0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)

11 vizualizări9 paginifafsd

Jan 10, 2017

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

fafsd

© All Rights Reserved

0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)

11 vizualizări9 paginifafsd

© All Rights Reserved

Sunteți pe pagina 1din 9

Energy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

refrigerant ow) combined system with DOAS (dedicated outdoor air

system) using genetic algorithm under heating conditions

Wonuk Kim a, Seung Won Jeon b, Yongchan Kim a, *

a

b

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Korea University, Anam-Dong, Sungbuk-Gu, Seoul, 136-713, Republic of Korea

Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology, 64, 182 Beon-Gil, Mado-Ro, Mado-Myeon, Hwaseong-Si, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:

Received 19 November 2015

Received in revised form

10 March 2016

Accepted 30 March 2016

A VRF (variable refrigerant ow) combined system adopting a DOAS (dedicated outdoor air system) has

been proposed to reduce the total energy consumption while satisfying IAQ (indoor air quality) and THC

(thermal and humidity comfort) with minimum outdoor air. The objective of this study is to develop a

model-based multi-objective optimal control strategy for the VRF combined system with multi-zone in

order to optimize the multi-objective functions of the THC, IAQ, and total energy consumption. The

performance of the VRF combined system was evaluated using the EnergyPlus model. The VRF combined

system was optimized by GA (genetic algorithm) and RSM (response surface methodology) with the

multi-objective functions of the THC, IAQ, and total energy consumption. The proposed multi-objective

optimal control strategies (A and B) were compared with the TS (time schedule) strategy and the DCVH

(demand controlled ventilation with humidifying). Optimal control strategy B reduced the total energy

consumption by 20.4% and increased the ratio of the hours satisfying the extended comfort zone by 19.1%

compared to the DCVH strategy.

2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:

Variable refrigerant ow

Dedicated outdoor air system

Model-based control

Multi-objective optimization

Multi-zone ventilation

1. Introduction

Nowadays, building energy management is strongly inuenced

by IAQ (indoor air quality) and thermal comfort in working spaces.

While ventilation with fresh OA (outdoor air) is essential for maintaining acceptable IAQ, it increases the thermal load of the working

space. New ventilation systems using novel control methods such as

DOAS (dedicated outdoor air system) and DCV (demand controlled

ventilation) have been proposed to reduce the total energy consumption while satisfying IAQ with minimum OA. The conventional

centralized all-air system consumes substantial energy to ventilate

the air in a building for thermal comfort and IAQ, but the DOAS can

reduce energy consumption by ventilating air only for IAQ [1]. In

addition, the DOAS can allow easy control of IAQ by separating

ventilation air from heating and cooling air [2]. The DOAS is often

operated using DCV (demand controlled ventilation). The DCV controls ventilation airow to satisfy the balance between IAQ and energy saving [3]. Therefore, the DOAS has been considered as an

alternative to the centralized all-air system in commercial buildings.

E-mail address: yongckim@korea.ac.kr (Y. Kim).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.03.139

0360-5442/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

ventilation strategies often cause over-ventilation in some zones

and under-ventilation in other zones when the heating/cooling

loads and occupancy proles in each zone differ signicantly [4].

Therefore, several ventilation control methods for the centralized

all-air system have been proposed to improve energy efciency and

provide uniform air-distribution to a multi-zone [4e6]. Xu et al.

[4,6] reset the set point air temperature of the critical zone, which

requires the largest fresh OA fraction, to optimize the OA ratio of SA

(supply air). However, these control methods for the centralized allair system only resolved the imbalance of IAQ between zones using

the set point reset of the critical zone. It is difcult to resolve the

imbalance of IAQ and humidity at the same time using the set point

reset of the critical zone. Therefore, it is necessary to apply multiobjective optimization to satisfy IAQ and THC (thermal and humidity comfort) in multi-zone with high energy efciency.

A VRF (variable refrigerant ow) system has been considered as

a favorite heating/cooling system in commercial buildings due to

the high part-load efciency and individual control capability of

thermal comfort in multi-zone [7e9]. Since the VRF system only

circulates indoor air for a sensible load without in-taking OA, it is

necessary to install a ventilation system to control IAQ and latent

load [10,11]. Therefore, the VRF system usually adopts an additional

Nomenclature

C

CO2 concentration, ppm

COP

coefcient of performance

CR

combination ratio

Cv(RMSE)coefcient of variation of the root mean squared error

DCV

demand controlled ventilation

DCVH

DCV with a humidier

DOAS

dedicated outdoor air system

E

energy consumption, MJ

EA

exhaust air

EEV

electronic expansion valve

EIR

energy input ratio

GA

genetic algorithm

HVAC

heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning

IAQ

indoor air quality

IDU

indoor unit

L

length, m

m

mass ow rate, kg s1

MBE

mean bias error

O

occupancy

OA

outdoor air

Obj

objective function

ODU

outdoor unit

PLR

part-load ratio

PMV

predicted mean vote

R2

coefcient of determination

RA

return air

RH

relative humidity, %

volume) [14]. Ventilation effect [13,15] and optimal load ratio between VRF and VAV [14] were reported in a VRF system combined

with a VAV system (called a VRF combined system). In addition, a

simulation model for the VRF combined system was developed in a

multi-zone building [9,16]. In these studies, zonal temperatures in

multi-zone were controlled by each IDU (indoor unit) in the VRF

system, while zonal IAQ and humidity were controlled by SA using

the centralized air system. However, the simultaneous control on

the imbalance of zonal IAQ and humidity in multi-zone has not

been studied in the VRF combined system.

