4.8 Article

A risk-based robust optimal chiller sequencing control strategy for energy-efficient operation considering measurement uncertainties

期刊

APPLIED ENERGY
卷 280, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115983

关键词

Risk-based control; Measurement uncertainty; Chiller sequencing; Bayesian calibration; Robust optimal control

资金

  1. Hong Kong Research Grant Council (RGC) [152075/19E]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Proper and reliable control of central chilling systems with multiple chillers is crucial to save energy and enhance energy efficiency. The conventional total-cooling-load-based chiller sequencing control strategies determine switching (on/off) thresholds according to building instantaneous cooling load and chiller maximum cooling capacity. However, due to the existence of measurement uncertainties and ever-changing operating conditions, optimal switching points often deviate significantly from predefined thresholds. To deal with these challenges and uncertainties, a risk-based robust optimal chiller sequencing control strategy is proposed to improve the robustness and energy efficiency of chillers in operation. As the core of the control strategy, an online stochastic decision-making scheme, which is developed to optimize chiller staging based on quantified risks. The risk of failure to achieve expected operation performance by switching on/off a chiller is evaluated through analyzing the probabilistic fused cooling load and the probabilistic chiller maximum cooling capacity, based on Bayesian calibration of cooling load and capacity models. The best switching points can therefore be identified in a stochastic approach. The results of case studies show that the proposed strategy can improve the reliability and robustness of chiller sequence operation. Compared with the conventional strategy, the switching frequency was decreased by more than 54%, and the energy use of central cooling systems can be reduced by 2.8% without sacrificing thermal comfort.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据