See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309751099

Effects of intelligent strategy planning models

on residential HVAC system energy demand
and cost during the heating and...

Article January 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.10.062

CITATIONS READS

0 25

4 authors, including:

Nima Alibabaei Kaamran Raahemifar

Ryerson University Ryerson University
6 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS 134 PUBLICATIONS 677 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Nima Alibabaei on 15 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Applied Energy 185 (2017) 2943

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Effects of intelligent strategy planning models on residential HVAC

system energy demand and cost during the heating and cooling seasons
Nima Alibabaei a,, Alan S. Fung a, Kaamran Raahemifar b, Arash Moghimi b
a
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria Street, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada
b
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria Street, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada

h i g h l i g h t s

Enhancing TRNSYS control process by developing a Matlab-TRNSYS advanced controller.

Developing a novel smart dual fuel switching system for residential HVAC system.

Improving load shifting strategy by selecting optimum pre-heating/cooling time.

Minimizing residential HVAC system energy cost.

Assessment of developed strategy planning models during heating and cooling seasons.

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

Article history: Based on their structure, residential houses/buildings (RHs) can offer excellent opportunities for manag-
Received 20 July 2016 ing their internal energy demand and subsequently lowering their energy cost. Demand management and
Received in revised form 22 September energy cost saving can be achieved by taking advantage of RHs/buildings capabilities in storing thermal
2016
energy. Thermal energy can be stored utilizing intelligent Strategy Planning Models (SPMs) which are
Accepted 20 October 2016
applied in the heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) system as one of the largest energy con-
sumer in RHs buildings. This study discusses the development of three different strategy planning models
including Smart Dual Fuel Switching System (SDFSS), Load Shifting (LSH), and LSHSDFSS, a combination
Keywords:
Advanced residential HVAC controller
of load shifting and fuel switching SPMs. In order to facilitate the implementation of the developed SPMs
Strategy planning models on the HVAC system of the house used in this case study, an advanced controller was designed by con-
Load shifting necting both TRNSYS-Matlab programs. The HVAC system energy demand as well as the corresponding
Fuel switching system saving on the HVAC system energy cost are analyzed in-depth numerically using each of the strategy
Residential houses planning models during both the heating and cooling seasons. Simulation results showed that in the
heating season, the operating/energy cost of HVAC system decreased significantly (23.8%) by implement-
ing SDFSS-SPM. LSHSDFSS-SPM reduced the HVAC system operating cost by 15.8%. In the cooling season,
LSH-SPM reduced the HVAC system operating cost by 6.63%.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Residential houses/buildings (RHs) must be seen as significant
elements of a larger, dynamic network of energy system. Therefore,
a network of energy system is significantly affected by the behav-
ior of RHs [1,2]. For example, based on Pagani and Aiello [3] energy
model simulation result, disruption in demand management can
be detrimental to energy systems. In contrast, as Siano and Sarno
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: nima.alibabaei@ryerson.ca (N. Alibabaei), alanfung@ryerson.
ca (A.S. Fung), kraahemi@ryerson.ca (K. Raahemifar), arash.moghimi@mail.
utoronto.ca (A. Moghimi).
[4] shown in simulation result, RHs enable to improve the manage-
ment of energy network. The network energy saving is improved
significantly using the distribution locational marginal price (D-
LMP) model developed in [4]. What makes the RHs roles promi-
nent in managing the energy network, is their energy structure.
They are capable of storing thermal energy that results in manag-
ing their energy demand. Arteconi et al. [5] have investigated the
load shifting potentials of thermal energy storage (TES) in a resi-
dential building. The simulation result showed energy cost saving
using on and off peak tariffs. Thermal energy storage and energy
demand management can be achieved by employing smart Strat-
egy Planning Models (SPMs) in the HVAC system as one of the lar-
gest energy consumers in RHs/buildings. In Vakiloroaya et al. [6]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.10.062
0306-2619/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
30 N. Alibabaei et al. / Applied Energy 185 (2017) 2943
Nomenclature
ASH Archetype Sustainable Houses
AHU Air Handling Unit
ASHP Air Source Heat Pump
BCS Best Case Scenario
COP Coefficient of Performance
DEC Daily Energy Cost
DHW Domestic Hot Water
DSO Distribution System Operators
HVAC heating, ventilating, and air conditioning
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LSH load shifting
review paper, different demand management and energy saving
SPMs for typical residential HVAC systems are described in detail
and compared. Huang et al. [7] showed the advantage of different
energy saving SPMs such as load shifting in a HVAC predictive
energy model. The effects of different energy conservative SPMs
such as daily optimal deadband and daily optimal set point are
investigated in [8] using EnergyPlus program. Kim et al. [9] have
developed a daylighting meta-model that has been integrated into
a HVAC system to take the maximum advantage of daylighting for
preparing thermal comfort. This meta-model offered an average of
13.7% energy saving. Different heat gain reduction methodologies/
SPMs have been developed in [10]. Based on this paper calculation,
more than 75% of building heat gain were generated by solar heat
gain and lighting system. By managing these heat gains, more than
45% saving on HVAC system energy cost was achieved. Christan-
toni et al. [11] used EnergyPlus simulation model to implement
different demand response SPMs for shifting the building electrical
demand. In this research, contribution of HVAC system and build-
ing capacitance was evaluated using demand response SPMs. In
[12] research, energy saving potentials of various set point strate-
gies were investigated in a museum. Using these strategies led to
77% improvement in thermal comfort while decreased 82% of
HVAC system energy demand. Wang et al. [13] have modeled the
influence of occupants and its essential effects on building perfor-
mance by generating mean profiles of occupancy variables in order
to increase HVAC system energy efficiency. The role of residential
heat pumps and load shifting, and their contribution in network
operational cost and CO2 emission reduction has been investigated
in [14]. As Beizaee et al. [15] have shown, the thermal demand of a
house can be decreased using zonal space heating SPM. This SPM
could reduce the natural gas consumption by 11.2% in only eight
weeks. Chassin et al. [16] investigated the impacts of discrete-
time SPM on a residential house HVAC system and reported up
to 25% reduction in HVAC system energy demand. A dynamic zone
modeling system as an energy conservative SPM was developed by
Li et al. [17] to reduce the HVAC system energy cost. Different inge-
nious methods like using tokens (as a surrogate for thermal
demand) [18] and demand response potentials of high-raised
building ventilation fans [19] have been used as smart SPMs to
conserve the network energy.
In addition to supporting the network of energy system, lower
overall energy cost could be achieved for the homeowners with
such intelligent SPMs. Hence, as Di Giorgio and Liberati [20] con-
cluded, both energy consumers and local grid benefit from such
intelligent planning models. Regardless of the fact that numerous