The simultaneous optimal control of the THC, IAQ, and total

energy consumption in a VRF combined system with multi-zone

has been rarely studied in the literature. The objective of this

study is to develop a model-based multi-objective optimal control

strategy for the VRF combined system with multi-zone in order to

reduce the total energy consumption in the heating condition while

achieving acceptable THC and IAQ in each zone. The VRF combined

system adopted a DOAS with a humidier to control the humidity

in multi-zone, and the set point reset of the temperature in the high

humidity zone was applied to reduce the humidity imbalance between zones. The VRF combined system with the humidier was

evaluated using a building performance simulation and then optimized by GA (genetic algorithm) with multi-objective functions of

the THC, IAQ, and total energy consumption. Moreover, the effects

of weighting factors for the objective functions were analyzed using

RSM (response surface methodology).

Fig. 1 shows the model-based optimal control of the VRF combined system. The VRF combined system consisted of an air-source

RSM

SA

T

THC

TS

VAV

VRF

wf

197

supply air

temperature, C

thermal and humidity comfort

time schedule

variable air volume

variable refrigerant ow

weighting factor

Subscripts

DOAS

dedicated outdoor air system

E

total energy consumption

high

high humidity zone

humidier humidier

i

ith air conditioned zone

IAQ

indoor air quality

IDB

indoor air dry-bulb

in

indoor

max

maximum

min

minimum

out

outdoor

OWB

outdoor air wet-bulb

p

pipe

SA

supply air

sp

set point

sup

superheat

THC

thermal and humidity comfort

VRF

variable refrigerant ow

VRF heat pump, a DOAS with a plate type total heat exchanger, and

an electrically heated steam humidier. The VRF system was

designed to cover the sensible load in the conditioned multi-zone.

The VRF system consisted of a single ODU (outdoor unit) and multiIDUs for multi-zone. The VRF system can handle various heating/

cooling loads in multi-zone by controlling a variable speed

compressor and EEV (electronic expansion valve) according to

refrigerant superheat, indoor temperature, and occupancy. The

heating and cooling capacities of the VRF system were enhanced by

increasing the compressor speed, and the mass ow rate through

the VRF system was controlled by the EEV [17]. The DOAS with

energy recovery was used as a separate ventilation unit to change

indoor air with fresh OA. The DOAS reduced the additional heating/

cooling loads resulting from in-taking OA by the energy recovery

between EA (exhaust air) and OA [1]. The DOAS with the humidier

was used to cover the latent load and IAQ in the conditioned multizone. An electrically heated steam humidier was installed between the zone splitter and the outlet of the DOAS system.

The VRF combined system was installed in a building with 7 aboveground oors and 1 underground oor, which is located in Seoul,

Korea. Table 1 shows the details of the building. As shown in Fig. 2, the

oor plan consists of six zones, a hallway, an elevator, two stairs, and a

toilet. Only one oor with the six zones and a hallway was considered

in the simulation. The thermal conductivity of the building envelope

and the internal heat gain from the light and equipment are given in

Table 1. Table 2 shows the specications of the VRF system and DOAS.

The heating capacity and COP (coefcient of performance) of the VRF

system were 65.2 kW and 4.2, respectively, at the rated conditions. The

heating sensible effectiveness and heating latent effectiveness of the

DOAS were 76% and 54%, respectively, for the rated 100% ow condition and 79% and 56%, respectively, for the rated 75% ow condition.

The effectiveness was determined by linear interpolation or

198

Humidity

controller

DOAS

EA

Supply fan

optimizer

to predictor

SA

RA

optimizer

OA flow

rate

controller

optimizer

EEV

controller

Tsp reset

controller

Tsup Tin RH O

Tout

Refrigerant

flow

controller

IDU 1

Zone 1

Tsup Tin RH O

VRF

Outdoor unit

Tsup Tin RH O

IDU i

Constraints

Damper

Damper

Zone 2

...

IDU 2

Genetic

algorithm

Iterative calls

during

optimizing

Data from

predictor

...

OA

Multi-objective

function

estimator

User-define

weight factors

Damper

Zone i

Model-based predictor

(EnergyPlus)

Multi-objective optimizer

(MATLAB)

Table 1

Brief description of the case building.

