pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.31343 · v1 · pith:MX7UOAOYnew · submitted 2026-06-30 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY

Standardizing case study descriptions for multi-energy systems and networks modeling

Mathieu Vallee (DTCH) , Eva Schischke , Edmund Widl , Gabriela Zabik , Mohamed-Tahar Mabrouk , Kai Derzsi , Dirk M\"uller , Sergio Rech
show 6 more authors
Costanza Saletti Martina Capone Sacha Hodencq Ildar Daminov Gabriele Leoncini Marc Clausse (CETHIL)
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-01 04:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SY
keywords multi-energy systemscase study descriptionstandardizationmodeling frameworkcomparabilityreplicabilityuse case documentationcross-review process
0
0 comments X

The pith

An adapted description framework standardizes multi-energy systems case studies for better comparability and reuse.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper evaluates existing case study description frameworks and selects one for adaptation to multi-energy systems. Authors then apply the adapted framework to their own diverse case studies and perform cross-reviews using a developed checklist. This process tests whether the framework can consistently capture system configurations, use case details, and other MES-specific elements while remaining flexible. If successful, the approach reduces ambiguity in research descriptions and supports future benchmarking.

Core claim

By analyzing existing frameworks such as IEC 62559 and the Open Energy Platform, selecting the most suitable one, adapting it to highlight MES elements like system configuration and use case details, and validating through collaborative case study descriptions plus cross-reviews, a consistent format emerges that improves clarity, openness of data and models, and overall replicability across the field.

What carries the argument

The adapted description framework with added MES-specific emphasis and supporting review checklist, which structures case study information to ensure completeness and comparability.

If this is right

  • Case studies become directly comparable across different research groups and modeling approaches.
  • Reuse of existing MES models and data increases because descriptions include consistent details on configuration and use cases.
  • A path opens to defining reference case studies and benchmarks in the multi-energy systems domain.
  • Collaboration accelerates as shared terminology and formats reduce the need to reconcile divergent hypotheses.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same adapted framework might extend to related energy modeling areas such as district heating or hydrogen networks for cross-domain comparisons.
  • If widely adopted, the checklist could evolve into automated validation tools for submitted case studies in repositories.
  • Future work could test whether the standardized format improves the accuracy of meta-analyses across multiple MES papers.

Load-bearing premise

That analysis of current frameworks will yield one that can be adapted to cover the full range of multi-energy systems case studies without major gaps.

What would settle it

Cross-review of the standardized descriptions reveals that a significant number of case studies cannot be fully captured or that reviewers consistently flag missing critical information despite using the checklist.

read the original abstract

Research on Multi-Energy Systems (MES) often relies on case studies with divergent hypotheses and terminologies, limiting comparability and slowing progress. Discussions at the ECOS 2025 conference highlighted the need for standardized reference case studies to facilitate reuse and comparison. While frameworks like the IEC 62559 standard and the Open Energy Platform (OEP) exist, their adoption for MES remains fragmented. This heterogeneity hinders collaboration and replicability, motivating efforts towards a unified description framework tailored to MES. This paper aims to address this gap by evaluating existing approaches in order to promote a standardized description framework for MES case studies. The goal is to enhance comparability, streamline research, and make a first step towards defining reference case studies and benchmarks in the domain. The study adopts a collaborative approach: after analysing existing description frameworks and selecting the most suitable one, the co-authors describe their own case studies, followed by cross-reviews to assess completeness, clarity, and openness of data/models. The description framework is adapted to emphasizeMES-specific elements, such as system configuration and use case details. A checklist is developed to guide reviews. Preliminary results include a set of standardized case study descriptions and insights from cross-reviews on framework strengths/limitations. The diversity of case studies underscores the framework's flexibility, while feedback reveals opportunities for improvement and broader adoption. This work provides a foundation for standardized MES case study descriptions, fostering collaboration, comparability, and replicability. By reducing ambiguity and ensuring the availability of relevant information in a consistent format, it accelerates research and benchmarking in the field.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes a collaborative effort to standardize case study descriptions for multi-energy systems (MES) modeling. After analyzing existing frameworks such as IEC 62559 and the Open Energy Platform (OEP), the authors select and adapt one to better capture MES-specific elements like system configuration and use-case details. Co-authors then apply the adapted framework to their own case studies, followed by cross-reviews using a developed checklist to evaluate completeness, clarity, and data openness. Preliminary outputs include a set of standardized descriptions and qualitative insights on the framework's flexibility and limitations, positioned as a foundation for reference cases and improved comparability in the field.