research with different criteria have been previously conducted
for designing different strategy planning models for residential
HVAC systems with the aim of reducing demand and energy cost,
less attention has been paid to energy conservative SPMs that
use combination of fuels/energies for running the HVAC system.
LSHSDFSS load shifting and smart dual fuel switching system
OEB Ontario Energy Board
OT outdoor temperatures
RH residential house
SDFSS Smart Dual Fuel Switching System
SPM strategy planning model
TC time constant
TOU time-of-use
TRCA Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
ZT zone temperature
Furthermore, matching and tuning SPMs with the real time
dynamic characteristics of the process model (house thermal
model) has been poorly noted before.
The main contribution of this study is in developing novel strat-
egy planning models including: (1) Smart Dual Fuel Switching Sys-
tem (SDFSS), (2) Load Shifting (LSH), and (3) LSHSDFSS model as
the combination of fuel switching and load shifting strategy plan-
ning models. In SDFSS-SPM, a smart controller is developed to
select the least expensive hot air supplier (between electrical Air
Source Heat Pump (ASHP) and natural gas mini boiler), in each
hour, by taking into consideration the houses thermal demand
and Time of Use (TOU) pricing scheme during the decision making
process. In novel LSH-SPM, an intelligent mechanism is used to
select the best pre-heating/pre-cooling starting time based on the
outdoor temperature effects and the dynamic characteristics of
the case study house. As the third developed SPM, LSHSDFSS-
SPM takes advantage of both novel load shifting and fuel switching
systems to offer maximum saving on HVAC system energy cost.
An advanced controller is developed by connecting TRNSYS-
Matlab programs. This advanced controller facilitates the imple-
mentation of novel SPMs on the HVAC system of case study house.
The behavior of HVAC system is numerically simulated in-depth
during winter (heating) and summer (cooling) seasons. Total sav-
ing on the HVAC system energy demand and cost are calculated
by implementing developed SPMs in winter and summer seasons.
This paper is consisted of four sections. In Section 2, the
methodology and model of the work are described. This section
also concludes the architecture and configuration of different oper-
ational SPMs in detail. In Section 3, results including the effect of
intelligent strategy planning models on the HVAC system energy
demand and cost in various sample days and during the whole
heating and cooling seasons are presented and discussed. The
paper is concluded in Section 4.
2. Model description and intelligent Strategy Planning Models
(SPMs) development
2.1. Model description
2.1.1. Methodology
This study is started by running case study house TRNSYS
model for a specific day in order to generate the baseline data.
The weather file used to calculate the houses thermal demand is
the metropolitan Toronto weather given in the TRNSYS library. Dif-
ferent operational command matrices are generated by Matlab
advanced controller (according to the baseline data) in order to
implement various SPMs on the houses HVAC system. TRNSYS
model is run again considering the generated operational com-
mand matrices in simulation process. The data generated by imple-
 N. Alibabaei et al. / Applied Energy 185 (2017) 2943
menting each strategy planning model is saved for post processing.
Fig. 1 illustrates the house energy co-simulator framework consist-
ing of Matlab and TRNSYS programs. Matlab controls all opera-
tional processes. Matlab also links other programs, such as
TRNSYS and Excel, in order to store, transfer or call the required
data.
Fig. 2 shows the flowchart for the overall process of Matlab
advanced controller. Based on this flowchart, the operational com-
mand matrix corresponding to each SPM is recorded in an Excel
lookup table in order to be transferred into the TRNSYS program.
Then, TRNSYS program is called by Matlab to read the lookup table
and to perform case study house energy simulation based on the
lookup tables contents. In the next step, all generated data includ-
ing hourly thermal demand of case study house and its ASHP
hourly electricity demand are registered into another Excel file to
be used for further post processing.
The operation of ASHP system inside the TRNSYS program is
controlled by operational command matrix generated by Matlab
advanced controller. This control mechanism, which acts as a ther-
mostat in TRNSYS program, is used to take care of upper and lower
comfort level temperatures. Based on the ASHRAE Standard [21],
the indoor temperature in the heating season should be between
20 C and 24 C to maintain thermal comfort. In this study, to meet
the ASHRAE Standard, when the 1st floor (zone) temperature is
lower than the minimum temperature in the comfortable range
(20 C), 1 signal as a trigger command is dispatched to the ASHP
to turn it on. On the other hand, when the zone temperature (ZT) is
higher than the maximum comfortable temperature (24 C), 0
signal is sent to the ASHP in order to turn it off. This imperative
command mechanism is utilized to implement different SPMs
which will be presented in Section 2.
2.1.2. Case study house description
The twin Archetype Sustainable Houses (House A and House B),
located at the Kortright Centre for Conservation in Vaughan,
Fig. 1. Framework of the house energy simulation system.
31
Operaonal Excel File Run Registered
Command Lookup TRNSYS Data on
Matrix Table Model Excel File
Fig. 2. Framework of Matlab advanced controller.
Ontario, Canada were constructed by the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) [2224]. These houses are made
to have an airtight building envelope according to the standards
of ASHRAE 90.1 [2224]. The twin-houses represent sustainable
housing technologies through research and experimentation and
are one the first Canadian projects received a Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design (LEED) certificate [22]. House A uses a
two-stage variable capacity ASHP and a (natural gas) mini boiler
for space heating/cooling and domestic hot water. In terms of
House A characteristics, the R-values of basement walls, main
floors and roof walls are R-20, R-30, and R-40, respectively. The
R-value of insulating materials is a measure of the extent to which
these materials resist the heat flow. The higher the R-value, the
more effective the insulating material. In this study, House A was
selected for testing different SPMs.
2.1.3. House thermal energy TRNSYS model
TRNSYS is a transient system building energy modeling soft-
ware. TRNSYS has the ability to solve complex energy system prob-
lems [23]. In this study, the House A TRNSYS (version 16) model
developed by Safa et al. [23] is used for simulating the house ther-
mal demand and its energy system. A light thermal mass material
has been considered for the house in the TRNSYS model. House A
was assumed to have four occupants (two adults and two children)
with sensible internal heat gain of 2.4 kW h/day. Different studies
conducted on various building energy simulators [25,26] have
shown that TRNSYS presents reasonably powerful result when
used for HVAC system modeling.
2.1.4. Process/simulation time step
Initially, all simulations were done according to one-hour time
steps. However, the simulation results were not very accurate since
the events/incidents taking place during given hours, could not be
processed/monitored by the control algorithm. Trial and error
showed that this problem could have been avoided using 5-min
time steps. Therefore, 5-min is selected in this study as the time
steps.
2.1.5. Electricity prices
Distribution System Operators (DSOs) exert rates that penalize
energy use on peak hours via Time-of-Use (TOU) and/or demand
charges rates. Fig. 3 shows the electricity price in Ontario as of
November 1st, 2015 for summer and winter seasons. In this study,
13.30 /kW h, 17.80 /kW h and 22.60 /kW h are used as the
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Fig. 3. Price of electricity in Ontario as of November 1st, 2015 for winter and
summer seasons.
32 N. Alibabaei et al. / Applied Energy 185 (2017) 2943

