0 Stimmen dafür0 Stimmen dagegen

2 Aufrufe12 SeitenOptimazation framework for smart building

Jul 26, 2018

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

Optimazation framework for smart building

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

2 Aufrufe

Optimazation framework for smart building

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- Neuromancer
- The E-Myth Revisited: Why Most Small Businesses Don't Work and
- How Not to Be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking
- Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us
- Chaos: Making a New Science
- The Joy of x: A Guided Tour of Math, from One to Infinity
- How to Read a Person Like a Book
- Moonwalking with Einstein: The Art and Science of Remembering Everything
- The Wright Brothers
- The Other Einstein: A Novel
- The 6th Extinction
- The Housekeeper and the Professor: A Novel
- The Power of Discipline: 7 Ways it Can Change Your Life
- The 10X Rule: The Only Difference Between Success and Failure
- A Short History of Nearly Everything
- The Kiss Quotient: A Novel
- The End of Average: How We Succeed in a World That Values Sameness
- Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die
- Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions
- The Universe in a Nutshell

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 12

fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2016.2557334, IEEE

Transactions on Smart Grid

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID, VOL. , NO. , 1

Smart Building-to-Grid Systems

Meysam Razmara, Guna R. Bharati, Mahdi Shahbakhti, Sumit Paudyal, and Rush D. Robinett III

Abstract—This paper proposes a novel framework suitable electricity price. Increased load at those hours may impact

for bilevel optimization in a system of commercial buildings voltage performance in the distribution grid. In [9], it is

integrated to smart distribution grid. The proposed optimization demonstrated that uncontrolled penetration of electric vehicle

framework consists of comprehensive mathematical models of

commercial buildings and underlying distribution grid, their loads violates the voltage standards set by the ANSI. Thus,

operational constraints, and a bilevel solution approach which it is advisable that DSM should be employed considering

is based on the information exchange between the two levels. the operational requirements of customers as well as the

The proposed framework benefits both entities involved in electric power grid. In DSM activities, distribution utilities are

the building-to-grid (B2G) system, i.e., the operations of the more concerned about feeder loss minimization, load factor

buildings and the distribution grid. The framework achieves two

distinct objectives: increased load penetration by maximizing improvement, reactive power optimization, etc., as part of

the distribution system load factor and reduced energy cost their operational objectives [10]–[15]. On the other hand, the

for the buildings. This study also proposes a novel B2G index, objectives of DSM activities at customer level are mainly

which is based on building’s energy cost and nodal load factor, focused on comfort maximization and cost minimization. This

and represents a metric of combined optimal operations of illustrates that the objective set by the grid and customers in

the commercial buildings and distribution grid. The usefulness

of the proposed framework is demonstrated in a B2G system DSM activities could often be conflicting.

that consists of several commercial buildings connected to a In [16], [17], promising results are obtained from DSM in

33-node distribution test feeder, where the building parameters reducing customer’s energy price. In [16], pre-cooling and pre-

are obtained from actual measurements at an office building at floating is performed to reduce total electricity cost. In [17],

Michigan Technological University. optimization is performed with a trade-off between cost and

user comfort. In [8], HAN is employed to reshape the demand

Index Terms—Building to grid optimization, smart building, profile based on the impact on distribution transformer. In

smart grid, HVAC, model predictive control, hierarchical opti-

DSM models proposed in [8], [16], [17], customers obtain

mization, demand response, load shedding.

benefits by shifting the loads. The mathematical models used

in [8], [16], [17] consider peak power information from

I. INTRODUCTION distribution grid as one of the constraints of optimization but

about 70% of electricity energy consumption [1], in

which 41.4% of energy consumption is directly related to

detailed modeling and operational constraints of distribution

system have not been considered. Thus, for advanced DSM

activities in Smart Grids, detailed mathematical modeling

the space heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC). considering objectives and operational requirements of cus-

Thus, HVAC systems have a great potential to reduce the tomers and the distribution system with real-time information

energy usage/cost in buildings. As reported in [2], [3], smart exchange between customer and the grid is crucial; which is

control techniques, such as model predictive control (MPC), a major focus of the proposed work.

can provide significant energy saving. Development of MPC Fig. 1 summarizes past studies related to three research

for optimal control of HVAC systems has been a focus in [4], categories: building, grid, and integrated building-grid opti-

[5], which yields benefits to the operations of buildings and mization. In the first category, optimal and model predictive

electric power grid. unidirectional building optimization are studied [2]–[5], [18]–

Smart grid technologies, such as smart appliances and home [27]. In this category, building’s HVAC performance or opera-

area network (HAN), render the electrical loads more man- tional cost is optimized using optimal or model predictive con-

ageable and controllable at customers premise, and facilitates trol technique. The second category include studies in which

advanced demand side management (DSM) activities [6]. distribution grid operation is optimized for various operational

However, existing mathematical models developed for cus- objectives considering aggregated loads [10]–[15]. The third

tomer side DSM mainly consider minimization of electricity category includes building-to-grid (B2G) integration in which

cost [7], [8], which results in increased load at hours with low performance of buildings including comfort level and energy

cost is optimized considering grid side information [7], [16],

M. Razmara, M. Shahbakhti, and R. D. Robinett III are with the Depart-

ment of Mechanical Engineering-Engineering Mechanics; G. R. Bharati and [28]–[33], and demonstrates its usefulness for grid services.

S. Paudyal are with Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, However, in the modeling in [7], [16], [28]–[33] distribution

Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, USA. Emails: {mrazmara, grid is simplified or completely ignored. Survey results in

grbharati, mahdish, sumitp, rdrobine}@mtu.edu.

Fig. 1 reveal that there are extensive works accomplished in the

area of control/optimization of distribution grid and buildings

1949-3053 (c) 2016 IEEE. Translations and content mining are permitted for academic research only. Personal use is also permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See

http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2016.2557334, IEEE

Transactions on Smart Grid

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID, VOL. , NO. , 2

deployed [35]. VOLTTRON, OpenADR, BEMOSS are some

of the open source platforms that can be utilized for the

implementation of the proposed models at the customer and

grid levels [36]–[38].

done in the area of bi-directional B2G, including mathematical

modeling required for the B2G integration. This work proposes

a bi-directional B2G optimization framework based on detailed

mathematical modeling of a B2G system.

The proposed B2G framework is based on information ex-

change between the two levels, i.e, the BEMS and distribution Fig. 2. Conceptual building to grid communication framework.

system operation (DSO) control center. The predicted and

optimized load profile of buildings are provided to the DSO by This study improves previous single level optimization of

the BEMSs. Similarly, maximum allowable load penetration buildings by considering the grid model and builds upon

information, that ensures feasible grid operations, are provided preliminary results in [39] by the authors. To our knowledge,

to the BEMSs by the DSO. it is the first study that proposes a bilevel optimization

For the demand response applications discussed in this framework in B2G interaction, which benefits both building

work, a bidirectional communication infrastructure is required, and grid operations. The contribution of this paper is on the

as shown in Fig. 2, between the BEMSs and the DSO. Also, development of generic hierarchical optimization framework

unidirectional communication links are required between the for B2G system, which is essential for coordinated control

BEMSs and the market operator (MO), BEMSs and local of multiple BEMSs connected to distribution grid for large

weather station, DSO and control equipment at distribution scale demand response and other grid level services. More

level. The required communication infrastructure must be specifically, to reach this goal this paper:

secure, reliable, and low-cost for autonomous interactions [34], 1) develops a physics-based comprehensive mathematical

[35]. In this proposed work, the interaction between the two model of HVAC system and model predictive controller

levels, i.e., the building and grid, are kept at the minimum; (MPC) with the aim of minimizing buildings electricity

thus, the communication bandwidth usage is sporadic. The costs. The MPC controller works in grid friendly man-

information that building receives from the grid control center ner, i.e, it communicates with distribution grid control

is the maximum demand limit, which can be sent once every center and incorporates the constraints set by the grid

15-30 minutes for next couple hours to next day. Building controller required for the feasibility of grid operation.

receives information from utility or MO about energy price 2) develops a detailed and generic mathematical model of

once per day (i.e., the day ahead energy price) and/or every distribution grid that coordinates with several building

5 minutes to one hour (i.e., the real-time energy price), controllers to optimize the operation of the power grid.

depending on which energy rate is applied to the building This paper proposes a novel B2G index that ensures the

customers. Building receives weather forecast on daily basis benefits at the grid level from the building side optimization,

and/or the hourly weather update. It should be noted that the and develops a coordination algorithm to solve the hierarchical

information flow depends on the variation of the parameters in B2G framework.

the building and grid models during the course of operation, Rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section II

and the type of services the building loads provide to the grid presents mathematical models of building and distribution

(such as demand response, regulation). The communication system, MPC based optimization model at building level,

infrastructure must be flexible to interact with the existing and distribution grid optimization model. Section III discusses

and future BEMSs and communication protocols such as methodology for bidirectional optimization and the proposed

Modbus, RS-484, BACnet, etc. [34]. To manage real-time and B2G index. Section IV describes the building testbed and dis-

1949-3053 (c) 2016 IEEE. Translations and content mining are permitted for academic research only. Personal use is also permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See

http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2016.2557334, IEEE

Transactions on Smart Grid

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID, VOL. , NO. , 3

tribution test feeder. The results of case studies are presented Function g is approximated as a linear function of Tkr (t),

in Section V, and the main conclusions from this work are Qrad int r

i (t) and Q̇i (t). Thus, the disturbance is w = aTk (t) +

rad int

included in Section VI. bQi (t) + cQ̇i (t).

