Energy and Cost Minimal Control of Active and Passive Building Thermal Storage InventorySource: Journal of Solar Energy Engineering:;2005:;volume( 127 ):;issue: 003::page 343Author:Gregor P. Henze
DOI: 10.1115/1.1877513Publisher: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Abstract: In contrast to building energy conversion equipment, less improvement has been achieved in thermal energy distribution, storage and control systems in terms of energy efficiency and peak load reduction potential. Cooling of commercial buildings contributes significantly to the peak demand placed on an electrical utility grid and time-of-use electricity rates are designed to encourage shifting of electrical loads to off-peak periods at night and on weekends. Buildings can respond to these pricing signals by shifting cooling-related thermal loads either by precooling the building’s massive structure (passive storage) or by using active thermal energy storage systems such as ice storage. Recent theoretical and experimental work showed that the simultaneous utilization of active and passive building thermal storage inventory can save significant amounts of utility costs to the building operator, yet increased electrical energy consumption may result. The article investigates the relationship between cost savings and energy consumption associated with conventional control, minimal cost and minimal energy control, while accounting for variations in fan power consumption, chiller capacity, chiller coefficient-of-performance, and part-load performance. The model-based predictive building controller is employed to either minimize electricity cost including a target demand charge or electrical energy consumption. This work shows that buildings can be operated in a demand-responsive fashion to substantially reduce utility costs with marginal increases in overall energy consumption. In the case of energy optimal control, the reference control was replicated, i.e., if only energy consumption is of concern, neither active nor passive building thermal storage should be utilized. On the other hand, cost optimal control suggests strongly utilizing both thermal storage inventories.
keyword(s): Cooling , Stress , Optimal control , Energy consumption , Storage , Thermal energy storage , Modeling , Optimization , Control equipment AND Temperature ,
|
Collections
Show full item record
contributor author | Gregor P. Henze | |
date accessioned | 2017-05-09T00:17:43Z | |
date available | 2017-05-09T00:17:43Z | |
date copyright | August, 2005 | |
date issued | 2005 | |
identifier issn | 0199-6231 | |
identifier other | JSEEDO-28377#343_1.pdf | |
identifier uri | http://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/132575 | |
description abstract | In contrast to building energy conversion equipment, less improvement has been achieved in thermal energy distribution, storage and control systems in terms of energy efficiency and peak load reduction potential. Cooling of commercial buildings contributes significantly to the peak demand placed on an electrical utility grid and time-of-use electricity rates are designed to encourage shifting of electrical loads to off-peak periods at night and on weekends. Buildings can respond to these pricing signals by shifting cooling-related thermal loads either by precooling the building’s massive structure (passive storage) or by using active thermal energy storage systems such as ice storage. Recent theoretical and experimental work showed that the simultaneous utilization of active and passive building thermal storage inventory can save significant amounts of utility costs to the building operator, yet increased electrical energy consumption may result. The article investigates the relationship between cost savings and energy consumption associated with conventional control, minimal cost and minimal energy control, while accounting for variations in fan power consumption, chiller capacity, chiller coefficient-of-performance, and part-load performance. The model-based predictive building controller is employed to either minimize electricity cost including a target demand charge or electrical energy consumption. This work shows that buildings can be operated in a demand-responsive fashion to substantially reduce utility costs with marginal increases in overall energy consumption. In the case of energy optimal control, the reference control was replicated, i.e., if only energy consumption is of concern, neither active nor passive building thermal storage should be utilized. On the other hand, cost optimal control suggests strongly utilizing both thermal storage inventories. | |
publisher | The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) | |
title | Energy and Cost Minimal Control of Active and Passive Building Thermal Storage Inventory | |
type | Journal Paper | |
journal volume | 127 | |
journal issue | 3 | |
journal title | Journal of Solar Energy Engineering | |
identifier doi | 10.1115/1.1877513 | |
journal fristpage | 343 | |
journal lastpage | 351 | |
identifier eissn | 1528-8986 | |
keywords | Cooling | |
keywords | Stress | |
keywords | Optimal control | |
keywords | Energy consumption | |
keywords | Storage | |
keywords | Thermal energy storage | |
keywords | Modeling | |
keywords | Optimization | |
keywords | Control equipment AND Temperature | |
tree | Journal of Solar Energy Engineering:;2005:;volume( 127 ):;issue: 003 | |
contenttype | Fulltext |