electricity prices for off-peak, mid-peak and peak hours, respec-

tively. Ontario Energy Board (OEB) TOU electricity prices were used
to estimate these prices. One of the most important factors that
adds value in the developed SPMs is the annual increment in
TOU electricity prices. In other words, the potential energy cost
saving of developed SPMs would be increased annually by growing
the rate of TOU electricity prices. The increment rates of TOU elec-
tricity prices are calculated and shown in Table 1 by comparing
2014 and 2015 TOU electricity prices [27].

2.2. Intelligent Strategy Planning Models (SPMs) development

2.2.1. HVAC system energy cost reduction using smart dual fuel
switching system strategy planning model (SDFSS-SPM)
The test house (House A) has an electric two-stage variable Fig. 4. House A ASHP COP validated with outdoor temperature [27].
capacity ASHP and a natural gas mini boiler to generate hot air
through the Air Handling Unit (AHU) in order to meet the space
heating demand. This strategy planning model aims to reduce
the HVAC system energy cost at each specific hour by selecting
the least expensive hot air supplier and setting up the correspond-
ing system (ASHP or mini boiler) to meet the space heating
demand.

2.2.1.1. Estimating the Fuel Cost of ASHP. Electricity price and out-
door temperature are the two main variables affecting the ASHP
energy cost. Outdoor temperature directly affects the air source
heat pump Coefficient of Performance (COP). Fig. 4 demonstrates
the experimentally validated COP curve of House A ASHP [23,27].
After determining the electricity price and COP for a given hour,
the cost of the energy unit produced by the ASHP is calculated
using the following equation:
ASHP electricity cost to prepare one unit of thermal energy $=kW h
Electricity price !=kW h
COP  100
where Electricity price represents the electricity cost !=kW h at a
given hour due to TOU pricing scheme and COP indicates the ASHP
coefficient of performance calculated based on the outdoor temper-
ature at a given hour.
2.2.1.2. Estimating the fuel cost of mini boiler. Based on OEBs natural
gas pricing scheme, the price of natural gas is the same during the
whole day. In this study, based on OEB prices the natural gas price
is estimated to be 35 /m3. Thus, the only variable used to estimate
the cost of each unit of thermal energy (produced by the boiler) is
mini boiler efficiency. The load percentage (water flow rate circu-
lating through the boiler) is used to determine the efficiency of
the boiler. Fig. 5 shows the efficiency curve of mini boiler provided
by the manufacturer [28]. Mini boiler fuel cost (to prepare one unit
of thermal energy) is calculated by the following equation:
Mini boiler natural gas cost to prepare one unit of thermal energy $=kW h
Natural Gas price $=m3
Efficiency  10:3
Table 1
Compering the increment rates of TOU electricity prices.
TOU electricity prices (/kW h)
Year Off-peak Mid-peak
2014 11.7 15.4
2015 13.3 17.8
Increment rates 12.0% 13.4%
1
Fig. 5. Mini boiler efficiency curve -VIESMAN Co. technical data manual [28].
In Eq. (2), the mini boiler efficiency is determined based on the
load percentage at a given time. The 10.3 constant is used to con-
vert natural gas energy content from 1 m3 to kW h.
The least expensive hot air supplier is simply chosen by compar-
ing the expected fuel cost of mini boiler and ASHP at each particular
hour. Based on House A HVAC system instruction, the ASHP is
selected as the main hot air supplier and mini boiler is just used
as a backup system at House A. This prioritization is exchanged by
setting up the AHU controller relay using an imperative command
signal.
2.2.1.3. Using SDFSS as a strategy planning model. The operational
boundaries of ASHP and mini boiler are calculated using Eqs. (1)
and (2). Fig. 6 presents these boundaries classified based on off-,
mid-, and peak hours. In Fig. 6, the maximum and minimum tem-
peratures are selected based on the hottest and coldest tempera-
2 tures of Toronto as recognized by Environment Canada [29,30].
Fig. 6 shows that the switching point during off-peak hours is
3 C. In other words, when the outdoor temperature (during the
off-peak hours) is lower than 3 C, each unit of thermal energy
produced by mini boiler is less expensive than ASHP. The switching
points at mid- and on-peak hours are 4 C and 11 C, respectively.
It should be noted that these optimal switching points will change
Peak whenever one or more of the influencing factors, such as electricity
18.0 TOU prices, changes.
22.6 Fig. 7 illustrates the flowchart of SDFSS-SPM used in this study
20.3%
to determine the switching points in different hours. The HVAC
 N. Alibabaei et al. / Applied Energy 185 (2017) 2943 33

Peak Hours

Mid Peak Hours ASHP

Mini Boiler
O Peak Hours

3 0 4 11
21 34
Outdoor Temperature ( )

Fig. 6. Switching points on different TOU prices.