Heat transfer of each wall and room equations and distur-

bance form the system dynamics of building are represented

II. M ATHEMATICAL M ODELING

in state-space form by:

A. Building Components Thermal Modeling ẋ(t) = f (x(t), u(t), w(t), t)

Convection, radiation and conduction are the main heat y(t) = Cx(t) (4)

transfer ways in buildings which are time varying. We use n

where x(t) ∈ R is the state vector. State vector includes

a common building modeling approach known as nodal ap-

nodes’ temperature in the nodal network. y(t) ∈ Rm is

proach to model building’s construction and materials with

the output vector of the system presenting thermal zones’

electrical components such as resistors, capacitors, and current

temperature. Thermal zone is a section of a building that is

sources [2], [40]. For this purpose, buildings are considered

required to meet certain comfort level. In this paper, each room

as graphs containing walls and rooms as nodes. p represents

is considered as a thermal zone. The input vector which is the

number of nodes, q out of p nodes are rooms, and the

air mass flow rate and its temperature for each zone is shown

remaining p − q nodes are walls. i = 1, . . . , q numbers are

with u(t) ∈ Rl×m . l is the number of inputs to each thermal

assigned to each room. The following equation determines the

zone (i.e., air mass flow and supply air temperature). C is the

heat transfer of the walls [40]:

output matrix with proper dimension to return output, y(t),

w X Tkr − Ti,jw

dTi,j 1 from states.

= w ( wi,j + ri,j γi,j Aw rad

i,j Qi,j ) (1)

dt Ci,j w Rk

In our testbed, HVAC air mass flow rate is directly measured

k∈N i,j

using a vent mass flow meter. Density, heat capacity, trasns-

where Ti,jw

is the temperature of the wall between room i and missivity and etc. are determined using standard engineering

room j, Ci,jw

is the heat capacity of the wall between room i thermodynamics tables. There are unknown (e.g., wall heat

and j, Tkr is the temperature of adjacent rooms to wall wi,j . capacitance and outside air convection coefficient) that are

Thermal resistance between the center-line of wall (node wi,j ) determined for the testbed using Unscented Kalman Filter

w (UKF) techniques presented in [2].

and the neighboring node k is denoted with Rk i,j . γi,j and

Aw Equation (4) describes the nonlinear time evolution of the

i,j are radiation heat absorption coefficient and area of wall

between room i and j, respectively. Wall identifier is shown system. The supply air temperature (i.e., input to the system)

by ri,j which is equal to 0 for internal walls, and equal to is multiplied by the air mass flow, which is the other time-

1 for peripheral walls. Qrad varying known input to the model. Given that the air mass

i,j represents the radiative heat flux

density on wall (i, j) while Ni,j w

is the set of all neighboring flow rate is constant during day, we can consider the linearized

nodes to node wi,j . form of the system. We use Euler’s discretization method to

The following equation governs the temperature of the ith discretize the state update equation (4) for controller design.

room [40]: The state-space model is given by:

= r( + πi,k τkw Awin

i,k Q rad

i

dt Ci Ri,k (2) where wk is the disturbance vector at instant k and E is the

k∈Nir

disturbance coefficient matrix with appropriate dimension.

+ ṁri cpavg (Tis − Tir ) + Q̇int

i ) Fig. 3 represents the experimental validation of the building

where Cir and ṁri denote the heat capacity and air mass flow thermal model for few days in winter. Fig. 3(a) compares

into or out of the room i, respectively. Tk is the temperature the simulated and measured room temperature, and Fig. 3(b)

of surrounding node k to room i. cpavg denotes the average illustrates the heat-pump power based on the difference be-

specific heat capacity of air and Tis is the temperature of the tween the room temperature and the measured supply air

supply air to room i. πi,j is window identifier which is equal temperature. Details of HVAC heat-pump system are discussed

to 0 if there is no wall between room i and j, otherwise in Section IV.

equal to 1. Awin

i,j is the total area of window between room i

w

and surrounding room j, τi,j is the transmissivity of glass of B. Building Optimization Model-I

window between room i and j, Qrad i is the radiative heat flux The main goal of optimization is to minimize energy cost

density per unit area radiated to room i, and Q̇inti denotes the by the building’s HVAC system. For this purpose, both HVAC

internal heat generation in room i. Nir is the set of all nodes energy usage and time varying electricity price are taken into

surrounding room i. account. Energy usage is characterized by the energy index Ie

The disturbance to the model, w(t), is function of neighbor- which is defined as [2]:

ing room temperature, Tkr (t), internal heat generation in rooms 24

X

Q̇int rad

i (t), and radiative heat flux density on walls, Qi (t). The Ite = PtB ∆t (6a)

disturbance is given by [40]: t=1

w(t) = g(Tkr (t), Qrad int PtB = Pth + Ptc + Ptf + Pto (6b)

i (t), Q̇i (t)) (3)

1949-3053 (c) 2016 IEEE. Translations and content mining are permitted for academic research only. Personal use is also permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See

http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2016.2557334, IEEE

Transactions on Smart Grid

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID, VOL. , NO. , 4

Temperature (oC) the constraint on slack variables. Constraints (8b) and (8d)

21

Room air

19

o

STD of error: 0.09 C Measured horizon. In section V-F, effect of N on simulation results

Mean of error: 0.1 oC Estimated

will be discussed. (8c), (8e), (8f), and (8g) should hold

18

MON TUE WED THR for all k = 1, 2, ..., N . Ut = [ut|t , ut+1|t , · · · , ut+N −1|t ]

(b) represents control inputs vector and ut+1|t is the estimated

1000

Measurerd value of ut+1 at time t, ǫt = [εt+1|t , · · · , εt+N |t ] and ǫt =

Heat−pump

power (W)

Mean of error: 16.7 W

Estimated

[εt+1|t , · · · , εt+N |t ] are the slack variables. Slack variables

500

are added to ensure feasibility of optimal control problem. In

equation (8a) there is penalty (ρ) for slack variables. Therefore,

0

MON TUE WED THR by choosing large values for ρ, the optimizer enforces the

Time (day) slack variables to take small values and does not violate the

Fig. 3. Experimental validation of the building thermal model for a sample temperature constraints. ρ characterizes the flexibility of a

room/zone.

building to provide services at the grid level. ǫ is not a pre-

determined value in the optimization; however, by choosing

where PtB is the active power consumption of building. P h is large enough values for ρ, deviation from comfort bound (i.e.,

heating power, P c , and P f are cooling power and fan power, ǫ) is guaranteed to be minimum. In Equation (8a), lower values

respectively. We denote all buildings’ other loads with P o for ρ leads to higher flexibility for grid level services; however,

which includes lighting and appliances loads. Heating, cooling this results in occupants’ discomfort [2]. Equation (8f) defines

and fan power consumption are determined by [2]: the relationship between the room temperature and the slack

Pth = ṁri (t)cp,air [Tth − Ti,t

r

] (7a) variable value. Ω is dynamic pricing of electricity which is

considered to be independent of power consumption by the

Ptc = ṁri (t)cp,air [Ti,t

r

− Ttc ] (7b) building loads. yt+k|t is the vector of thermal zone temper-

Ptf = λ(ṁri )3 (7c) ature, dt+k|t is the disturbance load, and T t+k|t and T t+k|t

for k = 1, · · · , N are the lower and upper bounds on the

where T h and T c are the supply air temperatures in the

zone comfort level, respectively. U t+k|t and U are the lower

heating mode and the cooling mode, respectively and these

and upper limits on the supply air temperature delivered by

variables are the system control inputs. Equations (7a) and (7b)

the heat-pump of the HVAC system, respectively. Operational

represent the relationship between the HVAC heat-pump power

limit on maximum supply air temperature is not time varying,

consumption and the temperature difference. λ [W.s3 .kg−3 ] is

therefore time invariant constraint U is used. δU and δU

the coefficient of fan which defines the cubic relation between

are limitation on rate of change of supply air temperature

power required and mass flow rate. Since air mass flow rate is

according to dynamics of heat-pump condenser.

not a control input in the state model, and it is constant during

the daytime, fan power, P f , does not affect optimization result.

