A multi agent system framework for value focused
interactions between buildings and electrical smart
grids
Aduda K.O., Zeiler W. and Boxem G.
Building Services Group, Department of Built Environment
Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands
Abstract—The electrical smart grid connection requires also
services from the buildings. The performance demanded during
the interactions between buildings and smart electrical grids are
multifaceted, involve attainment of various objectives which are
sometimes in conflict with each other and require dynamic
decisions and operational coordination. This is added to the fact
some of these decisions and coordination activities are required
at localised level. Multi-agent system approach has been favoured
in recent studies for realisation of these desired performance
objectives. However, these studies have been mostly simulations
based and representative of the grid side perspective with little
consideration of building centred value and operational
implications. This paper presents a conceptual multi-agent
framework based on a scoring rule that takes into account the
building management perspective. The suggested framework is
particular for ongoing tests at an office building located in Breda,
Netherlands.
Keywords- multi-agent system; buildings; smart electrical grids;
performance
I. INTRODUCTION
Nearly all development around smart grids are focusing on
the grid side issues and hence power systems reliability, the
buildings which provide significant sources energy in the new
concept are ignored. This needs to change in efforts to improve
performance at the building side. The performance demanded
during the interactions between buildings and electrical smart
grids is influenced by a number of factors which appear
complex. These include the use of a large number of
components from multiple vendors, functional diversity in
terms of technological mixes used and requirement for equally
diverse demand performance characteristics. For example,
pursuit of maximum comfort goes against the grain of
optimization for energy efficiency and decentralized control
advocated by localised optimization may also breed delay in
decisions and eventual loss of reliability. It is also noted that
buildings and connected auxiliary infrastructure such as
electrical smart grid are characterized by robust information
exchange, elaborate processes involving multiple actors with
diverse interests and equally diverse operational systems.
Solution to these complexities requires use of a combination of
negotiation, competition and balanced approach. This makes
multi-agent system (MAS) approach ideal as a coordination
and decision tool for optimal coordination of interactions
between buildings and electrical smart grids [1-7]. However,
these studies have been mostly representative of the grid side
perspective with little consideration of building side value
perspective and actual operational implications. Also, the
studies have not been case specific. This in our opinion
deprives stakeholders of scenario details that are crucial in
phenomenal understanding. Using a current study of an office
building in Breda in the Netherlands, we present a framework
for multi-agent system approach based decision making and
coordination of interactions between buildings and smart
electrical grids that is value focused. The paper makes specific
contribution to multi-agent framework for building energy
management for smart grid connectivity for a typical Dutch
office. The paper is divided into sections discussing value and
performance during interactions with electrical smart grids,
multi-agent frameworks, the case study, and conclusion
II. VALUE AND PERFORMANCE IN BUILDINGS
In the context of interactions with the smart grids, building
focused value becomes a negotiation between four main
players. These are the occupant, building manager, the network
operator and power supplier. The occupant is central as the
building’s energy demand is purposely to ensure his/her
productivity, comfort and wellbeing. Thus for the occupant the
core issue will be building comfort and usability. Comfort in
buildings is a sum of characteristics mainly defining indoor air
quality, acoustic, visual and thermal aspects. Lighting
characteristics are deductible from background colour,
personal preferences and fenestration, they can be measured
using a single value of lux whereas carbon dioxide
concentration is often representative of indoor air quality [8].
For thermal comfort in buildings, key characteristics
considered are air temperature, mean radiant temperature,
humidity, air velocity, , thermal insulation of individual
clothing and metabolic activity level if the heat balance method
is used[9-13]. For the building manager value is all about
keeping operations cost effective and within budgetary limits
whilst also ensuring acceptable levels of productivity and
comfort. This implies that the manager has to try as much as
possible to keep the operational utilities budgets low by either
restricting energy consumption, shifting demand to shave
peaks, using hybrid energy systems that may include renewable
micro-sources or providing auxiliary energy services to the
grid. In all this, the energy manager can be termed as
managing the expectation of the grid whilst also ensuring the
comfort of the user. These are two conflicting requirements as
maximization of one may easily lead to minimization of the
other. For the building side, it’s always desirable that comfort
value be weighted more than network need.