Section

Details

Location

Building

Total oor area

Plan and height

Operating/ofce hours

HVAC design parameter

Ofce building, 7 oors above grade, 1 below grade

756.76 m2

Rectangle, oor-to-oor 3.5 m

Mon. to Fri.: 08:00e18:00/09:00e18:00

Lighting load 20 W m2, Equipment load 13.78 W m2

Space design temperature: Cooling 26 C, Heating 20 C

DOAS operates at 9:00 AM, 13:00 PM, 17:00 PM, and 21:00 PM for an hour.

Inltration (air change rate): 0.732 h1

3 mm granite cladding, 65 mm expanded polystyrene, 75 mm extruded polystyrene, 25 mm gypsum board

(U-value 0.22 W m2 K1)

80 mm concrete, 110 mm extruded polystyrene, 150 mm concrete, 25 mm gypsum board

(U-value 0.22 W m2 K1)

3 mm granite cladding, 30 mm mortar cement, 150 mm concrete, 50 mm extruded polystyrene

(U-value 0.35 W m2 K1)

3 mm double clear glass, 13 mm air-space

(U-value 2.76 W m2 K1)

Building envelope

External wall

Roof

Floor

Window

Note: Based on the Korean building regulation, the minimum ventilation air ow rate requirement for the ofce building is 34.2 m3 h1 per person. In the ventilation air ow

rate, the exhaust air from the kitchen and bathrooms can be included. In addition, the minimum occupant load requirement is 9.3 m2 per person.

extrapolation from the values for the 100% and 75% ow rate conditions. In addition, the air ow rate was specied at 2000 m3 h1.

The thermal load of each zone was strongly dependent on the

OA temperature, occupancy density, heating load from the lighting

and equipment, set point SA-mass ow rate (msp,SA) in the DOAS,

and set point air temperature (Tsp) in the VRF system. The operation

schedules of the occupancy, lighting, and equipment were determined by an on-the-spot survey by the previous study [18] in the

same building. In addition, the air change rate for building inltration was assumed to be 0.732 h1, which was estimated based on

the volume of the building space and the capacity of the exhaust

fans in toilets [19]. Fig. 3 shows the temperature and humidity ratio

of the OA in the design day, and Fig. 4 shows the variation of occupancy density in each zone. msp,SA was estimated to satisfy IAQ,

which was represented by CO2 concentration. The CO2 concentration was dependent on the occupancy density and msp,SA. The CO2

concentration of the OA was assumed to be constant with 400 ppm.

3. Development of multi-objective optimal control strategy

3.1. Computational model for multi-objective optimal control

The energy performance of the VRF combined system installed

in a research ofce building was simulated using the EnergyPlus

199

Table 2

Specications of the VRF system and DOAS.

System

Details

Rated cooling/heating COP: 4.02/4.20

DOAS

Cooling/heating sensible effectiveness at 100% air ow (%): 76/76

Cooling/heating latent effectiveness at 100% air ow (%): 53/54

Cooling/heating sensible effectiveness at 75% air ow (%): 78/79

Cooling/heating latent effectiveness at 75% air ow (%): 55/56

Power consumption (kW): 1.5

Air ow rate (m3 h1): 2000

0.0028

Outdoor air humidity ratio

0

0.0024

-2

0.0020

-4

0.0016

-6

0.0012

0.0008

-8

0

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

model [20]. The VRF system was simulated using Raustad's model

[21] with the manufacturer's data. The heating performance curves

for the VRF system are given in Table 3. The capacity and power

consumption of the VRF system are expressed in terms of the

24

Time (h)

Fig. 3. Variation of outdoor air temperature and humidity ratio on the test day.

TOWB), (2) the PLR (part-load ratio), (3) the CR (combination ratio),

which is dened as the ratio of the total IDU rated capacity to the

total ODU rated capacity, and (4) the losses associated with the

refrigerant distribution piping. Additional energy consumptions

such as defrost operation, oil return operation, and long refrigerant

lines [22] were also considered in the simulation. The DOAS containing a plate heat exchanger and a single air duct was simulated

using the effectivenesseNTU method [23]. The sensible and latent

effectiveness of the plate heat exchanger were determined based

on the manufacturer's data.

The optimization of the VRF combined system was conducted

using GA [6,24] with the EnergyPlus program. The building energy

performance data from the EnergyPlus were used as the input for

MATLAB [25]. The objective function of the optimization was estimated by MATLAB. The GA generated the population of the candidate

solutions for the input variables. The population size of the GA was

200 and the number of generations was determined by twenty times

of the number of the control variables. The proper solutions remained,

while the other solutions were reset in the next generation by the

genetic rules. This procedure was repeated until the nal solution was

reached. Finally, the optimized input variables were determined in the

model-based multi-objective optimization. All calculations for the

EnergyPlus model were carried out using the hourly measured

weather data [18] for Seoul, Korea from November, 2011 to October,

2012. For the optimization study, the measured weather data in a

single winter design day were used, and the EnergyPlus model was

initialized using the simulations on previous warm-up days.

