Optimization of operating strategies in a community solar heating system

J. P. Forsstrbm and P. D. Lund

Physics, Helsinki University of Technology, SF-02150 Department ofTechnical Espoo 1.5, Finland (Received January 1984)

Minimization of auxiliary energy costs is discussed for heating in a district solar heating system with effective heat storage. The minimization problem is approached by dynamic programming which gives an optimal operating strategy for the auxiliary energy system. The effects of different pricing schemes of auxiliary energy (electricity) have been studied. The results show that with an adequate heat storage capacity, the optimization of the auxiliary energy use in a community solar heating system may lead to considerable cost savings. Key words: solar heating, optimization, programming heat storage, dynamic

Effective and year-round use of solar radiant energy for heating purposes at northern latitudes requires long-term heat storage. For economic reasons, seasonal heat storage units are usually employed in district solar heating systems, in which a group of several houses utilizes a common storage and solar collector construction. So far, several full-scale community solar heating systems have been realized in Scandinavia.> Though renewable energy utilization aims at reducing fossil fuel consumption, most of the new energy systems need some kind of auxiliary or reserve heating equipment. For solar heating systems, electric energy is often the most appropriate alternative in Northern Europe. Depending on the system size and on the attainable solar fraction, the yearly auxiliary energy consumption may be significant, typically in excess of 30% of the yearly heat load in existing district solar heating systems.* Consequently, the cost of purchased energy may represent a considerable item in the lifetime costs of the system. The auxiliary energy demand is usually concentrated to the winter months. Electric utilities often face significant cycles in the demand for electricity. The load shape fluctuates by the time of day, day of the week, and day of the year. During peak load periods, peaking plants using oil or gas are needed, whereas for a steady load, base load plants with low fuel costs may be used. To avoid uneconomical peaking capacity, the electric utility may support pricing sys0307-904X/85/02117-08/$03.00 0 1985 Butterworth & Co. (Publishers)

tems discouraging the electricity usage during high demands. Especially in Scandinavia, where the use of electricity for residential heating (e.g. by heat pumps or resistance heating) has increased, seasonal rates, time-of-use rates and high demand charges may be applied during a predetermined period. In electric-assisted district solar heating systems, the winter-time peaking of the heat load may be of the order of several megawatts. Particularly, with time-varying pricing of electricity, use of the auxiliary energy has to be carefully scheduled in order to prevent high energy costs and also to avoid increase of the peaking capacity requirement for the electric utility. Fortunately, the seasonal storage unit, which is primarily intended for storing solar heat from summer to winter, may also be suitable for thermal co-storage of electricity thus improving the possibilities of reducing the peak load on a daily or even on a seasonal scale. TO study the effects of the operating strategy on the auxiliary energy costs, a simple simulation model has been developed for a district solar heating system with effective heat storage and with necessary heat recovery facilities. The optimal control scheme is searched for by stochastic and deterministic dynamic programming which give a real quantitative estimate of the obtainable cost savings. The control is mainly realized by charging the storage unit with an electric driven heat pump or with an electric boiler. The

Ltd.

Appl. Math. Modelling,

1985,

Vol. 9, April

117

Optimization

of a community

solar heating system:

J. P. Forsstrijm

and P. D. Lund

system is characterized by the storage temperature, i.e. the heat content of the storage. Several different pricing schemes of electricity along with limited power levels have been considered. The heating system A schematic of the heating system modelled is shown in Figure 1. The solar community comprises 500 single-family houses. The storage unit is divided into a seasonal and a diurnal storage, the latter of which is used to compensate short-term heat demand fluctuations. In practice, the two units may physically be the same if the seasonal storage is designed to operate thermally stratified. Both storage units may be charged by electricity. The dynamic behaviour of the heat storage is described by the energy equation. Referring to Figure I, the following expression exists for the diurnal storage:
(mC)d dTd -

Ff(tiZC)f(Td

T,) + F&'k)f(&-

T,)