Significance. If the adapted framework and review process prove robust across diverse MES cases, the work could meaningfully reduce terminological ambiguity and support replicability and benchmarking in MES research. The collaborative, multi-author cross-review approach is a strength that aligns with the goal of fostering community adoption.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that an existing framework was analyzed and the 'most suitable' one selected for MES adaptation is unsupported by any documented selection criteria, scoring metrics, side-by-side comparison results, or evaluation of how well the chosen base (IEC 62559 or OEP) supports required extensions for system configuration and use-case details. This omission is load-bearing because the paper proceeds directly from selection to application without evidence that the adaptation is appropriate rather than arbitrary.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The description of 'preliminary results' and 'insights from cross-reviews' provides no quantitative measures (e.g., completeness scores, inter-reviewer agreement, or specific limitations identified) or even summarized qualitative findings, leaving the assessment of framework strengths/limitations and the claim of flexibility unverifiable from the reported evidence.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: Typo in 'emphasizeMES-specific' (missing space).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which highlight opportunities to strengthen the justification and evidence in our manuscript. We address each major comment below and will incorporate revisions to improve clarity and rigor.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that an existing framework was analyzed and the 'most suitable' one selected for MES adaptation is unsupported by any documented selection criteria, scoring metrics, side-by-side comparison results, or evaluation of how well the chosen base (IEC 62559 or OEP) supports required extensions for system configuration and use-case details. This omission is load-bearing because the paper proceeds directly from selection to application without evidence that the adaptation is appropriate rather than arbitrary.

    Authors: The full manuscript describes the analysis of IEC 62559 and OEP but does not include explicit selection criteria or a side-by-side comparison in the abstract or a dedicated methods section. We agree this weakens the claim and will revise the abstract to summarize the evaluation criteria (e.g., coverage of multi-carrier interactions, use-case structure, and extensibility for system configuration) and add a comparison table or subsection documenting why IEC 62559 was selected as the base framework. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The description of 'preliminary results' and 'insights from cross-reviews' provides no quantitative measures (e.g., completeness scores, inter-reviewer agreement, or specific limitations identified) or even summarized qualitative findings, leaving the assessment of framework strengths/limitations and the claim of flexibility unverifiable from the reported evidence.

    Authors: The cross-reviews were conducted qualitatively using the developed checklist, without numerical scoring or agreement metrics, as the emphasis was on collaborative identification of issues and framework applicability across diverse cases. We will revise the results section to include summarized qualitative findings, such as common review feedback on completeness and specific examples illustrating the framework's flexibility and limitations identified during the process. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; workflow is self-contained collaborative standardization

full rationale

The paper presents a workflow of analyzing existing frameworks (IEC 62559, OEP), selecting one, adapting it for MES elements, applying it to co-authors' case studies, and performing cross-reviews. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or first-principles derivations appear. The selection step is described narratively without reducing to self-citation chains or definitional equivalence. Central claim of providing a standardized foundation rests on the external case descriptions and reviews rather than any input-output collapse. This matches the default expectation of no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities are introduced. The work depends on one domain assumption regarding the adaptability of existing standards.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption A suitable base framework exists among existing standards that can be adapted for MES-specific elements such as system configuration and use case details
    Invoked when the paper states it analyses existing frameworks and selects the most suitable one for adaptation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5876 in / 1242 out tokens · 69942 ms · 2026-07-01T04:31:57.258850+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Artifact Review and Badging - Version 1.1 2020

    Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). Artifact Review and Badging - Version 1.1 2020. https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/artifact-review-and-badging-current (accessed March 30, 2026)

    2020

  2. [2]

    Energy system modeling: Public tra nsparency, scientific reproducibility, and open development

    Morrison R. Energy system modeling: Public tra nsparency, scientific reproducibility, and open development. Energy Strategy Rev 2018;20:49–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2017.12.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.esr.2017.12.010 2018

  3. [4]

    A comparison study of co - simulation frameworks for multi -energy systems: the scalability problem

    Barbierato L, Rando Mazzarino P, Montarolo M, Macii A, Patti E, Bottaccioli L. A comparison study of co - simulation frameworks for multi -energy systems: the scalability problem. Energy Inform 2022;5:53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42162-022-00231-6

    work page doi:10.1186/s42162-022-00231-6 2022

  4. [5]

    A hierarchical test benchmark of integrated energy system in Northeast China

    Li X, Shao J, Jiang T, Chen H, Zhou Y, Zhang R, et al. A hierarchical test benchmark of integrated energy system in Northeast China. Appl Energy 2024;374:124055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.124055

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.124055 2024

  5. [6]

    Analysis for integrated energy system: Benchmarking methods and implementation

    Zhang S, Gu W, Zhang X-P, Chung CY, Yu R, Lu S, et al. Analysis for integrated energy system: Benchmarking methods and implementation. Energy Internet 2024;1:63–80. https://doi.org/10.1049/ein2.12002

    work page doi:10.1049/ein2.12002 2024

  6. [7]

    Review of Steady-State Electric Power Distribution System Datasets

    Meinecke S, Thurner L, Braun M. Review of Steady-State Electric Power Distribution System Datasets. Energies 2020;13:4826. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13184826

    work page doi:10.3390/en13184826 2020

  7. [8]

    D., Coffrin, C., DeMarco, C., Diao, R., Ferris, M., Fliscounakis, S., Greene, S., Huang, R., et al

    Babaeinejadsarookolaee S, Birchfield A, Christie RD, Coffrin C, DeMarco C, Diao R, et al. The Power Grid Library for Benchmarking AC Optimal Power Flow Algorithms 2021. https://doi.org/10.4 8550/arXiv.1908.02788

    work page arXiv 2021

  8. [9]

    Benchmark Systems for Small-Signal Stability Analysis and Control n.d

    PES I. Benchmark Systems for Small-Signal Stability Analysis and Control n.d

  9. [10]

    Distributed Energy Resource Benchmark Models for Distribution Impact Assessment n.d

    CIGRE. Distributed Energy Resource Benchmark Models for Distribution Impact Assessment n.d

  10. [11]

    MV Underground Power Cable Joints Premature Failures

    Sarajlic D, Rehtanz C. Overview of distribution g rid test systems for benchmarking of power system analyses. 2020 AEIT Int. Annu. Conf. AEIT, IEEE; 2020, p. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.23919/AEIT50178.2020.9241140

    work page doi:10.23919/aeit50178.2020.9241140 2020

  11. [12]

    European LV microgrid benchmark network: Dev elopment and frequency response analysis

    Ayaz MS, Azizipanah -Abarghooee R, Terzija V. European LV microgrid benchmark network: Dev elopment and frequency response analysis. 2018 IEEE Int. Energy Conf. ENERGYCON, IEEE; 2018, p. 1 –6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ENERGYCON.2018.8398759

    work page doi:10.1109/energycon.2018.8398759 2018

  12. [13]

    Developing benchmark models for studying the integration of distributed energy resources

    Strunz K. Developing benchmark models for studying the integration of distributed energy resources. 2006 IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Gen. Meet., IEEE; 2006, p. 2 pp. https://doi.org/10.1109/PES.2006.1709568

    work page doi:10.1109/pes.2006.1709568 2006

  13. [14]

    Developing a Benchmark Grid Model for Future Congestion Management and Stability Analysis