The EnergyPlus model was validated in a real building by

comparing the predicted monthly total energy consumption with

the measured data in 2012. The measured energy consumption

represents the total energy used in the HVAC (heating, ventilating,

and air-conditioning) systems, lighting, and equipment. As shown

in Fig. 5, the simulation results were consistent with the measured

data with the MBE (mean bias error) of 4.1%, and the coefcient of

variation of the RMSE (root mean squared error), Cv of 7.6%. Based

on the M&V Guidelines 3.0 [26], the recommended MBE and Cv

(RMSE) were 5% and 15%, respectively. The errors of the EnergyPlus model were within the acceptable range.

3.2. Multi-objective optimal control strategy

In this study, two multi-objective control strategies (A and B)

were applied in the VRF combined system. The control strategy A

200

Table 3

Heating performance curves for the VRF system.

ODU

Curve

input

Piping

description

correction

factor

X

Y

Z

a

b

c

Lp

e

Normalized

factor

1.006

1.304E-3

3.699E-6

7.000E-9

e

f

g

X min

X max

Y min

Y max

e

e

e

7.5

225

e

e

IDU

Capacity Capacity ratio

modier

ratio

boundary function for low

T

EIR

EIR modier EIR modier EIR modier EIR modier

Capacity ratio

boundary function for function for function for function for

modier

high PLR

low PLR

high T

low T

function for high

T

Combination

ratio EIR

correction

factor

Capacity ratio

modier

function for T

TIDB

e

TOWB

TIDB

TOWB

Normalized

factor

1.170

4.903E-3

2.815E-4

TIDB

TOWB

Normalized

factor

2.044

6.447E-2

7.594E-4

TIDB

TOWB

Normalized

factor

29.73

2.074

1.817

0.1105

3.280E- 1.997E-3

2

1.713E-3 e

2.504E-2

3.888E-7

2.834E-4

16

24

20

2.2

5.335E-5

9.665E-7

2.138E-6

16

24

10

13.7

e

e

e

16

24

e

e

259.5

35.04

1.573

2.428E2

e

e

e

16

24

e

e

TIDB

e

TOWB

1.828E-2

8.816E-4

2.863E-3

16

24

20

0.7

TIDB

TOWB

Normalized

factor

0.8193

1.623E-3

6.109E-4

PLR

e

Normalized

factor

0.5309

1.144

2.532

PLR

e

Normalized

factor

1.221E3

3.304E3

2.969E3

CR

e

Normalized

factor

9.115

23.16

17.46

TIDB

TOWB

Normalized

factor

0.9646

1.029E-2

6.118E-4

0.9199

8.856E2

4.417

3.616E-2

5.779E-4

2.152E-3

16

24

7.6

13.7

e

e

e

0.5565

1

e

e

e

e

e

1

1.201

e

e

e

e

e

1

1.4

e

e

5.335E-5

9.665E-7

2.138E-6

16

24

20

13.7

Note: Z a bX cX2 dX3(for cubic curves); Z a bX cX2 eY fY2 gXY (for bi-quadratic curves).

and set point relative humidity at the humidier outlet (RHsp,SA). In

control strategy A, the set point air temperature (Tsp) was xed at

20 C. In addition to the control variables included in control

strategy A, Tsp was added in control strategy B as a control variable

in the high humidity zone to overcome humidity imbalance. In

control strategy B, Zones 1, 3, and 6, which had high occupancy

density, were selected as the high humidity zone. The control

strategy B adopted a dual mode control; Tsp was xed at 20 C

except for the high humidity zone, but Tsp,high (Tsp for the high

humidity zone) was optimized in the range of 20 Ce24 C. As the

zone air temperature increases, more water vapor needs to be

added to the zones due to the decreased RH (relative humidity),

reducing the humidity imbalance between the zones.

THC and IAQ are signicantly inuenced by the control variables

such as msp,SA, RHsp,SA, and Tsp. THC and IAQ can be enhanced by

increasing msp,SA, RHsp,SA, and Tsp, but the total energy consumption

is also substantially increased. Therefore, it is necessary to control

THC and IAQ simultaneously using the multi-objective optimal

control strategy, while minimizing the total energy consumption.

THC can be expressed by the PMV (predicted mean vote) [27,28]

and RH. The common ranges of winter comfort zone

are 0.5 PMV 0.5 and 30% RH 60% [27,29,30]. In this study,

the lower limit of PMV was extended to 1.0 in order to reduce the

total energy consumption according to Korean design standards

[31], which yielded the extended winter comfort zone. In addition,

an 8-hour average CO2 concentration must be lower than 1000 ppm

[32,33] to satisfy IAQ. Finally, the objective functions of the THC,

IAQ, and total energy consumption are expressed by Eqs. (1)e(3),

respectively.

ObjTHC

300

i1

Measured

Predicted

Energy consumption (GJ)

7

1X

Max0; PMVi 0:5 Max0; 1:0 PMVi

7

0:5 1:0

Cv(RMSE) = 7.6%

MBE = -4.1%

7

1X

Max0; RHi 60 Max0; 30 RHi

7

60 30

i1

(1)

200

ObjIAQ

(2)

i1

100

ObjE

0

20

2

v.,

n.,

o

Ja

N

Month

7

1X

Max0; Ci 1000 Max0; 400 Ci

7

1000 400

.

l.