The electrical grid exists to ensure accessibility to reliable
electricity supply. For electrical smart grids, the specific
functions as demand satisfaction in a manner that is cost
effective and assures continued reliability, resilience and
efficiency [14, 15, 16]. The network concept of value must
therefore revolve around satisfaction these functions.
Subsequently value with respect to network’s perspective
would span across demand connectivity, power quality, cost
effectiveness, operational and sustainability characteristics.
Operational characteristics are important in that they define the
ability and latitude within which the grid can cope with
changing dynamics in demand and supply. Sustainability in
this case is mostly born of the increasing need to reduce energy
related carbon dioxide emissions to the environment [21]. It is
implied by van Overbeeke and Vaughan [21] that ultimately,
the realisation of value in the interactions between buildings
and electrical smart grids is hinged on availability of a tariff
system to guide service within the network. This may mean
charging for services in relation to the designed performances
as highlighted above. This makes it also logical that the
framework for MAS based interactions between buildings and
electrical smart grids should also be constructed around value
and specifically on value-based tariff contract.
III. MAS FRAMEWORK
The previous section has outlined the concept of value and
associated performance characteristics in the interactions
between buildings and electrical smart grids. This section
examines details of MAS frameworks and their suitability in
coordination and decision making for buildings-electrical smart
grids interactions. Key components of any multi-agent system
are agents, environment and interactions.
Philosophically, MAS framework design must realize
orderly implementation of functions. To accomplish this a
number of parameters are considered. These are mainly
grouped as authority delineation and communication, decision
making and tasks allocation and access to resources [25]. In
authority and communication considerations, the choice is
between collaborative and hierarchical frameworks.
Collaborative frameworks tend to be task oriented and random
in nature. Hierarchical structure tends to be regimented with a
clearly defined top down authority structure. Communication
follows the lines of authority in hierarchical case. Available
options when considering tasks allocation and decision
structures are (i) specialization framework where agents are
developed only for dedicated tasks and decisions are mono-
channel are dedicated to specific agents, and (ii) shared pool or
synergistic agents whereby tasks are pooled, decisions are
made in network mode. The later scenario is more economical
and avoids domino like failure common for mono-channel
situations.
When considering resources, focus is on whether they are
either dedicated for use to a multiple agents (Non-specialized
resource structure) or to one or some few similar agents
(Specialized resource structure). It is important that these
structural formations be located within past studies for office
buildings. We specifically focus on studies that involved actual
implementation of multi-agent systems in comfort or energy
management. Historically there has been no study based on
multi-agent systems that involves actual interactions between
buildings and the grid. Studies involving multi-agent systems
use in buildings and the grids have been silo-structured such
that actual tests are limited and where they occur the scope is
specific to either building coordination or grid activities. For
office buildings three actual studies have been conducted
within the context of comfort and energy management, these
are the ABB experiment, SAVES experiment and the historical
Xerox building experiment [26, 27, 28, 29]. Analysis of these
three cases were done on the basis of focus of the study, agents
definition, interactions with the grid and decisions framework.
Three main revelations are apparent in the cases analysed ,
these are:
1. The use of hierarchical structure was observable in all
the cases. However in the case of Xerox and SAVES, localised
decision making was also allowed within the hierarchy.
2. In all the cases, there was no interaction with the grid.
This could be due to the fact that existing regulations on
electrical installations until recently did not allow for
interference with the meter. The meter still remains part of
electrical utility company assets and communication between
buildings and the grid is still below par. However, in the ABB
study, allowance was made for a smart meter.
3. All the cases idealize incorporation of local
environment conditions and user preference in decision
making.
Having examined available options in structuring MAS, it
is imperative that this be contextualized to the case of
interactions of buildings and the smart grids. Generally, two
options are available for MAS based problem solving.