    Meißner F, Sous T, Ziesemann C, Wirtz P, Klein-Helmkamp F, Moser A. Developing a Benchmark Grid Model for Future Congestion Management and Stability Analysis. 2024 IEEE PES Innov. Smart Grid Technol. Eur. ISGT Eur., IEEE; 2024, p. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISGTEUROPE62998.2024.10863615

    work page doi:10.1109/isgteurope62998.2024.10863615 2024

  14. [15]

    SED -Bench: Benchmark for Simulated Electrical Disturbance

    Santos RYC, Moreno ED, Estombelo -Montesco CA. SED -Bench: Benchmark for Simulated Electrical Disturbance. IEEE Trans Instrum Meas 2020;69:3954–61. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2019.2943989

    work page doi:10.1109/tim.2019.2943989 2020

  15. [16]

    Modeling Guidelines and a Benchmark for Power System Simulation Studies of Three-Phase Single-Stage Photovoltaic Systems

    Yazdani A, Fazio ARD, Ghoddami H, Russo M, Kazerani M, Jatskevich J, et al. Modeling Guidelines and a Benchmark for Power System Simulation Studies of Three-Phase Single-Stage Photovoltaic Systems. IEEE Trans Power Deliv 2011;26:1247–64. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRD.2010.2084599

    work page doi:10.1109/tpwrd.2010.2084599 2011

  16. [17]

    Benchmark gas distribution network for cross-sectoral applications

    Brosig C, Fassbender S, Waffenschmidt E, Janocha S, Klaassen B. Benchmark gas distribution network for cross-sectoral applications. 2017 Int. En ergy Sustain. Conf. IESC, vol. 2017 - December, IEEE; 2017, p. 1 –5. https://doi.org/10.1109/IESC.2017.8283183

    work page doi:10.1109/iesc.2017.8283183 2017

  17. [18]

    Gas Network Benchmark Models, Springer, Cham; 2018, p

    Benner P, Grundel S, Himpe C, Huck C, Streubel T, Tischendorf C. Gas Network Benchmark Models, Springer, Cham; 2018, p. 171–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/11221_2018_5

    work page doi:10.1007/11221_2018_5 2018

  18. [19]

    In: Bue, A.D., Canton, C., Pont-Tuset, J., Tommasi, T

    Fokken E, Mühlpfordt T, Faulwasser T, Göttlich S, Kolb O. Modeling and Simulation of Sector-Coupled Energy Networks: A Gas-Power Benchmark. Math. Ind., vol. 34, Springer, Cham; 2021, p. 263–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-030-62732-4_12

    work page doi:10.1007/978- 2021

  19. [20]

    Pandapipes: An Open -Source Piping Grid Calculation Package for Multi -Energy Grid Simulations

    Lohmeier D, Cronbach D, Drauz SR, Braun M, Kneiske TM. Pandapipes: An Open -Source Piping Grid Calculation Package for Multi -Energy Grid Simulations. Sustainability 2020;12:9899. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239899

    work page doi:10.3390/su12239899 2020

  20. [21]

    Creating common exercises for modelling building and district energy systems: lessons learnt from the IBPSA Project 1 - DESTEST

    Johra H, Jafarinej ad T, Beyzaee AE, Hirsch H, Felsmann C, Saelens D. Creating common exercises for modelling building and district energy systems: lessons learnt from the IBPSA Project 1 - DESTEST. E3S Web Conf 2022;362:10005. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202236210005

    work page doi:10.1051/e3sconf/202236210005 2022

  21. [23]

    Modeling and optimization of multi -energy systems in mixed-use districts: A review of existing methods and approaches

    Klemm C, Vennemann P. Modeling and optimization of multi -energy systems in mixed-use districts: A review of existing methods and approaches. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2021;135:110206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110206

    work page doi:10.1016/j.rser.2020.110206 2021

  22. [24]

    Benchmarking in Optimization: Best Practice and Open Issues 2020

    Bartz-Beielstein T, Doerr C, Berg D van den, Bossek J, Chandrasekaran S, Eftimov T, et al. Benchmarking in Optimization: Best Practice and Open Issues 2020. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2007.03488

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2007.03488 2020

  23. [25]

