. Moreno, A.
Garca-Villoria, Renewable energy projects to electrify rural communities in
Cape Verde, Appl. Energy 118 (2014) 280291.
[22] J.K. Kaldellis, K.A. Kavadias, A.E. Filios, A new computational algorithm for the
calculation of maximum wind energy penetration in autonomous electrical
generation systems, Appl. Energy 86 (2009) 10111023.
[23] J.P. Fossati, A. Galarza, A. Martn-Villate, L. Fontn, A method for optimal sizing
energy storage systems for microgrids, Renew. Energy 77 (2015) 539549.
[24] A. Zucker, T. Hinchliffe, Optimum sizing of PV-attached electricity storage
according to power market signalsa case study for Germany and Italy, Appl.
Energy 127 (2014) 141155.
M. Hoic,
J. Deur, J. Petric,
Energy storage systems sizing study for
[25] D. Pavkovic,
a high-altitude wind energy application, Energy 76 (2014) 91103.
[26] V. Musolino, A. Pievatolo, E. Tironi, A statistical approach to electrical storage
sizing with application to the recovery of braking energy, Energy 36 (2011)
66976704.
[27] D. Feroldi, D. Zumoffen, Sizing methodology for hybrid systems based on
multiple renewable power sources integrated to the energy management
strategy, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 39 (2014) 86098620.
[28] H. Schaede, M. Schneider, S. Rinderknecht, Specication and Assessment of
Electric Energy Storage Systems Based on Generic Storage Load Prole,
Symposium Energieinnovation, 2014.
[29] B. Bahmani-Firouzi, R. Azizipanah-Abarghooee, Optimal sizing of battery
energy storage for micro-grid operation management using a new improved
bat algorithm, Int. J. Electr. Power 56 (2014) 4254.
[30] C.J. Hopfe, Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis in Building Performance
Simulation for Decision Support and Design Optimization, Eindhoven
University of Technology, Eindhoven, 2009.
[31] Y.V. Makarov, P.V. Etingov, J. Ma, Z. Huang, K. Subbarao, Incorporating
uncertainty of wind power generation forecast into power system operation
dispatch, and unit commitment procedures, IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2
(2011) 433442.
[32] S. Attia, S. Carlucci, Impact of different thermal comfort models on zero
energy residential buildings in hot climate, Energy Build. 102 (2015) 117128.
[33] C.J. Hopfe, J.L.M. Hensen, Uncertainty analysis in building performance
simulation for design support, Energy Build. 43 (2011) 27982805.
[34] K.J. Lomas, H. Eppei, Sensitivity analysis techniques for building thermal
simulation programs, Energy Build. 19 (1992) 2144.
[35] J. Salom, J. Widen, J. Candanedo, I. Sartori, K. Voss, A. Marszal, Understanding
net zero energy building: evaluation of load matching and grid interaction
indicators, in: Proceedings of Building Simulation: 12th Conference of
International Building Performance Simulation Association, Sydney, 2011.
[36] S.A. Klein, TRNSYS 16 Program Manual, Solar Energy Laboratory, University of
Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, USA, 2007.
[37] http://www.mathworks.com/discovery/genetic-algorithm.html.
[38] EMSD, Guidelines on Performance-based Building Energy Code http://www.
emsd.gov.hk/-lemanager/en/content 725/PBBEC Guidelines 2007.pdf, 2007.
[39] ASHRAE, ASHRAE Handbook: HVAC Systems and Equipment, American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA,
1996.
[40] D. Feldman, G. Barbose, R. Margolis, R. Wiser, N. Darghouth, A. Goodrich,
Photovoltaic (PV) Pricing Trends: Historical, Recent, and Near-Term
Projections, U.S Department of Energy, 2012.
[41] D. Gielen, Renewable energy technologies: cost analysis series wind power,
IRENA Work. Pap. 1 (2012) 152.
[42] B. Zakeri, S. Syri, Electrical energy storage systems: a comparative life cycle
cost analysis, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 42 (2015) 569596.