Start

Take i as the current

hour

No
Yes
If (1 i 6 or 20 i 24)
Run mini boiler && Run ASHP
Outdoor Temp. 3 C

No
Yes
If (7 i 11 or 17 i 19)
Run mini boiler && Run ASHP
Outdoor Temp. 11 C

No
Yes
If (12 i 16 )
Run mini boiler && Run ASHP
Outdoor Temp. 4 C

Fig. 7. SDFSS strategy planning model.

system Daily Energy Cost (DEC) is minimized by modifying the
operational command matrix generated in the baseline scenario
when no SPM is implemented in the system based on the results
of the SDFSS strategy planning model.
2.2.1.4. Calculating the impact of SDFSS-SPM on HVAC system DFC at
different outdoor temperatures. Based on the simulation results, the
energy cost saving rate continuously increases as the outdoor tem-
perature decreases. This is because ASHP COP, the most important
parameter with considerable effect on energy cost saving, varies
with changes in outdoor temperature (OT).
As Fig. 4 shows, COP changes between 1.64 and 5.31. It should
be taken into consideration that the rate of reduction of COP
directly affects the rate of energy cost saving.
Fig. 8 shows the energy cost saving by using SDFSS-SPM (based
on 2014 and 2015 electricity prices) for different daily average out-
door temperatures. As the figure shows, when the outdoor temper-
ature is colder, SDFSS strategy planning model is more effective in
energy cost saving. For example, when the daily average outdoor
temperature is around 20 C, SDFSS-SPM brings $5.28 and $8.13
of saving respectively using 2014 and 2015 electricity prices. As
mentioned before in Section 2.1.5, the efficiency of SDFSS-SPM
increased by growing the annual rates of electricity prices.
2.2.2. HVAC system energy cost reduction using load shifting strategy
planning model (LSH-SPM)
Buildings are complicated/complex entities. Various parameters
including, but not restricted to, building construction/material,
outdoor disturbances such as solar irradiance, outdoor tempera-
ture, indoor disturbances (such as the heat generated by lighting,
appliances and solar gains), thermal mass, equipment capacity,
infiltration and occupant behavior significantly impact the result
of various strategy planning models and particularly load shifting
models implemented in buildings. Since buildings constitute a sig-
nificant part of the network energy system, their behavior has
remarkable influence on the total network energy system. For
example, the overload on energy network during peak hours can
be notably decreased by shifting the HVAC load of buildings from
peak to off-peak hours. To do the load shifting, thermal energy
should be stored in the house during off-peak hours. Outdoor tem-
perature is the only parameter significantly affecting the thermal
energy stored in a house. When it is not very cold/hot outside, ther-
34 N. Alibabaei et al. / Applied Energy 185 (2017) 2943
Fig. 8. Energy cost saving using SDFSS-SPM in House A in different outdoor temperatures.
mal energy can be stored in the house for immediate future use.
However, in cold/hot and extremely cold/hot weather, this is less
likely. It should also be taken into consideration that house compo-
nent/construction, wall layers/thickness, orientation, thermal
mass, windows size and interior design have substantial impacts
on stored thermal energy capacity and consequently the behavior
of the house in cold/hot and very cold/hot outdoor temperature.
When designing a LSH-SPM model, the occupants thermal
comfort is the most important item that should be taken into con-
sideration. Based on the ASHRAE Standard, to ensure thermal com-
fort, indoor temperature should be kept between 2024 C in
winter season and 2226 C in summer season during the occu-
pied/active periods [21].
2.2.2.1. Methodology. As mentioned in Section 2.1.4, 5-min is
selected as the simulation time steps for TRNSYS program. How-
ever, based on the simulation result with various outdoor temper-
atures, this time step is considered not long enough to store
sufficient thermal energy in House A in order to exploit LSH-
SPM. In other words, with this time step, the zone (1st floor) tem-
perature drops quickly when the HVAC system is shut down. In
addition, simulation results also show that since LSH-SPM is
intended to be used during peak hours with high electricity price,
keeping the HVAC system on for more than 15 min increases the
ASHP energy demand, which is not ideal according to the philoso-
phy of load shifting strategy planning model. Therefore, in order to
improve LSH-SPM efficiency, 15 min was selected as the HVAC sys-
tem operating time (time step) during the peak hours.
2.2.2.2. Pre-heating starting time (winter season). As mentioned
before, there is no opportunity to shift the HVAC load from peak
to off-/mid-peak hours without using pre-heating process. One of
the most important issues that should be taken into consideration
before pre-heating the house is pre-heating starting time. Different
parameters affect the optimal starting time of pre-heating process;
outdoor temperature is the most important one, and characteris-
tics of the house and zone temperature before starting the pre-
heating process are the 2nd and 3rd important parameters.
If pre-heating starts earlier than its optimum time, more elec-
tricity is consumed and consequently the rooms temperature
exceeds the ASHRAE Standard range. If pre-heating starts later
than its optimum time, the thermal energy stored in the house
would not be adequate to fully support LSH-SPM during the peak
load hours. In this study, the TRNSYS model of House A was run
at various outdoor temperatures to find the optimum starting time.
To this end, the HVAC set-point was first set to 20.7 C (the heating
set-point temperature selected by TRNSYS model developers).
Then, when the HVAC system was turned on (this particular time
is called rise-up time in this study), it remained on until the zone
temperature exceeded its maximum permitted temperature (this
particular time is called saturation time in this study). The time
constant (TC) factor obtained by subtracting saturation point and
rise up times was used to calculate the pre-heating starting time.
TC factor ensures that maximum thermal energy is stored in the
house without compromising thermal comfort.
In Ontario, in winter, peak hours start at 7:00 am and end at
11:00 am. To support the local grid as a grid-friendly house, the
HVAC system should ideally remain off during this period. This
ideal HVAC operating scenario called Best Case Scenario (BCS) in
this study. To implement the LSH-SPM, first an operational com-
mand matrix is built to fulfill the BCS condition. To this end, the
corresponding elements of the matrix are set to 0 to keep the
HVAC system off during peak hours. One of the most important
parameters preventing from the BCS is the outdoor temperature.
If the outdoor temperature is cold or very cold, HVAC system
should be turned on during peak hours to ensure the ASHRAE Stan-
dard. In other words, in this case BCS cannot be implemented into
the system due to the strong effect of the severe outdoor temper-
ature. To investigate, TRNSYS model is run based on a given day
weather condition. Simulation results show that if the ZT remains
within the ASHRAE Standard range (in each hour), BCS is selected
as the certified operational command matrix. However, if at a
specific time step ZT drops below the ASHRAE standard range,
the corresponding element of operational command matrix will
be set to 1 by Matlab to turn the HVAC on during that specific
time step. Then the TRNSYS model is re-run with modified opera-
tional command matrix to observe the effect of outdoor tempera-
ture on ZT in the next time step. This process is repeated to
cover the whole day. As the result, at the end of the process, the
most appropriate operational command matrix that met the ASH-
RAE Standard is built using this strategy planning model. Fig. 9
illustrates the abovementioned procedure in a simple flowchart.
2.2.2.3. Calculating the effect of LSH-SPM on Daily Energy Cost (DEC)
in different outdoor temperatures. To study the impact of LSH-SPM
on HVAC system energy cost saving, different simulations are run
based on various outdoor temperatures. Based on the simulation
results, when the daily average outdoor temperature is warm
(equal to or greater than 14 C), ASHP remains off almost the entire
time due to the low thermal demand of the house. Hence, DEC is
increased by using LSH-SPM. When the daily average outdoor tem-
perature is cold (lower than 0 C), DEC after applying LSH-SPM is
still higher than baseline control scenario when no SPM is used.
Fig. 10 shows the energy cost savings for different daily average
outdoor temperatures after using LSH-SPM. These energy cost sav-
ings were calculated based on 2014 and 2015 electricity prices. As
Fig. 10 shows, LSH-SPM is beneficial when the daily average out-
door temperature changes between 0 C and 12 C. Like SDFSS-
 N. Alibabaei et al. / Applied Energy 185 (2017) 2943 35