Ju Aug

Fig. 5. Comparison between the measured and the predicted monthly energy

consumption.

X

(3)

IAQ, and total energy consumption to determine the optimal control strategy. As given in Eq. (4), the multi-objective functions were

transformed into the total objective function by combining the

weighting factors with each objective function [34e36]. The

optimal control variables were determined by minimizing ObjTotal,

as given in Eq. (5).

ObjTotal wfTHC $

ObjTHC ObjTHC;min

ObjTHC;max ObjTHC;min

ObjIAQ ObjIAQ ;min

wfIAQ $

ObjIAQ ;max ObjIAQ ;min

ObjE ObjE;min

wfE $

ObjE;max ObjE;min

MinObjtotal

0 kg s1 m_ SA 1:77 kg s1

30% RHSA 80%

20 C Tsp 24 Conly for control strategy B

(4)

(5)

In Eq. (5), the upper limit of msp,SA was determined by the peak

ventilation load, and the maximum RHsp,SA was determined to avoid

water condensation and mold growth [37].

3.3. Optimal weighting factors with response surface methodology

Since the objective functions were signicantly inuenced by

the weighting factors, the optimal weighting factors for the

control strategies A and B were determined by the RSM. The

relationships between the weighting factors and objective

functions were analyzed using the Box-Behnken design method.

As shown in Table 4, a total 13 runs were performed. As a result,

the second-order response surface model for each objective

function is expressed by Eq. (6). The coefcients in Eq. (6) are

given in Table 5. The coefcients of determination (R2) for

ObjTHC, ObjIAQ, ObjE, and ObjTotal were found to be 0.96, 0.92,

0.97, and 0.86 for the control strategy A, and 0.94, 0.89, 0.95,

and 0.99 for the control strategy B, respectively. Finally, the

optimal weighting factors for the THC, IAQ, and total energy

consumption were determined as 0.71, 0.64, and 1.00 for the

control strategy A, and 0.57, 0.69, and 0.72 for the control

strategy B, respectively.

2

2

Y b0 b1 wfTHC b2 wfIAQ b3 wfE b11 wfTHC

b22 wfIAQ

b33 wfE2 b12 wfTHC wfIAQ b13 wfTHC wfE b23 wfIAQ wfE

(6)

Table 4

Weighting factors assignment using the BoxeBehnken design method.

Case wfTHC, weighting

assigned to THC

wfIAQ, weighting

assigned to IAQ

to energy

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

0.0

0.5

0.0

0.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.5

1.0

0.0

1.0

0.5

0.0

0.0

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.0

1.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

201

optimal control strategies A and B with the optimal weighting

factors were compared with those using the TS (time schedule)

strategy and the DCVH (demand controlled ventilation with humidifying) strategy in the case building. The TS strategy operates

the DOAS four times a day with a constant msp,SA without having an

additional humidier. In the DCVH strategy, msp,SA was determined

by considering the occupancy and oor area, and RHsp,SA was

controlled so that the RHs in all zones did not fall below 30%. msp,SA

was evaluated by the summation of each zonal ventilation rate. The

zonal ventilation rate was determined to be a higher value between

the estimated values based on the occupancy density and the oor

area [38]. In optimal control strategies A and B, msp,SA and RHsp,SA

were optimized by applying the multi-objective functions of the

THC, IAQ, and total energy consumption. In addition, in optimal

control strategy B, Tsp,high was also optimized to minimize humidity

imbalance.

Fig. 6 shows the variations of the control variables for the four

control strategies. msp,SA varied periodically in the TS strategy and

DCVH strategy, while it was optimized for each time step in optimal

control strategies A and B. In optimal strategies A and B, the control

variables experienced large oscillations between consecutive time

steps because they were controlled for daily optimization considering the time-lag effect by thermal inertia [25]. The average msp,SA

in the TS strategy, DCVH strategy, optimal control strategy A, and

optimal control strategy B were 0.65 kg s1, 1.39 kg s1, 0.98 kg s1,

and 1.06 kg s1, respectively. As shown in Table 6, the energy

consumption in the DOAS (EDOAS) signicantly increased with

increasing the average msp,SA. The average msp,SA was the highest in

the DCVH strategy because IAQ needs to be satised in each zone

for all times. RHsp,SA was optimized for each time step in the DCVH

strategy, and optimal control strategies A and B. However, RHsp,SA

was 0% in the TS strategy because the TS strategy did not have an

additional humidier. The average RHsp,SA in the DCVH strategy,

optimal control strategy A, and optimal control strategy B were

59.5%, 51.8%, and 50.8%, respectively. As shown in Table 6, the DCVH

strategy showed the highest energy consumption in the humidier

(EHumidier) due to the high msp,SA and RHsp,SA. Optimal control

strategy B showed higher EHumidier than optimal control strategy A

due to the elevated Tsp in the high humidity zone, even though

these strategies had comparable msp,SA and RHsp,SA. In addition, the

energy consumption in the VRF (EVRF) for optimal control strategies

A and B was lower than that for the TS strategy and DCVH strategy

due to the optimized control.