+ HO,

- Ts>

(2)

where the subscript c refers to solar collectors, and e to the evaporator of the heat pump. The control functions F ensure that the heating system operates properly. These also determine whether heat is injected to or extracted from the storage. F is a two-valued controller with values F = 0 (off) and F = 1 (on). A more precise description of the control functions is given in Appendix 1. The mass flow rates ti appearing in equations (1) and (2) depend on the power levels within the heating system and are discussed in detail in Appendix 2. For instance, the solar collector flow rate is given by: F&A c (3)

ljzc = (T, - T,) c, where: 77, I 4, collector efficiency solar radiation incident on collector surface total collector surface area

dt = FIZZ
+Fh@C)h(Th+

- Td) + F&+c),(T,
Td) + Ff(+Q-(G-

Td) rd)

Ff@zc)f~(Ts

- Td) + H,(T,

- Td)

(1)

where: m riz T
C Hd

storage mass mass flow rate temperature thermal heat capacity storage heat loss factor a storage control function control)

(not system

The storage heat loss factors Hd and Hs depend on the storage geometry and the thickness of the insulation. An uninsulated cylindrical rock cavern is used for the seasonal heat storage with water as the storage medium. The diurnal storage may in practice be a separate water tank or the upper part of the seasonal storage. The computer model assumes for simplicity that the two stores are not in thermal contact with each other. For the heat loss factor, the following generalized equation may be written:

Subscripts: a ambient b boiler diurnal storage flow between two storage units 5 h condenser 1 load s seasonal storage The energy equation (mc), 2 for the seasonal storage is: - Ts) + Fe(hc)e(Te - T,)

(4)

where:
r0

L h

radius of storage height of storage thermal conductivity storage

of ground in surroundings

of

= F,(li?c),(T,

Heat

load

A similar equation may be written for Hd. An accurate evaluation of, for example, H, would also require knowledge of the temperature field TLI(f, z) around the storage. However, because the dynamic programming algorithm employed for optimization of the control requires long computing times, equation (4) has to be simplified. In the computer model, the heat losses are calculated with respect to a single peak temperature. Typically, H, fi 10 kW/K. The seasonal storage is used as a heat source for the heat pump delivering heat to the diurnal storage. The diurnal storage acts as a buffer between the load and the heat production system. Minimum acceptable temperature of heat delivered to the houses was set to 50 C. The seasonal storage is primarily charged by solar heat, but may also be used for long-term thermal storage of electricity as depicted in Figure 1.

I
I

I
Seasonal storage

i
I I I I I I

fi&,T,

Solar collectors

&.T,

1 1 I
I

d b s IiT
Heat puma

81

2 8 s

ki

i_______J Figure 7 Schematic heat storage

System control
The objective of the optimization is to minimize the total costs of the auxiliary energy used. The cost function is of

of district solar heating system with effective

118

Appl.

Math.

Modelling,

1985,

Vol. 9, April

Optimization

of a community

solar heating system:

J. P. Forsstrtim

and P. D. Lund

the following form: C = Ce +

J

For the functions can be written: (5)

p1 and p2 in equation (8), the following

[ Cc(f) P(t) dt + C,P,,,

1 Yr

where: Co C,
P

P,,, cP

fixed customer cost (= $2000 per year) time-varying price of electricity total power demand of electricity for heat pump and boiler maximum electric power demand in winter power demand charge

(10)

The performance of a solar heating system is affected by the weather conditions. Because of the stochastic nature of the processes involved, a stochastic dynamic programming approach is most appropriate, even though a deterministic approach is often adequate to obtain insight of the average control scheme of the auxiliary energy system. In general, for any process, the optimal control is obtained from the stochastic dynamic programming algorithm which in terms of conditional expectations is:3

= max-CCJ4)E-C ~,,x[~ToT(~~(~)~~ 7 E Pi, fi+Jl T&J = T&)1, E b,* FWi +Jl ITdtJ = T,(fi)I), UTOT[TS(~)I = At[%dTs(~T)) + dTs(~Nl
where: Wj) Prn,x(~)
uHd)

(11) (12)