Matlab Controller (LSH SPM) planning model will not be advantageous. Hence, the only strategy
planning model that could be implemented during summer season
BCS
Operaonal
is LSH-SPM. In summer season, pre-cooling method should be used
Command Matrix to cool down the zone temperature during mid-peak hours. Based
on summer season TOU pricing scheme, peak hours start from
11:00 am and end at 17:00 pm. Since in summer season, pre-
Run TRNSYS cooling process should be implemented during mid-peak hours,
Program the impact of LSH-SPM on energy cost saving is not as strong as
it is in winter when pre-heating process takes place during off-
peak hours with lower electricity prices.
The methodologies described in Section 2.2.2 are also used for
Check if Zone Temperature Ensure
pre-cooling the house in summer season. In summer season,
the ASHRAE Standard 23.5 C is selected as the zone temperature set-point. Based on
Yes ASHRAE Standard [21], during summer season zone temperature
can only change between 22 C and 26 C. These boundaries are
No set in Matlab program in order to manage and control the imple-
mentation of LSH-SPM. In other words, zone temperature is
reduced to 22 C before peak hours start (i.e., at 10:00 am) to store
cooling energy in the house and subsequently to keep the HVAC
Revise
system off during peak hours.
Operaonal
Command Matrix Figs. 11 and 12 show the zone temperature and operational
command matrix, respectively, before implementing LSH-SPM.
Figs. 13 and 14 show the zone temperature (ZT) and operational
command matrix, respectively, at the first iteration of LSH-SPM. As
Cered the figure shows, first the zone temperature was reduced to 22 C
Operaonal (for pre-cooling) and then the HVAC system was kept off during
Command the peak hours to reduce the energy cost.
Matrix
When the zone temperature during peak hours is higher than
the upper range permitted by the ASHRAE Standard (temperature
Fig. 9. The operational mechanism of LSH-SPM model.
violation), the Matlab controller will turn on the HVAC system in
that particular time step in the next iteration. Since the impact of
LSH-SPM on saving money during summer were not significant,
the simulations were not run for the cooling season and hence
the figure shown in Section 2.2.2.3 (Fig. 10) were not generated.

2.2.3. Development of LSH-SPM by integrating smart dual fuel

switching system strategy planning model (LSHSDFSS-SPM)
In this SPM, the SDFSS and LSH strategy planning models are
combined to construct a developed SPM called LSHSDFSS-SPM.
This SPM takes advantage of both fuel switching and load shifting
systems to generate a modified HVAC operational command
matrix. Fig. 15 shows the procedures in a simple flowchart. Using
this SPM, not only ASHP electrical demand during peak hours is
minimized, but also the least expensive hot air supplier system is
selected in each hour. Therefore, both home owners and local grid
Fig. 10. Energy cost saving using load shifting SPM in House A in different outdoor benefit from this system; home owners will pay less fuel cost for
temperatures. the operation of HVAC system while ASHP electrical demand stays
optimum (minimum) during the peak hours. However, because of
SPM, the effectiveness of LSH-SPM will increase by the annual
the complexities of combining the two SPMs, the effectiveness of
escalation of electricity prices.
LSHSDFSS-SPM is seriously affected by the outdoor temperature.
Table 2 shows the increment percentages of electricity prices
For example, when the outdoor temperature is lower than 2 C
between off-peak and peak hours in 2014 and 2015. Since in
LSH-SPM is not beneficial and when the outdoor temperature is
2015 there is 6% more difference between electricity prices
higher than 0 C SDFSS-SPM is not advantageous.
between off-peak and peak hours, LSH-SPM is more beneficial in
terms of energy cost saving.
3. Simulation results and discussion
2.2.2.4. Using load shifting strategy planning model during summer
(the cooling) season. Since in summer season the outdoor temper- 3.1. Analysis of the impact of intelligent strategy planning models on
ature is always higher than 0 C, implementing SDFSS strategy HVAC system demand and energy cost during winter (the heating)
season
Table 2
Incremental percentages of electricity prices between off-peak and peak hours. 3.1.1. Heating season description
A year consists of 365 days (8760 h). In this study, the heating
Year Off-peak (/kW h) Peak (/kW h) Increment
season was assumed to begin on October 1st (6576 h) and end
2014 11.7 18.0 35.0% on May 21th (3407 h) [22,23]. It is also considered that the indoor
2015 13.3 22.6 41.0%
set-point temperature is 21 C during winter (the heating) season.
36 N. Alibabaei et al. / Applied Energy 185 (2017) 2943

Zone Temperature (

Set point = 23.5

Fig. 11. Zone temperature before implementing LSH-SPM.

Fig. 12. Operational command matrix before implementing LSH-SPM.

Zone Temperature (

Fig. 13. Zone temperature at the first iteration of LSH-SPM.

The weather file used to simulate the thermal demand is the
metropolitan Toronto weather provided in the TRNSYS library.
Fig. 16 depicts the hourly outdoor temperature during the heating
season.
Based on Fig. 16, the minimum outdoor temperature for
Toronto is 22.27 C and occurs on January 12th (273 h).
3.1.2. Methodology
The process system and strategy planning models described in
Section 2 are used in this section for analyzing the behavior of
HVAC system in daily basis during winter season. 2015 electricity
prices presented in Section 2.1.5 are used in energy cost
calculations.
 N. Alibabaei et al. / Applied Energy 185 (2017) 2943 37

Fig. 14. Operational command matrix at the first iteration of LSH-SPM.

Generate Final
Run Implement Implement Operaonal
TRNSYS LSH SPM SDFSS SPM Command
Matrix

Fig. 15. LSHSDFSS-SPM framework.

Fig. 18. HVAC system Daily Energy Cost (DEC) and energy cost saving based on each
strategy planning model - December 1st.