Bond and Gasser [29] reveal these as either coordination or
tasks decomposition based. In the coordination approach,
several agents coordinate their knowledge, activities and
reason about the processes whereas the decomposition
approach breaks down the problem into numerous functional
nodes for task distribution and knowledge sharing in efforts to
find practicable solution. The decomposition approach is
chosen for this case due to its ability to simplify the problem.
The decomposition is undertaken in two-phases. First, the
processes are decomposed according to the level of energy
abstraction (that is, decomposition is at grid, building, floor,
room, workplace and user levels). The second phase
decomposes value concepts associated with the tasks. This is
similar to the proposal by Zeiler et al. [30] except a layer on
value perspective is added atop the functional decomposition.
This would take cognizance of the decomposed processes and
associated value attached. The value attributes could be
expressed in terms of cost equivalent to simplify decision
processes. This is in line with a suggestion by van Overbeeke
and Vaughan [21] that the ultimately, desired energy
characteristics for active networks are easily are realisable by
interlinking service to tariff structure. In our approach, the cost
categories are made for various services within the network.

WEATHER AGENT
PREDICTION
AGENT
ARCHIVE AGENT
SENSOR NETWORK
AGENT
Figure 1: Agent Framework for the case of Breda Building
The specific costs categories conceived are comfort,
administration, connectivity, network access, reliability,
reactive and time of use (see Table 1). Specific weightings are
then allocated to each category to assist respective agents with
decision making. In this case it is suggested that the weighting
for comfort be more than that for other grid characteristics
which are mostly power based. However, a maximal limit rule
is imposed to ensure that comfort is within allowable budget of
the building manager. This approach is a bottom up in decision
making. Consequently individual comfort requirements and
interactions with the building system is given priority in
decision making. The grid/network requirements are
considered peripheral and are only adhered to after comfort
provision. This implies that in attempts to balance budgetary
provision against resource requirements, the building manager
prioritizes comfort value against provision of additional
services to the grid.
IV. THE CASE SPECIFICS
The above MAS framework is idealized for implementation
in an ongoing study of an office building in Breda,
Netherlands. This paper has been written as part of
supplementary studies aimed at realizing design of multi-agent
based building energy management system. This system will
be based on a proprietary insiteview building management
system that is currently on use at the test building. The agent
platform used in the study is EVE . The test building is a 3
floor one with an approximately total floor area of the test
building is 1000 m2. Building services at this office is
centralized with distinct ventilation, cooling and heating zones.
Heating is provided by a gas fired boiler with hot water
radiators grouped according into North East or South West
orientation. Ventilation is effected by a large supply fan
according to the 3 supply groups (North East, South West, and
Electrical Engineering). Cooling system is also organised
based on orientations similar to the ventilation system.
Application of the findings discussed in sections above
results to the following agents interactions structure for the test
Agent Role
Building Manager This is the super-agent. It undertakes overall coordination of activities of agents, it’s the ultimate
enforcer of order. Also tasked with ultimate decision making for comfort & energy management. It’s
the ultimate value enforcer.
Grid Value Communicates the effect of building operations on the local grid to the Building Manager Agent. Also
communicates quantitative energy and production to the grid SCADA.
Comfort Value Communicates user comfort preferences to the Building Manager Agent.
Device Manager Local Coordinates & communicates actual settings of locally installed services installations, such as
lighting, radiator panels and plug load activities to the Building Manager Agent.
Device Manager Coordinates, communicates actual settings & load profiles of centralised installed services
Central installations, such as lighting, boilers, HVAC Controls, Humidifiers to the Building Manager Agent.
Also coordinates & communicates energy generation profiles to the Building Manager Agent.
Zone Communicates zonal environmental conditions to the Building Manager.
Aggregates energy requirements at workplace, room and floor level installation to the Building
Manager Agent.
Prediction Predicts energy production and load profiles in several time frames (10 minutes, 1 hour, 3 hours, 1
day, 3 days) then communicates the results to Building Manager Agent.