UE() At UTOT(*)

stochastic storage temperature vector maximum instantaneous electric power demand during the week power demand of heat pump power demand of boiler time step total amount of electricity consumed

+ EtP*lx(ti+J, ri+*ll-4ri>
where the notation lowed exactly: x(Q
U

suggested in reference 3 has been fol-

u (= cost function) P The conditional expectation E{ * 1.} is the minimum expected cost to complete the process from the state x(ri) at time ri. L provides the running cost from one sample to the next. Equation (6) is solved backwards in time from the terminal condition at rN+, of: P*[x(rN+l)t
rN+ll =&=b(fN+1)1

state of system at time ti control admissible set of controls optimal objective function

(7)

where Lf provides the cost at the final time; tN is the last sample time at which control is applied. When considering optimization of auxiliary energy usage in the district solar heating system with the aid of storage, the solution algorithms have to be modified. The total cost function then consists of two interrelated factors, that is to say, of energy and peak power costs as defined by equation (5). The solution algorithm is now: P* [Tdfi)l

As expressed in equation (1 l), the power demand cost associated with each state is the expected value of the maximum power demand cost for that specific week, or, the expected cost of the peak power to be used in the future. It should be noticed that the power demand cost is not integral in nature in constrast to the energy costs expressed by equation (10). The control function, i.e. the power level of charging the storage, is updated weekly, so ri+l - ri = 1 week, whereas the system simulations are performed by 8-h time steps. Shorter steps are not necessary due to the relatively slow dynamics of the seasonal storage and would cause prohibitively long computing times. Different charging levels may, however, be applied in daytime and nighttime during the week. Solving equation (8) backwards from the final state rN+ 1(3 1 December) to the initial state to (1 January), one yields the minimum expected cost to complete the process p*[T,(r,)]. One also obtains the optimal control functions
d('(rO>>3 . . . 1 &@N)h

Alternative

cases of electricity

pricing

= d LWiN + pp*PX4>1

(8)

where the seasonal storage temperature T, has been chosen for the state variable. p,* represents the optimal energy costs and ps the optimal power demand cost. The terminal condition is: P* [Ts(tN+r)l = P,*[T,(r,+,)l = 0 + P,*[Ts(tlv+r)l (9)

In Europe, time-of-use electricity rates have been in use for several years to reduce the peaking of load and to shift usage from peak to off-peak periods. Figure 2 shows a typical existing electricity and power demand pricing for large-scale consumers in southern Finland. The rates clearly reflect the tendency of reducing the reliance on fossil-fired peaking capacity. In Scandinavia, the heating requirement of buildings is at a maximum from December to March. In a district solar heating system, the rate structure given in Figure 2 emphasizes the use of the diurnal heat storage. This unit is charged during night-time off-peak periods either by heat pump which uses the seasonal heat storage as a heat source, or by the boiler. In general, seasonal thermal storage of electricity would be less profitable with the presented rates. In Finland, it is presumed that future electricity need for industry and for residential heating will increase and will

Appl. Math. Modelling,

1985,

Vol. 9, April

119

Optimization

of a community

solar heating

system:

J. P. Forsstrtim

and P. D. Lund

22

6 Time (h)

14

-6

10 2 Time (months)

Time-of-day

pricing of electricity

-L
,r-

Case

purchased energy, provided that there is_sufficient storage capacity available. As the reference system configuration a SOO-house district solar heating system has been used with a yearly solar fraction exceeding 50% for the Helsinki (60N) climate. The yearly space heating load of an individual house of 100 m2 living area is 7.5 MW h and the hot water demand is 4 MW h, respectively. The optimal system configuration then comprises a 50 000 m3 rock cavern storage, 9000 m2 of flat-plate solar collectors, and a heat p~mp.~ The heat storage capacity of the system is also adequate for thermal storage of electricity. The computer model may be used either for deterministic or stochastic optimizations. When run on a UNIVAC 1 lOO/E61, 3600 s of CPU-time is required for a single stochastic optimization, whereas a deterministic case is handled in 500 s. Often a deterministic approach may be sufficient, for example, to give insight into average behaviour. The relatively short computing times are due to the comprehensive optimization of the computer code itself.
Stochastic versus deterministic optimization

