1. Proceedings
  2. I3M
  3. 2021
  4. SESDE
  5. 10.46354/i3m.2021.sesde.008

Optimized power plant control via compound modeling of
structural integrity and plant dynamics

  • a Pal Szentannai , 
  • b Tamás Fekete
  • a,,b Centre for Energy Research, Eötvös Loránd Research Network, Konkoly-Thege str. 29-33, Budapest, 1121, Hungary
  • a Department of Energy Engineering, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Műegyetem rkp 3, Budapest, 1111, Budapest
Cite as
Szentannai P., Fekete T. (2021). Optimized power plant control via compound modeling of structural integrity and plant dynamics. Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Simulation for Energy, Sustainable Development & Environment (SESDE 2021), pp. 66-69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46354/i3m.2021.sesde.008

Abstract

During the last years, renewable energy sources and their management have become increasingly important to help driving forward the energy transition and slow down the global warming. Current energy management systems are either simple but not optimal or very complex, computationally intensive and optimal. Despite that, they also often focus on the optimization of just the electrical energy ows of buildings so far. This work focuses on the development of a linear model predictive controller as well as heuristic energy ow controllers for optimizing a complex thermally-electrically coupled system. For that, a real world building is modelled in MATLAB Simulink and used for the training process of the heuristic controllers as well as for the evaluation of the different optimizers in simulation with different timespans. It is found that the linear MPC works better than a rule-based self consumption optimization and that the heuristic controllers work significantly better than these two for all evaluation timespans up to 180 days, while they perform significantly worse for 364 days.

References

  1. Anderson, T. L. (2017). Fracture Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications, Fourth Edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
    4th edition edition.
  2. ASME_III (2019). ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC), Section III: Rules for Construction of Nuclear Power
    Plant Components, Division 1, Subsection NB: Class 1 Component
  3. ASME_VIII (2019). ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC), Section VIII: Pressure Vessels, Division 3, Alternative Rules for Construction of High Pressure Vessels.
  4. EN12952-3 (2011). EN 12952-3:2011 - Water-tube boilers and auxiliary installations - Part 3: Design and calculation for pressure parts of the boiler.
  5. Evans, W. R. (1954). Control-system Dynamics. McGrawHill. Google-Books-ID: S4WxAAAAIAAJ.
  6. Ljung, L. and Glad, T. (1994). Modeling of Dynamic Systems. Pearson, Englewood Cliffs, N.J, 1st edition edition.
  7. Lorenzo, C. F. (1994). Continuum fatigue damage modeling for use in life extending control. NASA STI/Recon
    Technical Report N, 95.
  8. Ray, Wu, M. K., Carpino, M., and Lorenzo, C. F. (1994). Damage-mitigating control of mechanical systems:
    Part I – conceptual development and model formulation. In American Control Conference, pages 1172–1176.
    Publ by IEEE
  9. Sautriau, F. 1968. “Cahier Technique 2.”
  10. Soetanto, Danny Prabowo. 2000. “Implementing Fuzzy Logic in Determining Selling Price.” Jurnal Teknik Industri 2(1): 43–52.
  11. Teknomo, Kardi. 2006. “Application of Microscopic Pedestrian Simulation Model.” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 9(1): 15–27.
  12. Tlig, Mohamed, and Neïla Bhouri. 2011. “A MultiAgent System for Urban Traffic and Buses Regularity Control.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 20: 896–905. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.08.098.
  13. Xiao Xiong Weng, Shu Shen Yao, and Xue Feng Zhu. 2005. “Architecture of Multi-Agent System for Traffic Signal Control.” (December): 2199–2204.