    Opening the black box of energy modelling: Strategies and lessons learned

    Pfenninger S, Hirth L, Schlecht I, Schmid E, Wiese F, Brow n T, et al. Opening the black box of energy modelling: Strategies and lessons learned. Energy Strategy Rev 2018;19:63 –71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2017.12.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.esr.2017.12.002 2018

  24. [26]

    Transparency, reproducibility, and quality of energy system analyses – A process to improve scientific work

    Hülk L, Müller B, Glauer M, Förster E, Schachler B. Transparency, reproducibility, and quality of energy system analyses – A process to improve scientific work. Energy Strategy Rev 2018;22:264 –9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2018.08.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.esr.2018.08.014 2018

  25. [27]

    Scenario Bundles overview n.d

    Open Energy Platform (OEP). Scenario Bundles overview n.d. https://openenergyplatform.org/scenario - bundles/main (accessed March 30, 2026)

    2026

  26. [28]

    Use Cases–The IEC 62559 Methodology

    Gottschalk M, Uslar M, Delfs C. Use Cases–The IEC 62559 Methodology. Use Case Smart Grid Archit. Model Approach IEC 62559-2 Use Case Template SGAM Appl. Var. Domains, Springer; 2017, p. 11–39

    2017

  27. [29]

    D1.1 Use cases, requirements and KPI for RES forecasting - v2.0

    Sauba G, Eijgelaar M, Camal S. D1.1 Use cases, requirements and KPI for RES forecasting - v2.0. 2021

    2021

  28. [30]

    Open and Reproducible Use Cases for Energy (ORUCE) methodology in systems design and operation: a dwelling photovoltaic self-consumption example, Bruges, Belgium: 2021

    Hodencq S, Delinchant B, Frederic W. Open and Reproducible Use Cases for Energy (ORUCE) methodology in systems design and operation: a dwelling photovoltaic self-consumption example, Bruges, Belgium: 2021

    2021

  29. [31]

    Testing-Oriented Development and Open-Source Documentation of Interoperable Benchmark Models for Energy Systems

    De Paola A, Thomas D, Paspatis A, Widl E, Marinopoulos A, Kotsakis E, et al. Testing-Oriented Development and Open-Source Documentation of Interoperable Benchmark Models for Energy Systems. IEEE Open J Ind Electron Soc 2023;4:42–51. https://doi.org/10.1109/OJIES.2023.3234698

    work page doi:10.1109/ojies.2023.3234698 2023

  30. [32]

    Comparison of two approaches for modeling the thermal domain of multi -energy networks

    Widl E, Wild C, Heussen K, Rikos E, Hoang T -T. Comparison of two approaches for modeling the thermal domain of multi -energy networks. 2022 Open Source Model. Simul. Energy Syst. OSMSES 2022, Aachen, Germany: IEEE; 2022, p. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/OSMSES54027.2022.9769129

    work page doi:10.1109/osmses54027.2022.9769129 2022

  31. [33]

    ERIGrid2/benchmark -model-multi-energy-networks: v1.0 2021

    CES A, Widl E. ERIGrid2/benchmark -model-multi-energy-networks: v1.0 2021. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5735005

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.5735005 2021

  32. [34]

    Robustness of district heating versus electricity -driven energy system at district level: A multi -objective optimization study

    Fitó J, Vallée M, Ruby A, Cuisinier E. Robustness of district heating versus electricity -driven energy system at district level: A multi -objective optimization study. Smart Energy 2022;6:100073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.segy.2022.100073

    work page doi:10.1016/j.segy.2022.100073 2022

  33. [35]

    Assessment of Varying Coupling Levels between Electric & Thermal networks at District Level using Co -Simulation and Model -predictive Control

    Rava L, Wantier A, Vallée M, Ruby A, Lamaison N. Assessment of Varying Coupling Levels between Electric & Thermal networks at District Level using Co -Simulation and Model -predictive Control. Proc. 35th Int. Con f. Effic. Cost Optim. Simul. Environ. Impact Energy Syst. ECOS 2022, 2022, p. 919 –30. https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85174494401

    work page arXiv 2022

  34. [36]