e_II _-----

1
11

III

III,,

III 5 7

Time Figure 3 Seasonal electricity

1 (months)

pricing

probably be satisfied by base load plants that would stress a more even usage pattern also on a seasonal scale. To fulfil this requirement, the electric utilities may be forced to prohibit high occasional power demands during the periods of maximum load. In these cases, seasonal control of auxiliary energy use is emphasized. For this study, two different types of seasonal electricity pricing are employed, and are shown in Figure 3. In pricing schedule A, the price of summer electricity is $27.7 per MW h and winter electricity is $55.5 MW h. A power demand charge of $3 1 per kW is also applied from the beginning of November to the end of March. The second rate model B is more complicated and comprises three pricing levels (9.2,46.3 and $92.6 per MW h). The power charge is $31 per kW during the most severe period of peaking, i.e. in December and January. From February to June and from September to December, the power demand charge is $15.5 per kW. In the summer no power charge is applied. The pricing model B strongly favours summertime use of electricity. During this period, there would also be a surplus of district or waste heat which could replace electricity as the charging energy of the storage.

A solar heating system responds to dynamic disturbances from the environment as well as to the control inputs. These include the stochastically varying solar radiant intensity and the ambient temperature which affect the performance of the solar collectors and determine the heat load. In the stochastic dynamic programming approach, the two environmental variables are assumed Gaussian and independent. For the deterministic case, average observed values are employed. Figure 4a shows the optimal control scheme and Figure 4b the corresponding behaviour of the system state when applying a stochastic and a deterministic power control scheme in a district solar heating system with stochastic weather conditions, i.e. a stochastic solar radiation availability and heat load. Time-of-day pricing of electricity (Figure 2) and a maximum accessible electric power level of

z 1 g

2DDD15OD-

------

Heat load Electrxlty demand optlmlzatlon) Electruty demand optimlzatlon)

(stochastic (determlnlstic

La
y z 2000

IO
-Stochastic - --Determu-IstIc optlmlzatlon

20 optlmlzotlon

3(3

40

52

1600 t

b
Results and discussion
The importance of optimizing the operating strategy is more pronounced the smaller the yearly fraction of non-

-0

10

20 Time

30 (weeks)

40

50

Figure 4 Optimal operating strategies of the auxiliary energy system obtained by stochastic and deterministic dynamic programming for stochastic weather conditions and with time-of-day pricing of electricity. (500 houses; A, = 9000 m, V = 50 000 m.) Yearly heat load is 5870 MW h

120

Appl.

Math. Modelling,

1985,

Vol.

9, April

Optimization

of a community

solar heating system:

J. P. Forsstriim

and P. 0. Lund

1700 kW was employed in the optimizations. This restriction makes it impossible to charge the diurnal storage for the whole day by the boiler only. In the deterministic approach, the heat content of the seasonal storage is more explicitly saved from the summer to the winter than in the stochastic case. Consequently, in addition to the heat pump, the boiler is also used from late autumn on. In the stochastic optimization, the seasonal storage is rapidly discharged following the summer. During the main heating period, the boiler is used at its maximum power level to charge the diurnal storage. In the daytime, the diurnal storage is discharged first and the remaining load is met by the heat pump. In the deterministic case, the diurnal storage is charged at night-time partly by the boiler and partly by the heat pump. This strategy occasionally discharges the seasonal storage too quickly in the winter for stochastically varying weather conditions and consequently the heat pump fails to satisfy the daytime heat load. Hence the boiler has to be used. This phenomenon is readily observed in Figure 4a and 4b around week number 10. The case study presented indicates that from a stochastic point of view no seasonal thermal co-storage of electricity would be profitable for the time-of-day electricity pricing in spite of the relatively limited power availability applied. For the deterministic approach, the usage pattern of the seasonal storage was more even. However, if there were no restriction on the available electric power, the deterministic approach would coincide with the stochastic one. The quantitative results for the two optimization procedures are shown in Table I. The higher solar fraction for the stochastic case is due to the effective use of the seasonal storage after summer which decreases operational collector temperatures and gives a better thermal efficiency. The stochastic controller also yields a lower yearly auxiliary energy cost because of lower peaking of the auxiliary power.

