Search NASA⌕ Search

DOE OSTI · 2331292

How good are learning-based control v.s. model-based control for load shifting? Investigations on a single zone building energy system

Abstract

Both model predictive control (MPC) and deep reinforcement learning control (DRL) have been presented as a way to approximate the true optimality of a dynamic programming problem, and these two have shown significant operational cost saving potentials for building energy systems. Furthermore, there is still a lack of in-depth quantitative studies on their approximation levels to the true optimality, especially in the building energy domain. To fill in the gap, this paper provides a numerical framework that enables the evaluation of the optimality levels of different controllers for building energy systems. This framework is then used to comprehensively compare the optimal control performance of both MPC and DRL controllers with given computation budgets for a single zone fan coil unit system. Note the optimality is estimated based on a user-specific selection of trade-off weights among energy costs, thermal comfort and control slew rates. Compared with the best optimality we can find through expensive optimization simulations, the best DRL agent can maximally approximate the optimality by 96.54%, which outperforms the best MPC whose optimality level is 90.11%. However, due to the stochasticity, the DRL agent is only expected to approximate the optimality by 90.42%, which is almost equivalent to the best MPC. Except for Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO), all DRL agents can have a better approximation to the optimality than the best MPC, and are expected to have better approximation than the MPC with a prediction horizon of 32 steps (15 min per step). In terms of reducing energy cost and thermal discomfort, MPC can outperform the rule-based control (RBC) by 18.47%–25.44%. DRL can be expected to outperform RBC by 18.95%–25.65% ,and the best DRL control policy can outperform RBC by 20.29%–29.72%. Although the comparison of the optimality level is performed in a perfect setting, e.g., MPC assumes perfect models, and DRL assumes a perfect offline training process and online deployment process, this can shed insight on their capabilities of approximating to the original dynamic programming problem.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Fu, Yangyang, Xu, Shichao, Zhu, Qi, O’Neill, Zheng, Adetola, Veronica. 2023-03-01. How good are learning-based control v.s. model-based control for load shifting? Investigations on a single zone building energy system. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.127073

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related reports

Nodal capacity expansion planning with flexible large-scale load siting

We propose explicitly incorporating large-scale load siting into a stochastic nodal power system capacity expansion planning model that concurrently co-optimizes generation, transmission, and storage expansion. The potential operational flexibility of some of these large loads is also taken into account by considering them as consisting of a set of tranches with different reliability requirements, which are modeled as a constraint on expected served energy across operational scenarios. We implement our model as a two-stage stochastic mixed-integer optimization problem with cross-scenario expectation constraints. To overcome the challenge of scalability, we build upon existing work to implement this model on a high performance computing platform and exploit scenario parallelization using an augmented Progressive Hedging Algorithm. The algorithm is implemented using the bounding features of mpisppy, which have shown to provide satisfactory provable optimality gaps despite the absence of theoretical guarantees of convergence. We test our approach and assess the value of this proactive planning framework on total system cost and reliability metrics using realistic testcases geographically assigned to San Diego and South Carolina, with datacenter and direct air capture facilities as large loads.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

From zonal to nodal capacity expansion planning: Spatial aggregation impacts on a realistic test-case

Solving power system capacity expansion planning (CEP) problems at realistic spatial resolutions is computationally challenging. Thus, a common practice is to solve CEP over zonal models with low spatial resolution rather than over full-scale nodal power networks. Due to improvements in solving large-scale stochastic mixed integer programs, these computational limitations are becoming less relevant, and the assumption that zonal models are realistic and useful approximations of nodal CEP is worth revisiting. Here, this work is the first to conduct a systematic computational study on the assumption that spatial aggregation can reasonably be used for ISO-scale CEP. By considering a realistic, large-scale test network based on the state of California with over 8000 buses, we find that well-designed small spatial aggregations can yield good approximations but that coarser zonal models may result in large distortions of investment decisions, e.g., capacity under-investment of up to 41% for the lowest resolution model considered.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

Multi-facility analysis using metered power data to quantify MRI energy use and utility bill costs across scanner operating modes

This study quantifies the energy consumption of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners across discrete operating modes during routine clinical workflows, based solely on electrical power measurements. Although previous studies have investigated MRI energy consumption within single hospitals or specific clinical settings, this research provides a broader and more systematic analysis. Researchers analyzed electrical power data and applied a previously developed semi-automatic method for identifying MRI operating modes using load duration curves for 20 MRI scanners across four different U.S. healthcare facilities, encompassing outpatient, inpatient, and mixed-use clinical settings. A key innovation is the inclusion of localized hourly utility rates to estimate costs, a parameter absent in prior literature. Key findings indicate significant variability in energy and cost profiles between weekdays and weekends. Scanner characteristics, including magnet strength, manufacturer, vintage, location, and clinical setting, influenced average daily energy consumption and power thresholds for operating modes. Notably, the clinical setting of a scanner predominantly determines its energy use. For example, the scanners in outpatient facilities consumed more energy. The breakdown of energy usage and costs by operating modes showed scanners spend between 61% and 93% of their time in nonproductive modes, with one outlier spending 34%. Average daily energy use for the scanners in the study ranged from 160 to 1069 kWh, with energy costs ranging from $\$$9 to $\$$149. This study uses an existing framework to quantify MRI energy behavior, leading to insights that can enable improved performance and cost savings across different healthcare environments.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