Sensor Network Communicates measurements on equipment set-points, operation conditions and ambient
environment to the Building Manager Agent and Prediction Agent.
Archive Communicates archive data from sensor network to the Prediction Agent to improve accuracy of
prediction.
Weather Undertakes basic analysis of prevailing weather parameters and communicates them to the Building
Manager Agent.
building (see Figure 1). Ten agents that are hierarchically
structured are suggested for the case building. The agents
identification and roles are also outlined in Figure 1.The
Building Manager Agent makes decision on the basis of a
scoring rule. This is set such that any decision that promotes
comfort is rewarded at for all agents. This borrows greatly from
Ramchurn et al. 2011 which uses a similar system for decision
making in a demand side management scenario for households
in a smart grid. Also, the maintenance of operations in a
manner that does not go beyond power quantity budgets and
conformance to power quality requirements is rewarded. This
encourages value based on both comfort and energy
performance. The suggested multi-agent framework is largely
hierarchical but allows for minimal localised decisions to
improve performance.
V. CONCLUSIONS
We have presented the concept of value as a basis of
negotiating the conflict between comfort demand and optimal
energy management in buildings and the local grid. We have
also introduced the issue of maintenance of power quality
requirements at local grid as important when coordinating
comfort and energy management in buildings. The paper has
outlined the multi-agent system framework for use in
negotiating value in the interaction between building and the
smart grid. Preparation is currently underway to practically
operationalize the agents. This will ultimately contribute to
sustainable comfort and energy management in building-grid
interactions. Though not contributing directly to energy
efficiency and renewability, the use of multi-agent system
enables additional flexibility and dynamism that is potentially
crucial for further maximisation operational efficiencies,
comfort and energy efficiency. These can be indirectly tapped
in the integration of renewable energy supply.
REFERENCES
[1] H. Akkermans, and Fredrik Ygge. "Decentralized markets versus central
control: A comparative study." arXiv preprint arXiv:1106.0223 (2011).
[2] Z. Wang, A. I. Dounis, L. Wang, and R. Yang, "An information fusion
based multi-agent control system for indoor energy and comfort
management in smart and green buildings." In Power and Energy
Society General Meeting, 2011 IEEE, pp. 1-8. IEEE, 2011.
[3] Z. Wang, R. Yang, and L. Wang, "Multi-agent control system with
intelligent optimization for smart and energy-efficient buildings." In
IECON 2010-36th Annual Conference on IEEE Industrial Electronics
Society, pp. 1144-1149, IEEE, 2010.
[4] M. Pipattanasomporn, H. Feroze, and S. Rahman. "Multi-agent systems
in a distributed smart grid: Design and implementation." In Power
Systems Conference and Exposition, 2009. PSCE'09. IEEE/PES, pp. 1-
8. IEEE, 2009.
[5] A. I. Dounis, and C. Caraiscos, "Advanced control systems engineering
for energy and comfort management in a building environment—A
review." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13, no. 6, 2009,
pp. 1246-1261.
[6] S. D. Ramchurn, P. Vytelingum, A. Rogers, and N. Jennings, "Agent-
based control for decentralised demand side management in the smart
grid." In The 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and
Multi-agent Systems-Volume 1, pp. 5-12. International Foundation for
Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, 2011.
[7] M. Wooldridge, An introduction to multi-agent systems. Wiley. com,
2008.
[8] D. H. W. Li, L.Yang, and J. C. Lam, "Impact of climate change on
energy use in the built environment in different climate zones–a review."
Energy 42, no. 1, 2012, pp. 103-112.
[9] R. De Dear, "Thermal comfort in practice." Indoor Air 14, no. s7, 2004,
pp. 32-39.
[10] ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55, Thermal Environmental Conditions for
Human Occupancy, ASHRAE Inc., Atlanta, 2004.
[11] E. Halawa, and J. van Hoof, "The adaptive approach to thermal comfort:
A critical overview." Energy and Buildings vol. 51, 2012, pp. 101-110.