An assessment of the effects arising from the power restrictions was performed for average weather conditions by deterministic dynamic programming which represents an ideal situation with perfect knowledge of future heat dernand. Figures 5a and 5b outline the behaviour of the seasonal storage and of the optimal operating strategy for the different power levels (P,,,). As may be expected, the more severe is the limitation, the more pronounced is the importance of the seasonal storage, and solar heat collected in the summer has also to be stored for the peaking period. For this specific system configuration, the heating system fails to operate if the maximum power of the auxiliary system is restricted below 1100 kW. The peaking of electric power is naturally more severe than is shown in Figure 5a which represents weekly mean values. Figure 6 illustrates the peak power demands. The regular power pattern is explained by the fact that the daytime and the night-time charging levels are updated only once a week. As observed for P,,, = 1100 kW, electricity is also required for heating in daytime. The total auxiliary energy costs for the different operating strategies are summarized in Table 2. Compared to a non. optimized control scheme, the optimal control strategies give a 25-35s cost saving per year. With a non-optimal operating strategy, seasonal thermal storage of electricity is not employed.
Seasonal pricing

Thermal co-storage of electricity is more important when the electricity price and the demand charge vary

Maxlmum

capacity 3500 1700 kW kW

3
B

Time-of-day pricing of electricity with different power restrictions

With the existing pricing of electricity in Finland shown in Figure 2, the cost of auxiliary energy is minimized by reducing the use of electricity during winter days. Consequently, the diurnal storage is charged fully in the night either by the heat pump, if there is enough heat in the seasonal storage, or directly by the boiler. For the case where the electric utility does not put any physical restraints on the maximum accessible power level for the district solar heating system, the optimization procedure is very straightforward: the seasonal storage is discharged according to the heat load and when its heat content is exhausted, only the diurnal storage and the boiler are utilized. A more complicated control problem arises when the capacity of the auxiliary energy system is limited, and intuitively the operating strategy would be more significant.

F;KkW; -_
a
0

--------

IO

20

30

40

52

z 2000 z 5 1600 ?n ,-,nn i

Pmox

Figure 5 Effect of limited electric power capacity on the optimal control schema (deterministic) with time-of-day electricity price. Yearly heat load is 5740 MW h

Table

Comparison

of stochastic and deterministic Solar fraction (%)

optimization. Storage losses (MW h) 1141 1247

Time-ofday Electricity consumption (MW h) 2454 2579

pricing of electricity, Electricity cost ($1 77 315 76 519

~mex = 1700

kW. Yearly values indicated Total auxiliary energy costs (3) 93 130 117 223

Power demand cost ($1 13 815 38 704

Stochastic optimization Deterministic optimization

58 56

Appl.

Math.

Modelling,

1985,

Vol. 9, April

121

Optimization

of a community

solar heating system:

J, P. Forsstriim

and P. D. Lund

-2 o

Pmax = 3500

kW

P Max = 1100

kW

the yearly auxiliary energy costs marginally. The cost increase is due to the longer charging period of the storage needed for limited power levels and hence the storage heat losses are higher and the solar fraction is also slightly reduced. This leads to more electricity being needed. Compared to a non-optimized control scheme, the cost savings vary from 15 to 20% on a yearly basis.

1000/-g--$-l~
22 6 Figure 6 14 22 6 14 22 6 Time (h) power usage pattern 22 6 14 22 6 14 22 6 Trme (h)

Conclusions
Optimal control of a district solar heating system has been approached by dynamic programming, the objective being to minimize the auxiliary energy costs. The results unambiguously indicate that both the consumer and the electric utility may benefit from an optimized control scheme. The degree of use of the diurnal and seasonal storage depends significantly on the pricing structure. In general, it is observed that the need of longterm co-storage of heat from electricity increases with stricter power limitations. The district solar heating system with seasonal storage provides a good match to the different pricing schemes and may reduce the peaking of auxiliary load.