Fig. 7 presents the indoor thermal conditions for the four strategies in the psychrometric chart. The ratios of the hours satisfying

the extended winter comfort zone (1.0 PMV 0.5 and

30% RH 60%) [27,30,31] over the total occupied hours were

5.6%, 35.9%, 47.9%, and 55.0% for the TS, DCVH, optimal control

strategy A, and optimal control strategy B, respectively. The TS

strategy represented the lowest hour ratio satisfying the extended

winter comfort zone with very lower RH because it did not include

the extra humidier. Optimal control strategy B showed the highest

hour ratio satisfying the extended winter comfort zone. Optimal

control strategy B reduced the humidity imbalance between zones

because it showed a higher air temperature than the other strategies. Generally, the inow of water vapor increases with the increase in the air temperature. In addition, the DCVH strategy

showed an over-humidication problem because it humidied the

SA until the RHs in all zones exceeded 30%.

Table 7 shows the environmental performance and objective

function for the four control strategies. In the TS strategy, the daily

means of PMV and RH were very low at 1.38% and 20.7%,

202

Table 5

Coefcients of the second-order response surface model.

Coefcient

b0

b1

b2

b3

b11

b22

b33

b12

b13

b23

Strategy A

Strategy B

ObjTHC

ObjIAQ

ObjE

ObjTotal

ObjTHC

ObjIAQ

ObjE

ObjTotal

1.16

0.28

0.09

0.22

0.10

0.03

0.05

0.13

0.05

0.09

0.07

0.09

0.21

0.14

0.04

0.15

0.02

0.09

0.04

0.13

1,472,926

264,477

6846

389,010

32,450

21,162

112,581

123,663

6789

175,731

0.05

0.31

0.26

0.99

0.25

0.25

0.74

0.74

0.44

0.08

0.94

0.36

0.29

0.27

0.13

0.24

0.01

0.11

0.06

0.08

0.08

0.02

0.25

0.06

0.04

0.18

0.06

0.08

0.01

0.14

1,604,301

311,675

289,049

428,187

69,211

248,840

113,706

82,715

9088

134,198

0.17

0.46

0.43

0.55

0.34

0.24

0.30

0.16

0.60

0.12

Fig. 6. Variations of control variables in the TS strategy, DCVH strategy, optimal control

strategy A, and optimal control strategy B: (a) set point SA-mass ow rate and (b) set

point RH.

respectively. ObjTHC and ObjIAQ were relatively high at 1.72 and 0.27,

respectively, which indicates large deviation from the extended

winter comfort zone with poor IAQ. In the DCVH strategy, the daily

mean PMV and RH were improved from the TS strategy, which led

to better satisfaction for the THC and IAQ with ObjTHC, and ObjIAQ of

1.26 and 0, respectively. However, the DCVH strategy showed the

largest standard deviation of RH, which indicates severe humidity

imbalance between zones. Optimal control strategies A and B

showed better daily mean PMVs of 1.06 and 0.83, respectively,

compared with the TS and DCVH strategies. Optimal control

strategy B showed the lowest ObjTHC of 0.9 with a very low ObjIAQ of

0.004. However, optimal control strategy B showed higher total

energy consumption than the TS strategy and optimal control

strategy A due to the elevated set point air temperature. The DCVH

strategy showed the highest total energy consumption due to the

over-humidication and strict regulation for IAQ. The energy savings of optimal control strategies A and B against the DCVH strategy

were 29.0% and 20.4%, respectively. Overall, optimal control strategy B can be recommended as the best control strategy in the VRF

combined system because it yielded satisfactory THC and IAQ with

reasonable energy savings compared to the DCVH strategy.

Fig. 8 shows the variation of the CO2 concentration in Zone 3 for

the four strategies. Zone 3 was selected as an extreme IAQ condition

because it had the lowest IAQ with the highest occupancy density.

The variation of the CO2 concentration between zones was due to

the use of a central DOAS for ventilation in a multi-zone having

different occupancy densities. The 8-hour average CO2 concentrations for Zone 3 with the TS strategy, DCVH strategy, optimal control strategy A, and optimal control strategy B were 1704, 964, 1032,

and 998 ppm, respectively. Therefore, the TS strategy and optimal

control strategy A did not satisfy the IAQ guideline [32,33] in Zone 3

in terms of the 8-hour average CO2 concentration. The TS strategy

showed very high CO2 concentration, but it represented lower CO2

concentration below 1000 ppm during DOAS operations (9:00 AM,

13:00, 17:00, and 21:00 PM). The CO2 concentration for the DCVH

strategy was always controlled below 1000 ppm because msp,SA was

adjusted only for IAQ. Optimal control strategy B showed a slightly

higher CO2 concentration than the DCVH strategy, because msp,SA

was controlled for the multi-objective functions. In optimal control

strategy B, as the occupancy density increased rapidly (9:00 AM

and 19:00 PM) and the OA humidity decreased sharply (15:30 PM),

Table 6

Energy components for the four control strategies.