Fig. 16. Winter (the heating) season - outdoor temperature.

Fig. 17. Outdoor temperature on December 1st TRNSYS metropolitan weather data.
38 N. Alibabaei et al. / Applied Energy 185 (2017) 2943
Fig. 19. Outdoor temperature on January 1st TRNSYS metropolitan weather data.
Fig. 20. HVAC system Daily Energy Cost (DEC) and energy cost saving based on each
strategy planning model - January 1st.
3.1.3. Impact of different SPMs on the HVAC system demand and
energy cost on three different sample days
To consider the effects of LSH, SDFSS, and LSHSDFSS strategy
planning models on the energy demand and associated cost of
House As HVAC system, three different sample days are selected
to highlight the process. These sample days are December 1st, Jan-
uary 1st, and February 1st, i.e., the first day of each month of win-
ter season.
Fig. 17 shows the outdoor temperature during the first sample
day (December 1st).
As Fig. 17 shows, on December 1st, the outdoor temperature
changed between 2.27 C and 9.29 C. All three SPMs were
implemented on House As HVAC system using the same method-
ology described in Sections 2.2.12.2.3. Fig. 18 shows the HVAC
system DEC and energy cost saving based on each strategy plan-
ning model.
Fig. 18 shows that on December 1st using LSH-SPM brought no
cost saving (negative energy cost saving means that the energy
cost, when LSH-SPM was implemented, was higher comparing to
the baseline control scenario). This was expected (based on the
results presented in Section 2.2.1) since on December 1st the out-
door temperature was always lower that 0 C. Using SDFSS and
LSHSDFSS strategy planning models, $0.44 and $0.22 were saved,
respectively. Based on the simulation results, on December 1st,
the maximum amount of energy cost was reduced by using SDFSS.
Fig. 19 shows the outdoor temperature during the second sample
day (January 1st).
As Fig. 19 shows on January 1st, the outdoor temperature chan-
ged between 3.87 C and 8.25 C. All three SPMs were imple-
mented on House As HVAC system on this specific day. Fig. 20
shows the HVAC system DEC and energy cost saving based on each
strategy planning model.
Based on Fig. 20, LSH-SPM saved $0.31. With SDFSS the energy
cost saving was not significant since the outdoor temperature dur-
ing the day was almost higher than 0 C. Based on the results pre-
sented on Section 2.2.1, the HVAC system almost benefits from
SDFSS-SPM at negative outdoor temperatures. Using LSHSDFSS
strategy planning model saved $0.38. Based on the simulation
results, on January 1st maximum money was saved by using
LSHSDFSS-SPM. Fig. 21 shows the outdoor temperature during
the third sample day (February 1st).
As Fig. 21 shows on February 1st the outdoor temperature chan-
ged between 4.85 C and 3.97 C. All three SPMs were imple-
mented on House As HVAC system on this sample day. Fig. 22
shows the HVAC system DEC and energy cost saving based on each
strategy planning model.
As Fig. 22 shows, $0.17 was saved using the LSH-SPM, $0.35 was
saved using the SDFSS, and $0.39 was saved using the LSHSDFSS
strategy planning model. Based on the simulation results, on this
sample day the maximum energy cost saving was obtained by
using LSHSDFSS-SPM. Fig. 23 shows the outdoor temperature at
the coldest day of the year. Based on this figure, the outdoor tem-
perature changed between 22.27 C and 11.10 C during this
particular day.
All three SPMs were implemented on House As HVAC system
on February 1st. Fig. 24 depicts the HVAC system DEC and energy
cost saving based on each strategy planning model.
As the figure shows no saving was achieved using LSH-SPM due
to the extremely cold weather condition. The energy cost saving
using SDFSS was $8.63. In other words, there was 48% reduction
on daily energy cost of HVAC system when SDFSS-SPM was imple-
mented in this extremely cold weather condition. $4.67 is saved
using LSHSDFSS strategy planning model. Based on the simulation
results, on February 1st the maximum saving happened when
SDFSS-SPM is utilized.
 N. Alibabaei et al. / Applied Energy 185 (2017) 2943
Fig. 21. Outdoor temperature on February 1st TRNSYS metropolitan weather data.
Fig. 22. HVAC system Daily Energy Cost (DEC) and energy cost saving based on each
strategy planning model - February 1st.
3.1.4. Energy cost saving analysis by utilizing different SPMs in the
heating season
In this section, the influence of each strategy planning model in
the heating season is analyzed. Fig. 25 depicts the DEC of HVAC
system with different strategy planning models. In this figure, sim-
ulation starts on January 1st and ends on December 31th, contain-
ing 233 days (the cooling season days are excluded). The red1 line
shows the energy cost of HVAC system when no strategy planning
model is implemented on the system (baseline control scenario).
The second line (the green line) shows the energy cost of HVAC sys-
tem with LSHSDFSS-SPM. The third line (the blue line) shows the
energy cost of HVAC system with LSH-SPM. The last line (the black
line) shows the energy cost of HVAC system with SDFSS-SPM.
As it can be concluded from Fig. 25, when the outdoor temper-
ature is cold and/or very cold (i.e., during winter months), the DEC
of HVAC system increased using the LSH-SPM. However, during
this period, the DEC of HVAC system decreased significantly when
using SDFSS-SPM. LSHSDFSS-SPM took the second place in reduc-
ing the DEC of HVAC system during these cold days. When the out-
door temperature is not very cold (i.e., at the beginning and/or the
end of the heating season - the middle section of the graph in
Fig. 25) there was no noticeable difference in energy cost saving
using different SPMs.
Fig. 26 illustrates the energy cost saving with different strategy
planning models for the heating season. The total energy cost for
the baseline scenario is $976.10. The HVAC operating cost
increased to $1065.03 using LSH-SPM. In other words, despite
1
For interpretation of color in Figs. 25 and 29, the reader is referred to the web
version of this article.
39
the fact that LSH-SPM has the potential to reduce the operating
cost of HVAC system (when the daily average outdoor temperature
changes between 0 C and 12 C), the HVAC system operating cost
increased by a total of 9.11% when this strategy planning model
was implemented for the entire heating season. The operating cost
of HVAC system decreased significantly with implementation of
SDFSS-SPM in the heating season. This fuel switching strategy
planning model reduced the HVAC system operation cost by 23.8%.
The last strategy planning model implemented on the system
was LSHSDFSS which reduced the HVAC system operating cost
by 15.8%.
3.1.5. Optimal strategy planning model
As described before, there is a strong relationship between the
effectiveness of each strategy planning model and the weather
condition, particularly the outdoor temperature. As a result, on
cold (or extremely cold) weather condition, the optimal strategy
planning model for minimizing the HVAC system operating cost
is SDFSS-SPM. When daily average outdoor temperature changes
between 0 C and 12 C, LSH-SPM can be selected as the optimum
strategy planning model. LSHSDFSS-SPM takes advantage of both
load shifting and fuel switching. This strategy planning model
can be used as the optimum SPM on certain days when the daily
average outdoor temperature changes between 0 C and 8 C. Con-
sidering these specifications, an optimization process is executed
to determine the best SPM, i.e., the one that generates the mini-
mum HVAC system daily energy cost, on each specific day.
Fig. 27 depicts the minimum daily operating cost of HVAC sys-
tem after running optimization process for the heating season. The
overall operating cost of HVAC system in the heating season after
utilizing the optimization process is $716.08. This optimum/mini-
mum cost is lower than the HVAC system operating cost of $743.79
with SDFSS-SPM (as the most effective SPM during the heating sea-
son) because on some winter days, LSH or LSHSDFSS SPM gener-
ated lower energy cost for HVAC system operation due to the
specific weather conditions. The implementation of the fully opti-
mized HVAC SPM achieves a 26.6% energy cost reduction compared
to the base case control for a typical Toronto heating season.
3.2. Impact of the load shifting strategy planning model on HVAC
system during summer (the cooling season)
3.2.1. The cooling season
In this study, the cooling season was assumed to begin on May
22th and end on September 30th [23]. Zone set-point temperature
40 N. Alibabaei et al. / Applied Energy 185 (2017) 2943