Maximum

in winter

month by month and when the fraction of non-purchased energy is below 65-70%, i.e. the solar heat is not enough to supply the heat pump during the entire heating period. The most important condition for thermal co-storage of electricity is that there is sufficient heat storage capacity. For the reference system with a 50 000 m3 storage, the temperature varies typically from 5 to 40C when only charged by solar heat. By allowing a maximum temperature of 70C there would be approximately 1500 MW h of capacity for storage of heat from electricity. Consider the first seasonal pricing schedule A (Figure 3) for which the optimized operating schemes are shown in Figures 70 and 7b. To minimize the consumers energy costs, charging of the storage by boiler should be made as close to the pricing change-over point as possible. Then, the storage heat losses may be minimized and the increased storage temperature will influence less the solar harnessing; in autumn the radiation levels are in any case low. When the maximum charging capacity is limited, however, the time of the charging also shifts toward the summer as may be expected. Because of the pricing structure, the storage is charged only so full that it is always capable of supplying heat to the heat pump. For this deterministic approach, the heat content of the seasonal storage should be around 2150 MW h in late October if it is to be adequate for the heat pump in midwinter. As observed from Figure 7b, the minimum storage temperature is reached at the beginning of March, whereafter the solar heat contribution increases adequately to prevent the direct use of electricity. The second pricing structure (case B in Figure 3) has a very low price for summer-time electricity. Figure 8 shows the corresponding charging scheme. For this case, a maximum charging power of 2000 kW has been used, and consequently the storage temperature exceeds the limit necessary for direct delivery of heat to the houses which is observed for about 6 weeks. Table 3 summarizes the findings for the seasonal electricity prices. It is observed that the power limits increase

3500 Pmax z3000 r2500 t r -----3500kW 1700kW 1100 kW

>,
Without optrmrzatron

P500
5 1000 P 500

a
2400

OO-

-1lOOkW

Time (weeks) Figure 7 Optimal operating strategy of electric auxiliary system with seasonal electricity pricing (case A) energy

Table 2 Effect of maximum correspond to non-optimized Maximum power P max (kv.) 1100

power capacity on auxiliary operating strategy Solar fraction (%)

energy costs for time-of-day

electricity

pricing. The numbers in parentheses

Storage losses (MW h) 1239 (1132)

Electricity consumption (MW h) 2423 (2287) 2489 (2312) 2356 (2356)

Electricity cost (8) 77 222 (81 667) 69 444 (76 111) 65 370 (65 370)

Power demand cost (8) 11 963 (34 074) 0 (34 074) 0 (0)

Total auxiliary energy costs ($1 91 185 (117 741) 71 444 (112 185) 67 370 (67 370)

1700

1315 (1173) 1200 (1200)

3500

59 (59)

122

Appt.

Math.

Modelling,

1985,

Vol. 9, April

Optimization of a community solar heating system: J. P. Forsstrijm and P. D. Lund

Table3

Results for seasonal pricing of electricity.

Solar fraction (%)

The figures in parentheses correspond Storage losses (MW h) 1419 (950) 1382 (950) 1337 (950) 1997 Electricity consumption (MW h) 2754 (2160) 2674 (2160) 2597 (2160) 3903

to non-optimized

operating

strategy Total auxiliary energy costs (8) 117 129 (137 370) 114462 (137 370) 112 166 (137 370) 115704

Maximum power P max fkW)

Electricity cost (8) 103 333 (101 296) 100 685 (101 296) 98 389 (101 296) 102 963

Power demand cost ($1 11 796 (34 074) 11 777 (34 074) 11 777 (34 074) 10 741

1100 1700

(A) (A)

(65221 f:z,

3500

(A)

(65;)

2000

(B)