The temperature difference between supply air and the C. Building Optimization Model-II

room air is proportional to electrical energy consumption. Objective of this optimization model is the same as (8).

Hence, the building controller keeps the room temperature However, an additional constraint is used as a feedback from

within the comfort levels such that energy cost is minimized. distribution grid, which is given as:

We use the proposed objective function in equation (8a) to

PtB ≤ Ptvar (9)

minimize energy cost. In addition, soft constraints (i.e., ǫ) are

implemented to guarantee feasibility of optimal solution at all where Ptvar is the maximum allowable building active power

times. The following optimization problem is being solved at penetration in the distribution grid, which will be discussed

each time step t, and cumulative cost is calculated from t to in Section II-D. Equations (6), (7a)-(7c), (8b)-(8g), and (9)

tmax : tX

max

define equality and inequality constraints of the optimization

min {( Ite ΩT ) + ρ(|ǫt |1 + |ǫt |1 )} (8a) model.

Ut ,ǭ,ǫ

t

subject to: D. Distribution Grid Optimization Model-I

xt+k+1|t = Axt+k|t + But+k|t + Edt+k|t (8b) Objective of this optimization model is to determine max-

imum additional building loads that can be connected at

yt+k|t = Cxt+k|t (8c)

different nodes of the distribution system. This information

U t+k|t ≤ ut+k|t ≤ U (8d) is used as a feedback to the building optimization model-

δU ≤ ut+k+1|t − ut+k|t ≤ δU (8e) II described in Section II-C, which represents information

T t+k|t − εt+k|t ≤ yt+k|t ≤ T t+k|t + εt+k|t (8f) exchange between the two levels of the bilevel optimization

framework. Mathematically, objective function can be written

εt+k|t , εt+k|t ≥ 0 (8g) as: (t )

max X

X

where (8b) and (8c) form building’s state model, (8d) and max var,nb

Pt (10)

(8e) are constraints on input i.e. supply air temperature, (8f) is t=1 nb∈n

1949-3053 (c) 2016 IEEE. Translations and content mining are permitted for academic research only. Personal use is also permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See

http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2016.2557334, IEEE

Transactions on Smart Grid

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID, VOL. , NO. , 5

where n represents nodes and nb represents nodes where In Equations (14a, 14b, 14c, & 14d) overbar and underbar

buildings are connected. denote the maximum and minimum value for variable, respec-

Equality constraints of the grid optimization model include tively. Equation (14a) ensures that the voltage limits are within

component modeling and voltage/current balance equations. the standard set by ANSI. Equations (14b) and (14c) are the

Distribution feeders, transformers, and voltage regulators with limits on tap positions in transformer and capacitor banks,

load tap changers (LTCs) are modeled using ABCD param- which take integer numbers only.

eters as described in [41]. Constant power, constant current,

and constant impedance loads are considered at each node. E. Distribution Grid Optimization Model-II

Mathematically, these equality constraints can be represented Objective in this optimization model is to maximize the

as: system load factor. Mathematically, this objective function is

m

Vtn a bm Vtn+1 written as [42], [43]:

= m (11a)

Itsen,m c dm Itres,m (P

tmax

)

t=1 Pt

max (15)

tmax |Pt |∞

Itres,m−1 = Itsen,m + ItZ,n + ItI,n

where, Pt total active power load connected to the distribu-

+ ItP,n + ItC,n + Itvar,n (11b)

tion grid at hour t is calculated as:

Z n ItC,n = Vtn Ctapnt (11c) X n o X

Pt = ℜ Vtn (ItZ,n + ItI,n + ItP,n )∗ + Ptvar,nb

where m represents feeder branches, Itres,m−1 and Itsen,m n nb

are receiving and sending end currents on branch m − 1 and (16)

m, respectively. For branches with LTC, am = 1+∆s·T 1

, Equations (11), (12), and (14) represent the equality and

tapm

t

−1

bj = cj = 0 and dj = aj where ∆s represents voltage inequality constraints. Load factor in (15) is improved by

change (p.u.) with one step change of transformer tap position controlling LTC and switched capacitor banks. For grid power

and T tapm n flow analysis and distribution grid optimization model-II,

t represents LTC tap positions, Z is the impedance

of single capacitor in a bank at nominal power and voltage. Ptvar,nb = PtB,nb , which is obtained from (6).

ItP,n , ItI,n , ItZ,n , and ItC,n are the currents from the constant

power, constant current, constant impedance loads, and ca- F. B2G Index

pacitor banks connected at node n, respectively. Vtn represents In the hierarchical approach to solve the proposed optimiza-

nodal voltage and Ctapnt represents number of capacitor banks tion models, the lower level is concerned about the electricity

switched on. costs in buildings, while the upper level is concerned in maxi-

Base loads in the distribution feeder are modeled using sum mizing the system load factor. A worthwhile B2G optimization

of constant power, constant current, and constant impedance should maintain an appropriate compromise between low elec-

loads. Building loads are additional power to the grid and tricity cost in buildings and high load factor in the distribution

modeled as constant power load. Building load current in system. To account for this, we define a new B2G index (IB2G )

terms of building power can be calculated using: to assess the performance of the proposed B2G optimization

framework, which allows reduction in the electricity costs and

Ptvar,nb

Vtnb (Itvar,nb )∗ = ∠φ (12) improvement of system load factor starting at the building level

cosφ with the use of nodal load factor. The B2G index is defined

where φ is the power factor angle of the building load. An as:

additional equation is needed to ensure that building load

−1

Lf

z }| {

penetration is allowed fairly in the distribution grid. Thus, a B,nb

tmax Pt (17)

fairness index (ItF ) is defined to ensure fair distribution of

IB2G = α (Ite ΩT ) + β Ptmax B,nb∞

building loads as:

t=1 Pt

P var,nb

ItF = t E,nb (13) where α and β are the weight factors for energy price (Ie ΩT )

Pt

and nodal load factor (Lf ), respectively. The smaller the IB2G

where, PtE,nb is the base load in nodes nb. index, the better the performance for the B2G optimization.

Inequality constraints of the distribution grid optimization The ratio of weight factors, α to β, determines the importance

model include limits of voltage as per ANSI standards, limits of energy cost compared to the system load factor. α and β

on capacitor and LTC positions, limits on ItF , and other limits are the design parameters in the B2G optimization problem

such as feeder capacity, transformer capacity, etc. Mathemat- and can be adjusted by the building and grid operators,

ically, the inequality constraints can be written as, depending on whether the benefits from the building side or the

benefits from the grid side are more desirable. Thus, selection

V ≤ Vtn ≤ V (14a)

n

of proper values of α and β for optimal operation system

0≤ Ctapnt ≤ Ctap , ∀ Ctapnt ∈I (14b) requires sensitivity analysis of the building-grid system under

T tap ≤ T tapmt ≤ T tap, ∀ T tapm

t ∈I (14c) consideration.

F F In the case studies, IB2G is used as an alternative objective

0 ≤ It ≤ I (14d) function to (8a) in building optimization models. Note that

1949-3053 (c) 2016 IEEE. Translations and content mining are permitted for academic research only. Personal use is also permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See

http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2016.2557334, IEEE

Transactions on Smart Grid

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID, VOL. , NO. , 6

(8a) does not account for grid’s objective; while the proposed

B2G index considers the grid’s objective in the building

optimization model with consideration of the nodal load factor.

A solution method, shown in Fig. 4, is proposed for the

bilevel B2G optimization framework. The proposed solution

method consists of information exchange between the two

levels, i.e., the commercial buildings and the grid control

center; thus, it is bidirectional in nature. The B2G optimization

framework consists of two optimization models for the demand

side (i.e., building systems) and two optimization models for

the supply side (i.e., distribution grid). These optimization

procedures include:

• Building Optimization Model-I: Building energy cost

minimization;

• Distribution Grid Optimization Model-I: Maximizing

penetration of building loads in the distribution grid;

• Building Optimization Model-II: Minimizing building

electricity cost considering constraints from grid side (9);

• Distribution Grid Optimization Model-II: Maximizing

load factor of distribution grid.