[12] J. F. Nicol, and M. A. Humphreys, "Adaptive thermal comfort and
sustainable thermal standards for buildings." Energy and buildings vol.
34, no. 6, 2002, pp. 563-572.
[13] W. Saman, "Study of the effect of temperature settings on AccuRate
cooling energy requirements and comparison with monitored data, PhD
diss., University of South Australia, 2008.
[14] Y. Yanshan, J. Yang, and B. Chen, "The smart grids in China—a
review."Energies 5, no. 5, 2012, pp. 1321-1338.
[15] Y. Cheng, “Architecture and principles of smart grids for distributed
power generation and demand side management,” in SMARTGREENS,
2012.
[16] J. G. Slootweg, E. Veldman, and J. Morren, "Sensing and control
challenges for Smart Grids." In Networking, Sensing and Control
(ICNSC), 2011 IEEE International Conference on, pp. 1-7. IEEE, 2011.
[17] B. Dupont, L. Meeus, and R. Belmans, "Measuring the “smartness” of
the electricity grid." Energy Market (EEM), 2010 7th International
Conference on the European. IEEE, 2010.
[18] K. Voss, and E. Musall, “Net zero energy buildings: International
projects of carbon neutrality in buildings”, Walter de Gruyter, 2013.
[19] J. F. G. Cobben, “Power Quality: About the problems and solutions”,
COED, Arnhem, 2012.
[20] S. Bhattacharyya, Power quality requirements and responsibilities at the
point of connection, PhD dissertation, Eindhoven: Technische
Universiteit Eindhoven, 2011.
[21] F. van Overbeeke, and V. Roberts, "Active networks as facilitators for
embedded generation." Cogeneration and On-Site Power Production 3,
no. 2 ,2002, pp. 37-42.
[22] M. F. McGranaghan, and H. W. Beaty, “Electric power systems
quality”, McGraw-Hill, 2002.
[23] I. Lampropoulos, W. Kling, P.F. Ribeiro and Berg, J. van Den, History
of Demand Side Management and Classification of Demand Response
control Schemes, Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE PES General Meeting,
Vancouver, Canada, (2013)
[24] J. Agüero, F. Rodríguez, and A. Giménez, "Energy management based
on productiveness concept," Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews vol. 22, 2013, pp. 92-100.
[25] K.M. Carley and L. Gasser, “Computational Organisation Theory”. In
A.H. Bond and L. Gasser, editors, Readings in Distributed Artificial
Intelligence, pages 3-35. 1Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1988.
[26] S. H. Clearwater and B. A. Huberman, “Thermal markets for
controlling building environments. Energy Engineering; (United States)
91.3, 1994.
[27] J. Kwak, P. Varakantham, R. Maheswaran, Y.Chang, M. Tambe, B.
Becerik-Gerber, and Wendy Wood, "TESLA: An energy-saving agent
that leverages schedule flexibility." In Proceedings of the 2013
international conference on Autonomous agents and multi-agent
systems, pp. 965-972. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents
and Multi-agent Systems, 2013.
[28] L. Klein, J. Kwak, G. Kavulya, F. Jazizadeh, B. Becerik-Gerber, P.
Varakantham, and M. Tambe. "Coordinating occupant behavior for
building energy and comfort management using multi-agent systems."
Automation in Construction vol. 22, 2012, pp. 525-536.
[29] D-Y. Yu, E. Ferranti, and H. Hadeli, "An intelligent building that listens
to your needs." In Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on
Applied Computing, pp. 58-63. ACM, 2013.
[30] A.H. Bond and L. Gasser. “An analysis of problems and research in
DAI”, In A.H. Bond and L. Gasser, editors, Readings in Distributed
Artificial Intelligence, pages 3-35. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA,
1988.
[31] W. Zeiler and P. Savanovic, "General Systems Theory based Integral
Design Method." In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on
Engineering Design (ICED'09), Vol. 5, pp. 217-228. 2009.