32

2 r
b 3 i? x
3 6 f 5000 0

Pmax ~OOO_ -1700

---2000 15004 kW (case A 1 kW (case B) r----7

system, denoted by U, which determine the optimal use of auxiliary power, i.e. affect the mass flow rates discussed in Appendix 2. The control functions are: I I
, I I

I I I
I I I I

Solar collectors F = c Heat pump 1, T, > T, 0, otherwise (Al .l)

i? IOOO8

I 10 30 20 Trme (weeks)

, r-40 52

0,otherwise Boiler

(Al .2)

figure

Comparison

of effects of two seasonal electricity

pricing

schemes

(Al .3) Heat load

l,T,>T,=45-50C 0, otherwise

Even though a solar heating system was chosen as the reference system, the model principle presented is applicable to the study of the effects of effective heat storage on other energy systems. Only the solar collector subroutine has to be replaced. Future studies by the authors will include a more comprehensive evaluation of the significance of heat storage to the entire national heat production system.

(Al .4)

Charging of seasonal storage by electricity:

F

l,T,>Ts
0, otherwise

(Al 5)

Direct discharge of seasonal storage (T, > 50C)

F, f = 1,45-SOC<T,<T, 0, otherwise

Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank the Imatra Power Foundation for financial support.

(Al .6)

References
DaJenbLck, J.-O., Gabrielson, E. and Ludvigsson, B. Three Swedish group solar heating plants with seasonal storage, Swedish Council for Building Research, Document 05: 1981, 1981 Lund, P. D., Routti, J. T., Makinen, R. and Vuorelma, H. Simulation studies of the expected performance of Kerava solar village, Energy Research 1983, 7, 347 Maybeck, P. S. Stochastic models, estimation and control, volume 3, Academic Press, New York, 1982 Duffie, J. A. and Beckman, W. A. Solar energy thermal processes, Wiley, New York, 1974 Lund, P. D. Optimization of a community solar heating system with a heat pump and seasonal storage, Helsinki University of Technology, Report TKK-F-ASSO, 1983

Appendix

Mass flow rates

The mass flow rates within the energy system are determined by the power rates and temperature levels. The control inputs u affect some specific power rates and also the flow rates. The different power and flow rates are determined by the following formulae (riz includes the heat exchanger effects): Solar collector output, Q2,:4

Q, = v&f c
77c=

u,(Ts I

170-

- Ta> )

(A2.1) (A2.2)

~ FR

Appendix

Storage control functions

mc =
Heat load, Ql:

QC

(T, - T,) c,

(A2.3)

The storage control functions denoted by F ensure that the control logic of the energy system operates properly, i.e. the temperature requirements or limitations of the different components are taken into account. These functions should not be confused with the control functions of the energy

where the collector heat removal factor FR is 0.9, the heat loss factor UL is 4 W/m2 K and the optical efficiency q. is 0.85. Also, T, = T, + 5C.

Appl.

Math.

Modelling,

1985,

Vol. 9, April

123

Optimization of a community solar heating system: J. P. Forsstriim and P. D. Lund

Q,= Qsp+ Qhw Qsp = c(Qout - QiJ

if ( ) < 0 then Qsp = 0

(A2.4)

(A2.10)

(A2.5)

where Qin and Qout represent thermal gains and losses, and Qhwis the hot water demand.

=(Th -

(A2.11)
Td) ch

QI

m=(T,
Evaporator control):

where the mechanical efficiency of the compressor 8, = 0.9, and the Carnot efficiency qCA = 0.5. PCp is the compressor effect. Interactive power between diurnal and seasonal storage, Q,r (Qr depends on heat load, control and heat content of the storage):

- T)

input, & (@, depends on the heat load and

me =
f-

(A2.7) m - l(Td-Boiler output, (A2.8)

f-

Qf
Ts)lcf Qb (Qb depends on control):

(T, - T,) c,

(A2.12)

Condenser output,

@h:
@,

@h = (1 + %&>

Qb

QCATe
T/,-T,

mb =(r,(A2.9)

(A2.13)

Td)Cb

T,, = T, + 5C < 90C

124

Appl.

Math.

Modelling,

1985,

Vol. 9, April