The solution procedure begins with the demand side opti-

mization with an objective to reduce electricity cost for the

next day (label A in Fig. 4). At this stage, the optimized

load profiles of each of the commercial buildings are made

available to the distribution grid control center. A distribution Fig. 4. Proposed bidirectional B2G optimization flowchart.

of building load profiles. The feasibility test checks various op-

to handle this issue is to consider a small unused margin

erational constraints of the distribution grid including voltage

of power in the maximum allowable loads in (10) that can

limits as per ANSI standards defined by (14a)-(14c). Violation

accommodate change in power consumption of loads due to

of operational constraints makes the building loads in-feasible

the voltage change. However, this change will not affect the

for grid operation. In case the building loads are feasible for

feasibility of HVAC system since they can be considered as

the grid (label B in Fig. 4), tap positions of capacitor banks and

constant power load [44].

transformers are calculated using distribution grid optimization

model-II, which maximizes the system load factor.

In case of in-feasibility of the building loads from grid IV. T EST S YSTEMS

B,ib

side, the maximum allowable load, P t , is obtained from

B,ib A. Building Testbed

the distribution grid optimization model-I. P t is used as a

feedback to the BMS system (label D in Fig. 4) to solve the A commercial three story Lakeshore Center building with

building optimization model-II. If the updated optimization an area of 61, 500f t2 at Michigan Technological University

is feasible, then the optimized load profile is sent back to (MTU), Houghton, Michigan, is considered as the testbed. The

the distribution optimization model-II to maximize load factor testbed is equipped with ground-source heat-pumps (GSHP)

(label F in Fig. 4). Otherwise, other options like chang- to provide required energy for heating and cooling. GSHPs

ing building’s temperature requirements (label E in Fig. 4) transfer geothermal energy from the ground to rooms. GSHPs

becomes necessary. Next, building optimization model-II is are HVAC energy efficient technologies with high coefficient

solved by considering the feedback from the grid as additional of performance (COP). The GSHPs in this study have a

constraint. Then, the resulting building load profile information nominal COP of 3.2.

is sent to the distribution grid control center, which is used to Each room is equipped with a GSHP to maintain comfort

solve distribution optimization model-II. of occupants. Fig. 5 shows the schematic of the building

Change of the control variables, i.e., LTC and capacitor with GSHPs connected to the distribution grid at node #10.

banks may result in different node voltages from the two Temperature of each zone in Lakeshore Center building is

distribution grid optimization models, which in turn can impact measured using a temperature sensor from the BMS with

the voltage dependent loads and make the grid optimization accuracy of ±0.2◦ C. HVAC system in the testbed consumes

problems in-feasible. Thus, depending on the types of load up to 44% of electricity in winter, while the rest of electricity

used in the distribution grid optimization model, the whole consumption is attributed to lighting, computers, and office

solution process may need to reiterate. An alternate approach appliances. Historical data of energy consumption of an office

1949-3053 (c) 2016 IEEE. Translations and content mining are permitted for academic research only. Personal use is also permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See

http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2016.2557334, IEEE

Transactions on Smart Grid

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID, VOL. , NO. , 7

building at MTU is used to compute the share of energy Weather forecast information available from a local weather

consumption of major loads in the testbed. station is used. The constraints on the room temperature are

set based on ASHRAE standards [48]. Other building and grid

parameters used in the simulation can be found in [20] and

[11], respectively.

The optimization results are compared with the non-

optimized rule-based controller (RBC). We use same ∆t = 1

hour time step to have a fair comparison among B2G optimiz-

ers in this study. Given the slow thermal behavior of the testbed

building and the type of demand response applications, one

hour time step is sufficient to capture the dynamics. Depending

on building type, a shorter time step may be required.

For the case study, five buildings each having twenty zones

are connected at node 2 of the distribution grid, similar

three buildings are connected at node 10, four buildings are

connected at node 18, and seven buildings are connected

at node 31. In this paper, the optimization results are only

presented for the buildings at node #10 (see Fig. 5). The nodal

load factor is presented for the node #10 as a node representing

Fig. 5. Schematic of the testbed with a ground-source heat-pump. Two B2G system. In addition, system level load factors are also

temperature sensors are used to measure the average room air temperature. determined for the distribution grid system to compare the

operation of different B2G optimizers.

As mentioned in the Section I, HVAC systems account for a

B. Distribution Test Feeder large amount of load in buildings. Therefore, in this study, we

focus on controlling the HVAC load of the buildings which is

A standard single phase 12.66 kV, 33-node distribution

considered to be dispatchable. Other loads in buildings includ-

feeder [11] is considered for the case studies. The standard test

ing lighting, appliances, and base loads in the distribution grid

system is modified by adding a regulator and capacitor banks

are considered to be non-dispatchable. For MPC simulation, a

to account for the control equipment available in distribution

prediction horizon of N = 24 is used with time step of 1 hour.

grids.

Here, we introduce three different optimization methods and

As shown in Fig. 5, a transformer is equipped with voltage

compare them with the RBC.

regulator (connected between 10th and 11th nodes in the test

systems), which maintains the voltage at node 11 within ±10%

of the nominal value. A 32-step regulator is considered, and a A. Unoptimized Rule Based Control

single tap change represents voltage of 0.00625 p.u. Capacitor In this approach, when temperature goes below the lower-

banks are connected at 8th and 16th nodes of the feeder and bound temperature, the HVAC RBC keeps the heat-pump

are modeled as constant impedance load capable of delivering compressor on for the duration of ∆t. In the next time step,

reactive power to the grid. Identical five units of capacitors the RBC checks the room temperature again and determines

with 10 kVAr each are considered, which are represented as whether the room temperature is within the comfort bounds.

switched capacitors with tap positions from 0 to 5. The monthly electricity cost of the building and energy con-

It is assumed that smart buildings are connected at four sumption along with other B2G metrics are listed in TABLE I.

arbitrary nodes, i.e., nodes 2, 10, 18, and 31. Each building

is considered to have twenty identical zones with similar load B. Building/Grid side Optimizations

profiles and with the same temperature requirements.

The results of uncoordinated building side and grid side

optimization are presented here. Fig. 6 shows the results of a

V. R ESULTS building MPC controller using building optimization model-

The building model is implemented in MATLABr and I. The main objective in the building-side optimization is to

YALMIP [45] toolbox is used to provide a symbolic syntax minimize building electricity costs. Fig. 6 (a) demonstrates the

to formulate the problem and interfaces with the optimization temperature profile of the room, and Fig. 6 (b) shows load dis-

solver. Distribution system optimization model is developed in tribution of buildings connected to node #10 including lighting

GAMS [46]. The accuracy of the building model is validated load, appliances (computers, elevators, refrigerators, etc.) and

using actual measurements collected from an office building buildings’ HVAC load. Building load distribution is based on

at Michigan Tech [2]. The distribution grid model is validated simulation results carried out for Lakeshore Center building at

using the results in [11]. Michigan Tech using Carrier HAP software. Fig. 6(c) shows

This work considers the weather forecast and energy price load distribution on node #10. Fig. 6(d) illustrates the building

as the inputs required for the building and grid optimization electricity load and the maximum feasible load for node #10

models. Thus, electricity dynamic pricing available from Mid- which is obtained from distribution optimization model-I block

continent Independent System Operator (MISO) is used [47]. shown in Fig. 4. In Fig. 6(d), the importance of grid-wise

1949-3053 (c) 2016 IEEE. Translations and content mining are permitted for academic research only. Personal use is also permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See

http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2016.2557334, IEEE

Transactions on Smart Grid

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID, VOL. , NO. , 8

TABLE I

P ERFORMANCE OF FOUR DIFFERENT B2G OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUES , COMPARED TO THE UNOPTIMIZED (RBC) CASE STUDY.

Optimization Monthly Bldg. Monthly Bldg. elec. Node #10 System (grid) IB2G Bldg. cost Bldg. energy

type elec. cost [$] consumption [kW h] load factor [-] load factor [-] index [-] saving* [%] saving* [%]

One day ahead prediction (including weather, dynamic pricing, comfort bounds, etc.)

Unoptimized (Base case) 935 368.1 0.41 0.72 10.50 0 0

Optimized (Bldg Unidirectional) 693 310.6 0.44 0.81 9.2 26 16

Optimized (Grid Unidirectional) 909 341.4 0.84 0.86 8.7 3 7

Optimized (Bidirectional) 698 310.1 0.46 0.84 8.8 25 17

Optimized (Using IB2G ) 707 305.2 0.67 0.84 6.9 24 17

* Percentage x−x0

saving is calculated by x0

× 100, where x0 is the energy consumption/cost for the unoptimized (base) case.