    Method for Building’s Thermal Flexibility in a Multi Energy Vector District

    Brugeron M, Vallée M, Foucquier A, Leconte A, Brun A. Method for Building’s Thermal Flexibility in a Multi Energy Vector District. Proc. 36th Int. Conf. Effic. Cost Optim. Simul. Environ. Impact Energy Syst. ECOS 2023, Las Palmas De Gran Canaria, Spain: 2023, p. 2798–809. https://doi.org/10.52202/069564-0251

    work page doi:10.52202/069564-0251 2023

  35. [37]

    Optimal heat and electric power flows in the presence of intermittent renewable source, heat storage and variable grid electricity tariff

    Ayele GT, Mabrouk MT, Haurant P, Laumert B, Lacarrière B. Optimal heat and electric power flows in the presence of intermittent renewable source, heat storage and variable grid electricity tariff. Energy Convers Manag 2021;243:114430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114430

    work page doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114430 2021

  36. [38]

    Dynamic exergy and economic assessment of the implementation of seasonal underground thermal energy storage in existing solar district heating

    Veyron M, Voirand A, Mion N, Maragna C, Mugnier D, Clausse M. Dynamic exergy and economic assessment of the implementation of seasonal underground thermal energy storage in existing solar district heating. Energy 2022;261:124917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.124917

    work page doi:10.1016/j.energy.2022.124917 2022

  37. [39]

    Integratio n of storage and thermal demand response to unlock flexibility in district multi-energy systems

    Capone M, Guelpa E, Mancò G, Verda V. Integratio n of storage and thermal demand response to unlock flexibility in district multi-energy systems. Energy 2021;237:121601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.121601

    work page doi:10.1016/j.energy.2021.121601 2021

  38. [40]

    Towards Rule Extraction for Sector-Coupled Energy Systems Based on Optimization Models

    Wackerbauer D, Schreiber T, Müller D. Towards Rule Extraction for Sector-Coupled Energy Systems Based on Optimization Models. 36th Int. Conf. Effic. Cost Optim. Simul. Environ. Impact Energy Syst. ECOS 2023, Las Palmas De Gran Canaria, Spain: ECOS 2023; 2023, p. 3253–62. https://doi.org/10.52202/069564-0292

    work page doi:10.52202/069564-0292 2023

  39. [43]

    Klimaneutrale Wärmeversorgung im Quartier – Konzepte im Vergleich

    Glombik SD, Schischke E, Puyn B, Bergmann J, :unav. Klimaneutrale Wärmeversorgung im Quartier – Konzepte im Vergleich. Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft; 2025. https://doi.org/10.24406/PUBLICA-4541

    work page doi:10.24406/publica-4541 2025

  40. [44]

    Economic –Energy–Environmental Optimization of a Multi-Energy System in a University District

    Bacci L, Dal Cin E, Carraro G, Rech S, Lazzaretto A. Economic –Energy–Environmental Optimization of a Multi-Energy System in a University District. Energies 2025;18:413. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18020413

    work page doi:10.3390/en18020413 2025

  41. [45]

    DOMES: A general optimization method for the integrated design of energy conversion, storage and networks in multi -energy systems

    Dal Cin E, Carraro G, Volpato G, Lazzaretto A, Tsatsaronis G. DOMES: A general optimization method for the integrated design of energy conversion, storage and networks in multi -energy systems. Appl Energy 2025;377:124702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.124702

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.124702 2025

  42. [46]

    Evaluating the effects of electrification in integrated energy systems at district scale

    Saletti C, Conti P, Ed Daoudi S, Morini M, Gambarotta, A, Schito E, et al. Evaluating the effects of electrification in integrated energy systems at district scale. Proceedings of ECOS 2025, Paris, France. 38th Int. Conf. Effic. Cost Optim. Simul. Environ. Impact Energy Syst. ECOS 2025, Paris, Franc e: 2025. https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105037446107

    work page arXiv 2025