Outdoor Temperature ( )

Hour

Fig. 23. The outdoor temperature on the coldest day of year TRNSYS metropolitan weather data.

Fig. 26. Energy cost saving with different strategy planning models in the heating
season.

3.2.2. Methodology
Fig. 24. HVAC system Daily Energy Cost (DEC) and energy cost saving based on each The process system and LSH strategy planning model described
strategy planning model on the coldest day of the year.
in Section 2.2.2 are used in this section for analyzing the behavior
is set to 23.5 C during summer (the cooling) season. The of HVAC system in the cooling season.
metropolitan Toronto weather file available at the TRNSYS library
was used to simulate the thermal demand. 3.2.3. Impact of the LSH-SPM on HVAC system demand and energy cost
Fig. 28 depicts the hourly outdoor temperature during the cool- in the cooling season
ing season. The maximum outdoor temperature was 33.96 C and Since outdoor temperature during the cooling season is always
was recorded on July 23th (1433 h). above 0 C, SDFSS and consequently LSHSDFSS strategy planning

26

24
HVAC System Daily Energy Cost ($)

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

08

06

04

02
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230235
Different Days of Heating Season

Fig. 25. DEC of HVAC system based on different strategy planning models in the heating season.
 N. Alibabaei et al. / Applied Energy 185 (2017) 2943 41

14

13

12

11

10
HVAC System DEC ($)

09

08

07

06

05

04

03

02

Fig. 27. Minimum daily operating cost of HVAC system - heating season days.

Fig. 28. Summer (the cooling) season - outdoor temperature.