TABLE II

P ERFORMANCE OF TWO DIFFERENT B2G REAL - TIME OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUES , COMPARED TO THE UNOPTIMIZED (RBC) CASE STUDY.

Optimization Monthly Bldg. Monthly Bldg. elec. Node #10 System (grid) IB2G Bldg. cost Bldg. energy

type elec. cost [$] consumption [kW h] load factor [-] load factor [-] index [-] saving* [%] saving* [%]

Real-time prediction (including weather, dynamic pricing, comfort bounds, etc.)

Optimized (Bidirectional) 752 308.9 0.47 0.81 9.8 20 16

Optimized (Using IB2G ) 758 308.6 0.59 0.83 7.9 19 16

* Percentage x−x0

saving is calculated by x0

× 100, where x0 is the energy consumption/cost for the unoptimized (base) case.

building loads violate the maximum allowable loads by the (a)

Temperature (o C)

Comfort bound

Room temp.

Supply temp.

20

pricing and result HVAC cost are shown in Fig. 7. The monthly

0 5 10 15 20 24

building electricity cost is listed in TABLE I. Compared to the (b)

Node‘s Buildings

150

RBC, building-side optimization results in 26% cost saving HVAC

load (kW)

Lighting

and 16% energy saving. 100

Appliances

Total

If the objective is to maximize load factor in the distribution 50

significantly increased to 0.84 , while the building’s energy 0 5 10

(c)

15 20 24

Node load (kW)

Existing load

100 Bldgs' total load

C. Bidirectional Optimization

50

The proposed B2G methodology in Section III is applied 0

for the case study similar to that in subsection V-B. Building 0 5 10

(d)

15 20 24

150

optimization results are illustrated in Fig. 8 and summarized Buildings load

Load (kW)

in TABLE I. The results show the B2G optimizer satisfies 100

under the maximum load allowed by the distribution grid. In

0

addition, compared to the unidirectional (demand side) opti- 0 5 10 15 20 24

Time (hour)

mization, the system level load factor is increased from 0.81

Fig. 6. Building-side optimization: (a) Control input and resulting temperature

to 0.84. IB2G index also depicts a significant improvement as profile for the building MPC controller, (b) Buildings’ load profile including

seen in TABLE I. Bidirectional optimizer offers 25% cost sav- HVAC load, lighting load and appliances load, (c) Buildings’ total load at

ing compared to the unoptimized case while energy cost saving node #10 and base load, (d) Buildings’ electricity load versus maximum

feasible load for node #10.

is only dropped by 1% compared to unidirectional (building

side). Thus, this case study demonstrates that with the grid

constraints, the cost of operation of buildings increases, but it

ensures a feasible operation of the grid. of bidirectional optimization using IB2G index are shown in

Fig. 9 and summarized in the TABLE I. As expected, the

D. Bidirectional Optimization Using IB2G Index new optimization approach leads to the best result in terms

IB2G index provides a way to control/formulate the im- of IB2G . The smaller value for IB2G , the better performance

portance of building benefits versus grid benefits. The results for the B2G system. Using IB2G in the building objective

1949-3053 (c) 2016 IEEE. Translations and content mining are permitted for academic research only. Personal use is also permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See

http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2016.2557334, IEEE

Transactions on Smart Grid

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID, VOL. , NO. , 9

(a)

Temperature (oC)

2 400

Electricity cost 30 Comfort bound

Dynamic pricing Room temp.

electricity cost ($)

Building’s HVAC

Supply temp.

1.5 300 25

20

1 200

0 5 10 15 20 24

(b)

0.5 100 150

Buildings load

Load (kW)

Maximum feasible load for buildings

0 100

0

1 5 10 15 20 24

Time (hour)

50

Fig. 7. Building-side Optimization: dynamic pricing versus hourly cost for

the building. 0 5 10 15 20 24

Time (hour)

(a) Fig. 9. Bidirectional optimization based on IB2G index: (a) Control input

Temperature (oC)

and resulting temperature profile, (b) Building load versus maximum feasible

30 Comfort bound

Room temp.

load.

Supply temp.

25

20

E. Impact on Voltage Performance

Permissible voltage range, as specified in ANSI C84.1, is

0 5 10 15 20 24

one of the standards to maintain power quality in distribution

(b)

150 feeders. Fig. 10(a) shows the voltage at few selected nodes for

Buildings load

unidirectional optimization (building-side) which are violated

Load (kW)

100 in certain hours, and (b) illustrates that the optimization model

with IB2G index where voltages are maintained within the

50 limits.

0 5 10 15 20 24

(a)

Time (hour)

Voltage (p.u.)

0.98

Fig. 8. Bidirectional optimization: (a) Control input and room temperature

profile for the MPC controller, (b) Building load vs maximum feasible load. 0.96

0.94

(b)

consequently better system level load factor, while minimizing

Voltage (p.u.)

the building energy costs. As a result, IB2G is better in the 0.98 Voltage lower bound Node #15 Node #17

0.96

optimization with objective 8a. 0.5 and 0.54 are chosen for α

and β, respectively, to provide comparable weight to building 0.94

and grid. Selection of α and β can be another optimization

0 5 10 15 20 24

problem which is outside the scope of this work. In this case Time (hour)

study, the cost of electricity is decreased by 24% with respect

to the base case and both nodal and system load factors are Fig. 10. Voltage at selective nodes. Fig. (a) shows the voltage profile

significantly improved compared to the base case. of unidirectional optimization and Fig. (b) illustrates the voltage profile of

bidirectional optimization (using IB2G index).

If α in IB2G in the bidirectional optimization is chosen to

be zero, the bidirectional optimization becomes unidirectional

which mainly satisfies the grid benefits (Grid unidirectional

in TABLE I). As expected, this leads to the best load factor F. Hour-ahead vs Day-ahead Optimization

compared to other four cases in TABLE I. But, the buildings’ In the case studies in TABLE I, the prediction horizon

electricity cost is increased by 21% compared to the bidi- N is considered to be 24. It means that the optimization

rectional IB2G case. Overall, bidirectional optimization using algorithm has prediction of weather forecast and dynamic

IB2G provides an optimization platform in which an operator pricing for the next 24 hours. If the weather forecast or

can easily decide the desirable compromise for the benefits of prediction of electricity cost (dynamic pricing) is not available

customers and the grid. By using the proposed IB2G index as or not accurate for that period, the MPC algorithm cannot find

the optimization cost function, the temperature boundaries are the optimal solution for the next 24 hours. Here, we show two

met based on the ASHRAE standards. examples that the dynamic pricing and the weather forecast are

1949-3053 (c) 2016 IEEE. Translations and content mining are permitted for academic research only. Personal use is also permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See

http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2016.2557334, IEEE

Transactions on Smart Grid

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID, VOL. , NO. , 10

available for the next hour in TABLE II. Simulations for two Winter

(a)

proposed methods, bidirectional using (8a) and bidirectional 20 Fall

Temperature ( °C)

Spring

using IB2G , are carried out to demonstrate the effect of 10

prediction horizon on the cost saving and IB2G index. Results

0

show that B2G metrics deteriorate by reducing the prediction

horizon but the proposed algorithm still offers benefits for -10

both grid and buildings. Using the real-time B2G optimization,

-20

building electricity cost drops up to 20% and building load 1 5 10 15 20 24

Time (hour)

factor increases over 0.1 compared to the baseline unoptimized (b)

case. 400 MI

Dynamic pricing

IL

300 MN

($/MWh)

G. Impact of Dynamic Pricing and Seasonal Weather 200

tem load factor greatly depend on various factors including

0

dynamic pricing, weather, flexibility of commercial build- 1 5 10 15 20 24

ing’s loads, building’s temperature set-points, available con- Time (hour)

Fig. 11. (a) weather forecast of three sample days in Fall, Winter, and Spring

accuracy/availability of the forecasts. The impact of dynamic using measured data at Michigan Tech testbed and (b) Dynamic pricing for

pricing and weather variations on the customer’s cost savings Michigan, Illinois, and Minnesota obtained from [47].

and system load factor are also studied.

Fig. 11 (a) shows the weather condition for three sample

days in Fall, Winter, and Spring in our testbed. Fig. 11 (b)

illustrates three different dynamic energy prices at nodes in

Michigan, Illinois and Minnesota. Based on the weather and

energy price data, two sets of simulations are carried out.