Energy components

TS strategy

DCVH strategy

Optimal strategy A

Optimal strategy B

EDOAS (MJ)

EHumidier (MJ)

EVRF (MJ)

28

e

1039

101

513

973

52

298

637

53

323

770

203

3000

TS strategy

DCVH strategy

Optimal strategy A

Optimal strategy B

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Time (h)

Fig. 8. Variation of CO2 concentration in Zone 3 for the four control strategies.

function. On the contrary, THC decreased when the energy consumption was considered as a major objective function. In addition,

the effects of wfIAQ on ObjTHC and ObjE were relatively smaller than

those of the other weighting factors. However, ObjIAQ rapidly

decreased with increasing wfIAQ. The sensitivities of the weighting

factors on the objective functions can be utilized for the optimal

control of the VRF combined system.

5. Conclusions

Fig. 7. Indoor thermal conditions for (a) the TS strategy and DCVH strategy, and (b)

optimal control strategies A and B.

prevent a rapid increase in the total energy consumption. Even

though optimal control strategy B showed higher CO2 concentration than the DCVH strategy, it yielded lower total energy consumption with satisfactory IAQ by controlling msp,SA for the multiobjective functions.

Fig. 9 shows the effects of the weighting factors on the objective

functions predicted by the RSM model in optimal control strategy B.

When one weighting factor was changed, the others were xed at

their optimum values. ObjTHC almost linearly decreased with wfTHC,

while it increased with wfE. However, ObjE almost linearly

increased with wfTHC, while it decreased with wfE. The energy

proposed in a VRF combined system adopting a DOAS in order to

satisfy THC and IAQ in the conditioned multi-zone while minimizing the total energy consumption for a single winter design day.

The performance of the VRF combined system was simulated using

the EnergyPlus model. The VRF combined system was optimized by

the GA in terms of the THC, IAQ, and total energy consumption, and

the optimal weighting factors were determined by the RSM. The

multi-objective optimal control strategies A and B were compared

with the TS strategy and DCVH strategy. The TS strategy showed

poor THC and IAQ. The DCVH strategy represented improved THC

and high IAQ, but showed an over-humidication problem and

excessive energy consumption. Optimal control strategies A and B

reduced the total energy consumption by 29.0% and 20.4%,

respectively, and increased the ratio of the hours satisfying the

extended comfort zone by 12.0% and 19.1%, respectively, compared

to the DCVH strategy. Optimal control strategy B can be recommended as the best control strategy because it yielded satisfactory

THC and IAQ with substantial energy savings compared to the

Table 7

Environmental performance and objective functions for the four control strategies.

Environmental performance and objective function

Environmental performance

Daily mean of PMV

Daily mean of RH (%)

Standard deviation of RH (%)

Ratio of the winter comfort zone over the total occupied hour (%)

Objective function

THC

IAQ

Energy consumption (MJ)

TS strategy

DCVH strategy

Optimal strategy A

1.38

20.7

4.9

5.6

1.26

43.1

9.5

35.9

1.06

33.0

8.5

47.9

1.72

0.27

1371

1.26

0

1801

1.13

0.01

1279

Optimal strategy B

0.83

33.0

7.4

55.0

0.90

0.004

1433

204

B can reduce the humidity imbalance between zones due to the

elevated zone air temperature and increased water vapor inow.

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by the Human Resources Development Program (No. 20144010200770) and the Energy Technology

Development Program (No. 20142010102660) with a Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) grant

funded by the Korea Government Ministry of Trade, Industry and

Energy.

References

[1] Han H, Nam SH, Han GS. Effect of condensation on the efciency of heat recovery ventilators for broiler houses. Int J Air Cond Refrig 2013;21:1350009.

[2] Straube J. The perfect HVAC. Build Sci Insights 2009;022:5.

[3] Shan K, Sun Y, Wang S, Yan C. Development and in-situ validation of a multizone demand-controlled ventilation strategy using a limited number of sensors. Build Environ 2012;57:28e37.

[4] Xu X, Wang S. An adaptive demand-controlled ventilation strategy with zone

temperature reset for multi-zone air-conditioning systems. Indoor Built Environ 2007;16:426e37.

[5] ANSI/ASHRAE. ASHRAE standard 62.1e2004. Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. 2004.

[6] Xu X, Wang S, Sun Z, Xiao F. A model-based optimal ventilation control

strategy of multi-zone VAV air-conditioning systems. Appl Therm Eng

2009;29:91e104.

[7] Aynur TN. Variable refrigerant ow systems: a review. Energy Build 2010;42:

1106e12.

[8] Zhou YP, Wu JY, Wang RZ, Shiochi S. Energy simulation in the variable

refrigerant ow air-conditioning system under cooling conditions. Energy

Build 2007;39:212e20.