Fig. 29. DEC of HVAC system before and after taking advantage of LSH-SPM in the cooling season.
42 N. Alibabaei et al. / Applied Energy 185 (2017) 2943
Fig. 30. Energy cost saving implementing LSH strategy planning model in the
cooling season.
models are not advantageous. Hence, only LSH-SPM is imple-
mented in the cooling season. To this end, pre-cooling method is
used for cooling down the zone temperature during mid-peak
hours. Hence, the impact of LSH-SPM on HVAC system energy
demand and cost saving in summer is not as strong as it is in win-
ter season in which pre-heating process takes place during off-
peak hours with lower electricity cost.
3.2.4. Energy cost saving analysis by utilizing LSH-SPM in the cooling
season
In this section, the influence of LSH-SPM is analyzed in the cool-
ing season. Fig. 29 depicts the DEC of HVAC system after imple-
menting LSH strategy planning model. As mentioned in
Section 3.2.1, the cooling season starts on May 22th and ends on
September 30th, containing 132 days. In Fig. 29, the first line (the
red line) shows the energy cost of HVAC system when no strategy
planning model is implemented (baseline control scenario). The
second line (the blue line) shows the HVAC system energy cost
with LSH-SPM.
Fig. 30 illustrates the cost saving in the cooling season when
LSH strategy planning model is implemented. As the figure shows,
the total energy cost of HVAC system operation during the cooling
season is $222.09 in the baseline control scenario. Using LSH-SPM
the HVAC operating cost decreased to $207.34. In other words, LSH
strategy planning model reduced the HVAC system operating cost
by 6.63% for the cooling season. As mentioned before, since in sum-
mer season pre-cooling process should be executed during mid-
peak hours, the daily impact of LSH-SPM on energy cost saving is
not as effective as in winter season when pre-heating process takes
place during off-peak hours with lower electricity prices.
4. Conclusion
Residential houses/buildings can play significant role in manag-
ing the network energy system. Since residential houses/buildings
have the potential of storing thermal (heat or cold) energy, they
present great opportunity for managing/controlling HVAC system
energy demand/cost by utilizing controllers that take advantage
of smart strategy planning models. This study discussed the devel-
opment of three different strategy planning models. SDFSS-SPM
was the first strategy planning model applied for selecting the least
expensive hot-air supplier at each hour. This SPM could decrease
home owners HVAC energy cost significantly. When the outdoor
temperature was below 8 C, DFC decreased using this model. As
the outdoor temperature got colder, the savings increased. The sec-
ond strategy planning model used in this study was LSH-SPM
model. This model shifted the HVAC load from peak to off- and/
or mid-peak hours. Since the outdoor temperature and house char-
acteristics directly affect the thermal energy to be stored inside a
house, a smart method was used to determine the best starting
time for pre-heating/cooling the house. This method not only
ensures the thermal comfort level, but also minimizes the ASHP
energy demand and cost. Based on simulation results, when the
daily average outdoor temperature changed between 0 C and
12 C, the best results were obtained by implementing LSH-SPM
model. LSHSDFSS-SPM was the third strategy planning model
investigated. This SPM was developed by integrating SDFSS-SPM
and LSH-SPM models together into one. LSHSDFSS-SPM takes
advantage of load shifting and fuel switching system simultane-
ously. This SPM was most effective when the daily average outdoor
temperature changed between 0 C and 8 C. The aforementioned
SPMs were implemented on TRCA ASH House As HVAC system
during the heating and cooling seasons. In the heating season,
the operating cost of the HVAC system decreased significantly at
23.8% by implementing SDFSS-SPM. LSHSDFSS-SPM reduced the
HVAC system operating cost by 15.8%. Despite the fact that LSH-
SPM can reduce the operating cost of an HVAC system, the HVAC
system operating cost was totally increased by 9.11% by imple-
menting this strategy planning model during the heating season.
The case study houses low thermal mass as well as cold/very cold
outdoor temperature in Toronto (Canada) can be considered as the
most important parameters that decreased the effectiveness of
LSH-SPM for the winter season. In the cooling season, LSH strategy
planning model was the only SPM implemented and it reduced the
HVAC system operating cost by 6.63%.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support
from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
(NSERC) of Canada, Smart Net-Zero Energy Buildings Research Net-
work (SNEBRN), Toronto Hydro, MITACS Accelerate Ontario, and
Region Conservation Authority (TRCA).
References
[1] Xu X, Taylor J, Pisello A. Network synergy effect: establishing a synergy
between building network and peer network energy conservation effects.
Energy Build 2014;68:31220.
[2] Xu X, Taylor J, Pisello A, Culliga P. The impact of place-based affiliation
networks on energy conservation: an holistic model that integrates the
influence of buildings, residents and the neighborhood context. Energy Build
2012;55:63746.
[3] Pagani G, Aiello M. The power grid as a complex network: a survey. Electricity J
2013;26(6):748.
[4] Siano P, Sarno D. Assessing the benefits of residential demand response in a
real time distribution energy market. Appl Energy 2016;161:53351.
[5] Arteconi A, Ciarrocchi E, Pan Q, Carducci F. Thermal energy storage coupled
with PV panels for demand side management of industrial building cooling
loads. Appl Energy 2016.
[6] Vakiloroaya V, Somali B, Fakhar A, Pishghadam K. A review of different
strategies for HVAC energy saving. Energy Convers Manage 2014;77:73854.
[7] Huang H, Chen L, Hu E. A new model predictive control scheme for energy and
cost savings in commercial buildings: an airport terminal building case study.
Build Environ 2015;89:20316.
[8] Ghahramani A, Zhang K, Dutta K, Yang Z, Gerber B. Energy savings from
temperature setpoints and deadband: quantifying the influence of building
and system properties on savings. Appl Energy 2016;165:93042.
[9] Kim W, Jeon Y, Kim Y. Simulation-based optimization of an integrated
daylighting and HVAC system using the design of experiments method. Appl
Energy 2016;162:66674.
[10] Nazi W, Wang Y, Roskilly T. Methodologies to reduce cooling load using heat
balance analysis: a case study in an office building in a tropical country. Energy
Procedia 2015;75:126974.
[11] Christantoni D, Flynn D, Finn D. Modelling of a multi-purpose commercial
building for demand response analysis. Energy Procedia 2015;78:216671.
[12] Kramer R, Maas M, Martens M, Schijndel A, Schellen H. Energy conservation in
museums using different setpoint strategies: a case study for a state-of-the-art
museum using building simulations. Appl Energy 2015;158:44658.
[13] Wang Q, Augenbroe G, Kim J, Gu L. Meta-modeling of occupancy variables and
analysis of their impact on energy outcomes of office buildings. Appl Energy
2016;174:16680.
 N. Alibabaei et al. / Applied Energy 185 (2017) 2943
[14] Patteeuw D, Gregor P, Helsen L. Comparison of load shifting incentives for low-
energy buildings with heat pumps to attain grid flexibility benefits. Appl
Energy 2016;167:8092.
[15] Beizaee A, Allison D, Lomas K, Foda E, Loveday D. Measuring the potential of
zonal space heating controls to reduce energy use in UK homes: the case of un-
furbished 1930s dwellings. Energy Build 2015;92:2944.
[16] Chassin DP, Stoustrup J, Agothoklis P, Djilali N. A new thermostat for real-time
price demand response: cost, comfort and energy impacts of discrete-time
control without deadband. Appl Energy 2015;155:81625.
[17] Li J, Poulton G, Platt G, Wall j, James G. Dynamic zone modelling for HVAC
system control. Int J Model, Identif Control 2010;9(1/2):513.
[18] Radhakrishnan N, Su Y, Su R, Poolla K. Token based scheduling for energy
management in building HVAC systems. Appl Energy 2016;173:6779.
[19] Griful S, Jacobsen R, Nguyen D, Sorensen G. Demand response potential of
ventilation systems in residential buildings. Energy Build 2016;121:110.
[20] Di Giorgio A, Liberati F. Near real time load shifting control for residential
electricity prosumers under designed and market indexed pricing models.
Appl Energy 2014;128:11932.
[21] ASHRAE. ASHRAE handbook-fundamentals. Atlanta, GA: American Society of
Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc; 2009.
[22] Zhang D, Barua R, Fung A. TRCA-BILD archetype sustainable house - overview
of monitoring system and preliminary results for mechanical systems. ASHRAE
Trans 2011:597612.
43
[23] Safa A, Fung A, Kumar R. Performance of two-stage variable capacity air source
heat pump: field performance results and TRNSYS simulation. Energy Build
2015;94:8090.
[24] Dembo A, Fung AS, Ng KLR, Pyrka A. The archetype sustainable house:
investigating its potentials to achieving the net-zero energy status based on
the results of a detailed energy audit. In: Proceedings of the 1st international
high performance buildings conference (2010) Purdue University, Paper 15.
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/ihpbc/15.
[25] Crawley D, Hand J, Kummert M, Griffith. Contrasting the capabilities of
building energy performance simulation programs. Build Environ 2008;43
(4):66173.
[26] Klein S, Beckman W, Mitchell J, Duffie J, Duffie N, Freeman T. TRNSYS 16 - a
transient system simulation program (2006, June), Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A.
[27] Kamel R, Fung AS. Modeling, simulation and feasibility analysis of residential
BIPV/T+ASHP system in cold climateCanada. Energy Build 2014;82:75870.
[28] VIESMANN. Technical data manual, gas-fired wall-mounted condensing boiler
12 to 285 MBH (3.5 to 83.5 kW), Vitodens 200-W Series B2HA.
[29] https://en.796 wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography of Toronto [accessed on: Oct 6th,
2015].
[30] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extreme_temperatures_in_Canada
[accessed on: Oct 6th, 2015].