Fig. 12 (a) shows the effect of weather on the building’s

electricity cost and system load factor for the three seasons

by keeping the dynamic energy price same (Michigan node).

Fig. 12 (b) demonstrates the effect of dynamic pricing on the

electricity cost saving and the system load factor improvement

using same weather forecast (Fall). During the Winter, 33%

saving in electricity cost and 8% improvement on system

load factor. However, as weather gets warmer, the cost sav-

ing decreases. For instance, in Spring, only 6% decrease in

electricity bill compared to RBC is observed. The reason for

less saving in Spring compared to Winter is that the cold

outside weather in Winter makes HVAC running more often

which provides more opportunities to save energy costs by

shifting the load. Less constraints (i.e., heating requirement) Fig. 12. (a) shows the weather effect on the building’s electricity bill and

on the HVAC controller in Spring/Fall compared to Winter system load factor, and (b) illustrates the effect of dynamic pricing on the

electricity bill and system load factor for the conditions shown in Fig. 11. An

provides more flexibility for load factor optimization. Thus RBC structure similar to that in TABLE I is used as a baseline to calculate

the percentage of increase in the B2G system’s LF is more saving percentages.

in Fall/Spring compared to that in the Winter. Finally, the

results in Fig. 12 (b) show that the proposed B2G optimization

provides cost saving and system LF increase for all the three computational challenges associated with the large scale non-

dynamic pricing profiles studied. convex optimization of distribution grid [49]. However, for

the size of the system considered in this paper, computational

complexity was not an issue. Simulation time for bidirectional

H. Computational Cost optimization discussed in this paper on an INTEL Core i5,

The problem formulation is hierarchical in nature, which 3.2 GHz CPU desktop computer is less than one minute for

allows each BEMS to solve its own building optimization building’s unidirectional optimization and around 5 minutes

model. The developed building optimization model in Section for optimization of both building and grid models. The entire

II is linear programming in nature, thus the computational hierarchical optimization problem takes maximum of two

tasks at the building level are not challenging for the demand iterations to solve. First, optimal load profiles at each interval

response applications discussed in this work. At the grid level, (i.e., each hour in this work) from the buildings are sent to grid

the nature of the problem is non-linear and LTCs and cap control center to determine feasibility of the grid operation. In

banks add integer variables in the model. This poses inherent case of infeasibility, maximum feasible load profiles are sent

1949-3053 (c) 2016 IEEE. Translations and content mining are permitted for academic research only. Personal use is also permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See

http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2016.2557334, IEEE

Transactions on Smart Grid

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID, VOL. , NO. , 11

to each building controllers. for the low energy prices, the impact of low energy price on

Computational challenges associated with large practical peak demand can be eliminated to a certain extent.

size grid can be reduced by using methods of convexifica-

tion [50], distributed approaches [14], and heuristic approaches VI. C ONCLUSION

[10]. The solution time desired for the proposed models This study develops a bidirectional B2G optimization frame-

depend on the B2G applications sought. For example, voltage work using an experimentally validated building thermal

regulation needs to be tackle in a few minutes, and load model and a mathematical model for the distribution grid. The

shifting in the order of hours [51]. For the type of B2G building optimization model is based on disturbance and heat

applications proposed in this work, solution time of 5 minutes transfer phenomena, and its model parameters are obtained

and a coarse time interval of one hour suffice. from actual measurements collected from an office building

at Michigan Technological University. The distribution grid

I. Benefits, Challenges, and Limitations model is comprised of modeling of typical distribution sys-

tem components including feeders, transformers, and control

This work provides a generic mathematical framework to equipment such as capacitor banks and transformer load tap

optimally coordinate building loads and grid level assets, changers. In the proposed bidirectional optimization model,

which is useful for near-term energy usage planning and/or the objective is to minimize energy cost for the demand side

near-real time dispatch of building loads. This opens up and to maximize load factor for the grid. To account for

opportunities to deploy multiple distributed building loads for conflicting interests of the BEMS and distribution operators in

grid level applications such as demand response, load fol- the bidirectional optimization, a novel B2G index is developed

lowing, and regulation services. The framework ensures that, based on building energy cost and nodal load factor. Based

in the demand dispatch process, the operational constraints on the provided case studies, it can be concluded that the

and interests of the grid level and customer level energy developed bidirectional optimization framework can reduce

management activities are honored; thus providing benefits to commercial buildings’ monthly electricity costs by 25% in

both the entities involved. Winter, compared to the unoptimized rule-based control of

The case studies clearly demonstrated the benefits of the the building loads, while improving the system load factor.

proposed framework to the building and grid operations. However, the savings obtained in energy price and improve-

However, the major challenges in large scale deployment of ment on system load factor greatly depend on various factors

B2G integration are: (1) infrastructural challenges including including energy price, flexibility of commercial building

interoperability of tools at building and customer levels, band- loads, customers’ preferences, available control equipment in a

width limitation, compatibility of system to handle different distribution grid, accuracy/availability of weather forecast and

data with different resolution and with different communica- dynamic pricing prediction, etc. Nevertheless, the developed

tion standards, and (2) mechanism barriers including lack of bidirectional optimization framework certainly offers benefits

financial models for costumer motivation, accurate predication to the customers and the utilities in B2G integration.

of weather and energy price, computational issues for grid op-

timization for real-time applications in practical-sized systems, ACKNOWLEDGMENT

and scale-ability of the control and optimization algorithms Special thanks to Mr. Gregory Kaurala from MTU Energy

[51]. Management Office for help in collecting the building exper-

Use of dynamic pricing (day ahead or real-time) at small imental data.

residential and commercial buildings has already begun [52],

[53]. With the widespread implementation of dynamic pricing R EFERENCES

for small customers, and with energy management systems

[1] DOE. (2014, Dec 10). Building Energy Data Book. [Online]. Available:

at customer’s premise, the power peak in distribution systems http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov

will shift to the hours with least expensive energy prices. Thus, [2] M. Maasoumy, M. Razmara, M. Shahbakhti, and A. S. Vincentelli,

the utility needs to devise demand limits for the customers for “Handling model uncertainty in model predictive control for energy

efficient buildings,” J. of Energy and Buildings, vol. 77, 2014.

the feasible grid operation. However, with the demand limits, [3] S. Privara, J. Cigler, Z. Váňa, F. Oldewurtel, C. Sagerschnig, and

energy savings of the customer will reduce. An appropriate E. Žáčeková, “Building modeling as a crucial part for building predictive

incentive/compensation mechanism need to take place [54], control,” J. of Energy and Buildings, vol. 56, pp. 8–22, 2013.

[4] J. Ma, S. J. Qin, B. Li, and T. Salsbury, “Economic Model Predictive

where utilities may compensate the customers for the reduc- Control for Building Energy Systems,” in Proceeding IEEE PES Inno-

tion in the savings. However, the compensation may not be vative Smart Grid Technologies, Detroit, MI, 2011.

necessary for all cases, since the case studies demonstrated [5] M. Pcolka, E. Zacekova, R. Robinett, S. Celikovsky, and M. Sebek,

“Economical Nonlinear Model Predictive Control for Building Climate

that the optimized energy costs of the buildings are reduced Control,” in Proceeding of American Control Conference (ACC), 2014.

compared to the RBC even with the grid constraints. Utilities [6] A. Brooks, E. Lu, D. Reicher, C. Spirakis, and B. Weihl, “Demand

need to devise subscription plans where the customers agree dispatch,” Power and Energy Magazine, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 20–29, 2010.

[7] M. C. Bozchalui, S. A. Hashmi, H. Hassen, C. A. Cañizares, and

that the BEMSs honor the demand limits sent by the DSO and K. Bhattacharya, “Optimal Operation of Residential Energy Hubs in

penalties for noncompliance. The another approach to solve Smart Grids,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 1755–

this issue is the use of distribution location marginal price 1766, 2012.

[8] S. Shao, M. Pipattanasomporn, and S. Rahman, “Demand Response as a

(DLMP) [55]. If appropriate method for setting DLMP can be Load Shaping Tool in an Intelligent Grid With Electric Vehicles,” IEEE

designed, which considers the customer’s expected response Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 624–631, Dec. 2011.

1949-3053 (c) 2016 IEEE. Translations and content mining are permitted for academic research only. Personal use is also permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See

http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2016.2557334, IEEE

Transactions on Smart Grid

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID, VOL. , NO. , 12

[9] J. Taylor, A. Maitra, M. Alexander, D. Brooks, and M. Duvall, “Evalua- with Renewable Energy,” in Proceeding of IEEE Innovative Smart Grid

tions of Plug-in Electric Vehicle Distribution System Impacts,” in Proc. Technologies Conference Europe, 2014, pp. 1–6.

IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, 2010. [33] B. Jin, P. Nuzzo, M. Maasoumy, Y. Zhou, and A. Sangiovanni-

[10] S. Paudyal, C. A. Cañizares, and K. Bhattacharya, “Optimal Operation Vincentelli, “A Contract-based Framework for Integrated Demand Re-

of Distribution Feeders in Smart Grids,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial sponse Management in Smart Grids,” in Proc. 2nd ACM International

Electronics, vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 4495–4503, Oct. 2011. Conference on Embedded Systems for Energy-Efficient Built Environ-

[11] S. K. Goswami and S. K. Basu, “A New Algorithm for the Reconfigura- ments, 2015, pp. 167–176.

tion of Distribution Feeders for Loss Minimization,” IEEE Transactions [34] J. Hagerman, G. Hernandez, A. Nicholls, and N. Foster, “Buildings-to-

on Power Delivery, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 1484–1491, Jul. 1992. Grid Technical Opportunities: Introduction and Vision,” US Department

[12] Y. Deng, X. Ren, C. Zhao, and D. Zhao, “A Heuristic and Algorithmic of Energy, Energy Efficient and Renewable Energy (EERE), Tech. Rep.,

Combined Approach for Reactive Power Optimization with Time- 2014.

Varying Load Demand in Distribution Systems,” IEEE Transactions on [35] S. Bera, S. Misra, and J. Rodrigues, “Cloud computing applications for

Power Systems, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 1068–1072, Oct. 2002. smart grid: A survey,” IEEE Transactions Parallel Distribution Systems,

[13] I. Roytelman, B. K. Wee, and R. L. Lugtu, “Volt/var control algorithm vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 1477–1494, May 2015.

for modern distribution management system,” IEEE Transactions Power [36] “VOLTTRON: An Intelligent Agent Platform for the Smart Grid.”

Systems, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1454–1460, 1995. [37] W. Khamphanchai, A. Saha, K. Rathinavel, M. Kuzlu, M. Pipattana-

[14] E. Dall’Anese, H. Zhu, and G. Giannakis, “Distributed optimal power somporn, S. Rahman, B. Akyol, and J. Haack, “Conceptual architecture

flow for smart microgrids,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 4, of building energy management open source software (BEMOSS),” in

no. 3, pp. 1464–1475, 2013. Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference Europe, 2014, pp. 1–6.

[15] M. Liu, C. Cañizares, and W. Huang, “Reactive Power and Voltage [38] G. Ghatikar and R. Bienert, “Smart grid standards and systems interop-

Control in Distribution Systems With Limited Switching Operations,” erability: a precedent with OpenADR,” in Grid Interop Forum, 2011.

IEEE Transactions Power Syst., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 889–899, 2009. [39] M. Razmara, G. Bharati, M. Shahbakhti, S. Paudyal, and R. D. Robi-

[16] M. Avci, M. Erkoc, and S. S. Asfour, “Residential HVAC load control nett III, “Bidirectional Optimal Operation of Smart Building-to-Grid

strategy in real-time electricity pricing environment,” in Proc. Ener- Systems,” in American Control Conference (ACC), 2015, pp. 288–293.

gytech, May 2012. [40] M. Maasoumy, M. Razmara, M. Shahbakhti, and A. Sangiovanni-

[17] D. T. Nguyen and L. B. Le, “Joint Optimization of Electric Vehicle and Vincentelli, “Selecting Building Predictive Control Based on Model

Home Energy Scheduling Considering User Comfort Preference,” IEEE Uncertainty,” in American Control Conference (ACC), 2014.

Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 188–199, Jan. 2014. [41] W. H. Kersting, Distribution System Modeling and Analysis. Chapters 3-

[18] Y. Yan, J. Zhou, Y. Lin, W. Yang, P. Wang, and G. Zhang, “Adaptive 6, Boca Raton, FL: CRC press, 2012.

optimal control model for building cooling and heating sources,” J. [42] E. Sortomme, M. M. Hindi, S. D. J. MacPherson, and S. S. Venkata,

Energy and Buildings, vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 1394–1401, 2008. “Coordinated charging of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to minimize

[19] M. Maasoumy, A. Pinto, and A. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, “Model-based distribution system losses,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 2,

Hierarchical Optimal Control Design for HVAC Systems,” in ASME no. 1, pp. 198–205, Mar. 2011.

Dynamic Systems and Control Conference (DSCC), 2011, pp. 271–278. [43] R. F. Chang and C. N. Lu, “Feeder reconfiguration for load factor

[20] M. Razmara, M. Maasoumy, M. Shahbakhti, and R. D. Robinett III, improvement,” in Proc. Power Engineering Society Winter Meeting,

“Optimal exergy control of building HVAC system,” J. Applied Energy, vol. 2, 2002, pp. 980–984.

vol. 156, pp. 555–565, 2015. [44] A. Bokhari, A. Alkan, R. Dogan, M. Diaz-Aguilo, F. de Leon,

[21] X. Xu, S. Wang, and G. Huang, “Robust MPC for temperature control D. Czarkowski, Z. Zabar, L. Birenbaum, A. Noel, and R. Uosef, “Ex-

of air-conditioning systems concerning on constraints and multitype un- perimental determination of the zip coefficients for modern residential,

certainties,” J. Building Services Engineering Research and Technology, commercial, and industrial loads,” IEEE Transactions Power Delivery,

vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 39–55, 2010. vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 1372–1381, Jun. 2014.

[22] M. Razmara, M. Maasoumy, M. Shahbakhti, and R. D. Robinett III, [45] J. Löfberg, “YALMIP: A toolbox for modeling and optimization in

“Exergy-based Model Predictive Control for Building HVAC systems,” MATLAB,” in IEEE International Symposium on Computer Aided

in American Control Conference (ACC), 2015. Control Systems Design, 2004, pp. 284–289.

[23] G. Huang, S. Wang, and X. Xu, “A robust model predictive control [46] GAMS Development Corporation. (2014, Dec 10). General

strategy for improving the control performance of air-conditioning Algebric Modeling System, Release 24.2.1. [Online]. Available:

systems,” J. Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 50, no. 10, pp. http://www.gams.com

2650–2658, 2009. [47] MISO. (2014, Sep 3). Midcontinent Inde-

[24] F. Oldewurtel, A. Parisio, C. Jones, M. Morari, D. Gyalistras, M. Gw- pendent System Operator. [Online]. Available:

erder, V. Stauch, B. Lehmann, and K. Wirth, “Energy efficient building https://www.misoenergy.org/MarketsOperations/Prices/Pages/Prices.aspx

climate control using Stochastic Model Predictive Control and weather [48] ASHRAE, “Standard 62.1-2004,” Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air

predictions,” in Proceeding of American Control Conference (ACC), Quality, 2004.

June 2010, pp. 5100–5105. [49] S. Paudyal, C. Cañizares, and K. Bhattacharya, “Three-phase Distribu-

[25] Y. Ma, S. Vichik, and F. Borrelli, “Fast Stochastic MPC with Optimal tion OPF in Smart Grids: Optimality versus Computational Burden,” in

Risk Allocation Applied to Building Control Systems,” in IEEE 51st Proc. Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Europe, Dec. 2011, pp. 1–7.

Annual Conference on Decision and Control, Dec. 2012, pp. 7559–7564. [50] S. Low, “Convex Relaxation of Optimal Power Flow –Part I: Formu-

[26] P. D. Moroşan, R. Bourdais, D. Dumur, and J. Buisson, “Building lations and Equivalence,” IEEE Transactions on Control of Network

temperature regulation using a distributed model predictive control,” J. Systems, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 15–27, Mar. 2014.

of Energy and Buildings, vol. 42, no. 9, pp. 1445–1452, 2010. [51] T. Kuruganti and M. Brambley, “Building-to-grid technical opportunity:

[27] Y. Ma, G. Anderson, and F. Borrelli, “A Distributed Predictive Control From the information and communications technology perspective,”

Approach to Building Temperature Regulation,” in Proceeding American DOE Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, Accessed on Feb 18, 2016.

Control Conference (ACC), 2011, pp. 2089–2094. [52] Ameren. Power Smart Pricing; A Smart Electricity Rate From Ameren

[28] M. Maasoumy and A. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, “Buildings to Grid Illinois. [Online]. Available: https://www.powersmartpricing.org/

Integration: A Dynamic Contract Approach,” in Proc. IEEE/ACM In- [53] The COMED Residential Real-time Pricing Pro-

ternational Conference on Computer-Aided Design, 2015, pp. 473–478. gram Guide. Commonwealth Edison (ComEd). [Online].