[9] Aynur TN, Hwang Y, Radermacher R. Simulation comparison of VAV and VRF

air conditioning systems in an existing building for the cooling season. Energy

Build 2009;41:1143e50.

[10] Aynur TN, Hwang Y, Radermacher R. Integration of variable refrigerant ow

and heat pump desiccant systems for the cooling season. Appl Therm Eng

2010;30:917e27.

[11] Goetzler W. Variable refrigerant ow systems. ASHRAE J 2007;49:24e31.

[12] Li YM, Wu JY. Energy simulation and analysis of the heat recovery variable

refrigerant ow system in winter. Energy Build 2010;42:1093e9.

[13] Aynur TN, Hwang Y, Radermacher R. Experimental evaluation of the ventilation effect on the performance of a VRV system in cooling modedpart I:

experimental evaluation. HVAC&R Res 2008;14:615e30.

[14] Zhu Y, Jin X, Fang X, Du Z. Optimal control of combined air conditioning

system with variable refrigerant ow and variable air volume for energy

saving. Int J Refrig 2014;42:14e25.

[15] Aynur TN, Hwang Y, Radermacher R. Simulation evaluation of the ventilation

effect on the performance of a VRV System in cooling modedpart II, simulation evaluation. HVAC&R Res 2008;14:783e95.

[16] Zhu Y, Jin X, Du Z, Fan B, Fang X. Simulation of variable refrigerant ow air

conditioning system in heating mode combined with outdoor air processing

unit. Energy Build 2014;68:571e9.

[17] Joo Y, Kang H, Ahn JH, Lee M, Kim Y. Performance characteristics of a simultaneous cooling and heating multi-heat pump at partial load conditions. Int J

Refrig 2011;34:893e901.

[18] Park DY, Kim KS. Comparison of actual building energy consumption with

simulated building energy consumption and economic analysis between VRF

ASHP and GSHP. J Archit Inst KOREA Plan Des 2014;30:241e8.

[19] Jeon J, Lee S, Hong D, Kim Y. Performance evaluation and modeling of a hybrid

cooling system combining a screw water chiller with a ground source heat

pump in a building. Energy 2010;35:2006e12.

[20] ENERGYPLUS. EnergyPlus engineering reference. Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory; 2013.

[21] Raustad R. A variable refrigerant ow heat pump computer model in EnergyPlus. ASHRAE Trans 2013.

[22] Liu X, Hong T. Comparison of energy efciency between variable refrigerant

ow systems and ground source heat pump systems. Energy Build 2010;42:

584e9.

[23] Wetter M. Simulation model air-to-air plate heat exchanger. Lawrence Berkeley Natl Lab; 1999.

[24] Wang S, Jin X. Model-based optimal control of VAV air-conditioning system

using genetic algorithm. Build Environ 2000;35:471e87.

[25] Kim DW, Park CS. Comparative control strategies of exterior and interior blind

systems. Light Res Technol 2012;44:291e308.

[26] M&V Guidelines: measurement and verication for federal energy projects.

version 3. US Department of Energy; 2008.

[27] ANSI/ASHRAE. ASHRAE standard 55e2004. Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy. 2004.

[28] Olesen BW, Parsons KC. Introduction to thermal comfort standards and to the

proposed new version of EN ISO 7730. Energy Build 2002;34:537e48.

[29] ISO. 7730: ergonomics of the thermal environmenteAnalytical determination

and interpretation of thermal comfort using calculation of the PMV and PPD

indices and local thermal comfort criteria. 2005.

[30] ANSI/ASHRAE. ASHRAE standard 62e2001. Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor

Air Quality. 2001.

[31] SAREK. SAREK handbook. 3rd ed. Seoul: The Society of Air-Conditioning and

Refrigerating Engineers of Korea; 2011.

[32] Jeong JW, Choi A, No ST. Improvement in demand-controlled ventilation

simulation on multi-purposed facilities under an occupant based ventilation

standard. Simul Model Pract Theory 2010;18:51e62.

[33] Wong LT, Mui KW, Hui PS. A statistical model for characterizing common air

pollutants in air-conditioned ofces. Atmos Environ 2006;40:4246e57.

[34] Zeleny M, Cochrane JL. Multiple criteria decision making. McGraw-Hill New

York; 1982.

[35] Steuer RE. Multiple criteria optimization: theory, computation, and applications. Wiley; 1986.

[36] Miettinen K. Some methods for nonlinear multi-objective optimization. In:

Zitzler E, Thiele L, Deb K, Coello Coello C, Corne D, editors. Evol. multi-criterion

optim. SE - 1, vol. 1993. Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2001. p. 1e20.

[37] Johansson P, Ekstrand-Tobin A, Svensson T, Bok G. Laboratory study to

determine the critical moisture level for mould growth on building materials.

Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 2012;73:23e32.

[38] ENERGYPLUS. EnergyPlus input output reference. Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory; 2013.