4.6 Article

A Probabilistic Algorithm for Predictive Control With Full-Complexity Models in Non-Residential Buildings

期刊

IEEE ACCESS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 38748-38765

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2906311

关键词

Model predictive control; simulation; control; building energy management system

资金

  1. Universidad de Granada [P9-2014-ING]
  2. Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities [TIN2017-91223-EXP]
  3. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [TIN2015-64776-C3-1-R]
  4. European Union [608981]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite the increasing capabilities of information technologies for data acquisition and processing, building energy management systems still require manual configuration and supervision to achieve optimal performance. Model predictive control (MPC) aims to leverage equipment control-particularly heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)-by using a model of the building to capture its dynamic characteristics and to predict its response to alternative control scenarios. Usually, MPC approaches are based on simplified linear models, which support faster computation but also present some limitations regarding interpretability, solution diversification, and longer-term optimization. In this paper, we propose a novel MPC algorithm that uses a full-complexity grey-box simulation model to optimize HVAC operation in non-residential buildings. Our system generates hundreds of candidate operation plans, typically for the next day, and evaluates them in terms of consumption and comfort by means of a parallel simulator configured according to the expected building conditions (weather and occupancy). The system has been implemented and tested in an office building in Helsinki, both in a simulated environment and in the real building, yielding energy savings around 35% during the intermediate winter season and 20% in the whole winter season with respect to the current operation of the heating equipment.

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

4.6
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