[29] T. Gamauf, T. Leber, K. Pollhammer, and F. Kupzog, “A Generalized Available: https://www.comed.com/documents/customer-service/rates-

Load Management Gateway Coupling Smart Buildings to the Grid,” in pricing/real-time-pricing/rrtpprogramguide.pdf

Proc. AFRICON Conf., 2011. [54] Z. Wang, “Compensation Methods for Demand Response,” Master’s

[30] P. Palensky and D. Dietrich, “Demand Side Management: Demand thesis, University of Kentucky, 2015.

Response, Intelligent Energy Systems, and Smart Loads,” IEEE Trans- [55] R. Li, Q. Wu, and S. Oren, “Distribution locational marginal pricing for

actions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 381–388, Aug. 2011. optimal electric vehicle charging management,” IEEE Transactions on

[31] X. Xue and W. Shengwei, “Interactive Building Load Management for Power Systems, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 203–211, Jan. 2014.

Smart Grid,” in Proceeding of IEEE Power Engineering and Automation

Conference, 2012, pp. 1–5.

[32] A. Saha, M. Kuzlu, W. Khamphanchai, M. Pipattanasomporn, S. Rah-

man, O. Elma, U. S. Selamogullari, M. Uzunoglu, and B. Yagcitekin,

“A Home Energy Management Algorithm in a Smart House Integrated

1949-3053 (c) 2016 IEEE. Translations and content mining are permitted for academic research only. Personal use is also permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See

http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

- DC Microgrid power flow optimizationHochgeladen vonengrar
- Smart GridHochgeladen vonharry_sep6
- slno5Hochgeladen vonAnnapoorani
- shriram-140315083847-phpapp02Hochgeladen vonda
- SENATE HEARING, 114TH CONGRESS - ``THE STATE OF TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION RELATED TO THE ELECTRIC GRID''Hochgeladen vonScribd Government Docs
- ICT and SustainabilityHochgeladen vonristomitev
- Architecture VisionHochgeladen vonMuhammad Bilal Khan
- smart gridHochgeladen vonhimaja
- Security_and_Privacy_Challenges_in_the_Smart_Grid.pdfHochgeladen vonDexter Kamal
- Generation ManagementHochgeladen vonKalki Communication Technologies Ltd
- Wireless Smart Grid Tested in LAbHochgeladen vonganesh_n1412
- IEMTCModule4 FinalHochgeladen vondaygo21
- Get smartHochgeladen vonLuz Ireri
- Smart GridHochgeladen vonPrabir Kumar Pati
- Anti Theft Automatic Metering InterfaceHochgeladen vonIJSTR Research Publication
- Smart Grid trasmission by Afzal.pptxHochgeladen vonMuhammad Afzal
- Brochure Request_ Smart Grids, Smart Cities, Smart FutureHochgeladen vonecajkr
- UntitledHochgeladen vonapi-25976591
- Can Indias Power Sector Keep the Lights On.pdfHochgeladen vonHarshitGupta
- 1100 Sanders QOREXHochgeladen vonmalagava
- Smart GridHochgeladen vonPrashant Shah
- High Power Batteries for IndustriesHochgeladen vonCarlos Pinto
- Smart GridHochgeladen vonPavan Sharma
- [E4] IndonesiaHochgeladen vonKarlina
- Smart GridHochgeladen vonlateef209
- Privacy in Smart Grid Final ReportHochgeladen vonGanesh Patil
- Romanian Power Market RenewableHochgeladen vonMarysol Ayala
- ASEE_final.pdfHochgeladen vonPrateek Taneja
- Companies, StorageHochgeladen vonRosa889
- Co Evolution of Smart Energy Products and ServicesHochgeladen vonPoushan Shrestha

- 08272023.pdfHochgeladen vonnhatvp
- Predictive Cruise Control Using High-DefinitionHochgeladen vonnhatvp
- Distributed Model Predictive Secondary VoltageHochgeladen vonnhatvp
- 08456489Hochgeladen vonnhatvp
- Performance Evaluation of Two-Vector-Based MPCHochgeladen vonnhatvp
- Machine Learning Based Adaptive PredictionHochgeladen vonnhatvp
- 08240941Hochgeladen vonnhatvp
- Research on Robust Model Predictive ControlHochgeladen vonnhatvp
- A Fuzzy Model Predictive Control Based Upon ADAPTIVEHochgeladen vonnhatvp
- A Scheduling Scheme of Linear Model Predictive CONTROLHochgeladen vonnhatvp
- Load Frequency Control of an Isolated Micro GridHochgeladen vonnhatvp
- Sensor-Less Predictive Drying ControlHochgeladen vonnhatvp
- Robust Adaptive Gain Higher Order Sliding ModeHochgeladen vonnhatvp
- Robust Online Model Predictive ControlHochgeladen vonnhatvp
- Robust PBPK/PD-Based Model PredictiveHochgeladen vonnhatvp
- Gaussian Process-Based Predictive ControHochgeladen vonnhatvp
- Building HVAC Systems for Reliable Demand ResponseHochgeladen vonnhatvp
- 07-What does an open BAS look like.pdfHochgeladen vonnhatvp
- [3] 10657847_853387114712059_139042780_nHochgeladen vonnhatvp
- [1] 10741149_853387121378725_887783976_nHochgeladen vonnhatvp
- Trends-in-Microgrid-Control.pdfHochgeladen vonnhatvp
- Model Predictive Control of Voltages in Active Distribution Networks.pdfHochgeladen vonnhatvp
- Model predictive control of smart microgrids.pdfHochgeladen vonnhatvp
- Energy Efficient Microgrid Management using Model Predictive Control.pdfHochgeladen vonnhatvp
- Distributed Control Scheme to Regulate Power FlowHochgeladen vonnhatvp
- 02whole.pdfHochgeladen vonnhatvp
- 30Optimal Control of Distributed Energy ReHochgeladen vonnhatvp

- GNSS Receiver Positioning Test Report Appendix AHochgeladen vonMarco Reyes
- TUTORIAL Surface Modeling in Pro E WildfireHochgeladen vonviolin09
- UntitledHochgeladen vonEfren Gonzales
- GNS430-InstallationManualHochgeladen vonsparkyoshida
- Low-Power High-speed Low-Offset Fully Dynamic CMOS Latched ComparHochgeladen vonkbmn2
- Eircom 5010Hochgeladen vonWebman
- The Performance Appraisal of Grameenphone in BangladeshHochgeladen vonSolaiman Islam Emon
- TOS 2018 - 2019 2nd quarter.xlsxHochgeladen vonAileen Escatron
- Source Changeover SystemsHochgeladen vonLucianno Nm
- Swift Cheat Sheet - Object Oriented Programming - A4Hochgeladen voninfo.glcom5161
- Phone Types 2018-07-21 130823Hochgeladen vonClau Martine
- ILSATC~1.PPTHochgeladen vonmohsengsm
- Graph AnalysisHochgeladen vonnkjkjkj
- Afe 4404Hochgeladen vonSailiar
- Machine Learning for BeginnersHochgeladen vonkhaaba
- Critical SparesHochgeladen vonanurag_pugaliaa
- Working Paper: Promoting Transparency and Better Governance: The Case of Bangladesh Customs PortalHochgeladen vonRyan Brenner
- Georgianna Kemp Ancestors - 10 Generations - September 2012Hochgeladen vonRandy Seaver
- New Microsoft Office Word DocumentHochgeladen vonriteshsamantray521383
- Prog Controller Wiring SystemsHochgeladen vonKyle Stack
- US Department of Justice Court Proceedings - 06022006 noticeHochgeladen vonlegalmatters
- hw4_practice_solHochgeladen vondonnywhy
- Www Electronicshub Org (1)Hochgeladen vonJv Shan Bel
- ICS 33 quiz 8 - sample outputHochgeladen vonAndrew Bimbus
- Lab FileHochgeladen vonMeghna Kapoor
- ELS Pricelist 10 September 19Hochgeladen vonaditya putra yudhananta
- leaflet prodotti 2017_rev0317_web.pdfHochgeladen vonAnonymous Wyb8Y1
- [IJET-V1I5P9] Author: Prutha Gandhi, Dhanashri Dalvi, Pallavi Gaikwad, Shubham KhodeHochgeladen vonInternational Journal of Engineering and Techniques
- Problems Convolutional Codes.pdfHochgeladen vonprb
- Opciones TL MR3020Hochgeladen vonMiguel Angel Gil

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.

Jederzeit kündbar.