Journal Pre-proof

Real-time optimization of multi-cell industrial evaporative cooling towers using

machine learning and particle swarm optimization

Landen Blackburn, Jake Tuttle, Kody Powell

PII: S0959-6526(20)32222-8
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122175
Reference: JCLP 122175

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 24 February 2020

Revised Date: 30 April 2020
Accepted Date: 9 May 2020

Please cite this article as: Blackburn L, Tuttle J, Powell K, Real-time optimization of multi-cell industrial
evaporative cooling towers using machine learning and particle swarm optimization, Journal of Cleaner
Production (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122175.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

 Real-time Optimization of Multi-cell Industrial
Evaporative Cooling Towers using Machine Learning and
Particle Swarm Optimization

Landen Blackburna , Jake Tuttlea , Kody Powella,b,∗

a Dept. of Chemical Engineering, University of Utah
b Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, University of Utah

Abstract

Existing electrical generating stations must operate with greater flexibility due
to increasing renewable energy penetration on the electrical grid, and many
coal-fired power stations have transitioned away from baseload operation to
load-following operation to aid in grid stability. In cases where multiple indepen-
dently controlled cooling tower cells are used in parallel for the cooling purposes
of such stations, there is an opportunity to increase plant efficiency through
data-driven optimization across their full load ranges. This work presents a
novel application of real-time optimization using machine learning and particle
swarm optimization on a multi-cell induced-draft cooling tower servicing a coal-
fired power station under variable load. This is the first work to demonstrate
simultaneous optimization of a multi-cell cooling tower, in addition to using
machine learning for closed-loop control on a cooling tower. A novel control
configuration is presented that ensures original control logic is not adversely
affected and that the overall plant process is not disrupted using only existing
hardware and operational data. To verify this methodology, the 12 indepen-
dent cooling tower cells are simulated in parallel using historic operating data
to demonstrate the effectiveness of real-time optimization compared to current
practice. An artificial neural network is trained to predict overall cooling tower

∗ Corresponding author
Email addresses: Landen.Blackburn@utah.edu (Landen Blackburn),
Kody.Powell@utah.edu (Kody Powell)

Preprint submitted to Journal of Cleaner Production June 13, 2020

power consumption using only operational data and ambient conditions with
an R2 value of greater than 0.96. The real-time optimization using particle
swarm yields 6.7% annual energy usage savings compared to current practices,
although the extent of the real-time savings varies greatly with both plant load
and environmental conditions. This is particularly significant for a variable load
situation because frequent ramping typically results in reduced overall efficiency.
This proposed AI-based solution presents an opportunity to improve the overall
heat rate of a load-following coal-fired power plant without the need to perform
extensive first-principles modeling or add additional hardware to the cooling
tower, resulting in more resources conserved and less overall emissions per unit
of electricity generated.
Keywords: Real-time Optimization, Cooling Tower, Machine Learning,
Neural Network, Supply-side Management, Particle Swarm Optimization

2
Acronyms

PID Proportional–integral–derivative (controller)

PSO Particle Swarm Optimization
NN-PSO Neural Network Particle Swarm Optimization
TMY Typical Meteorological Year
VFD Variable Frequency Drive

Variables Defined

c1 Hyper-parameter, weighting factor for the personal best compo-

nent of velocity in PSO algorithm
c2 Hyper-parameter, weighting factor for the swarm best component
of velocity in PSO algorithm
Cp,a Heat capacity of moist air, J/(kg ∗ K)
Cp,w Heat capacity of liquid water, J/(kg ∗ K)
Cv Local bulk mass concentration of water vapor, kg/m3
Cv,ambient Ambient mass concentration of water vapor–determined using rel-
ative humidity, ambient temperature, and psychrometric charts,
kg/m3
Cv,droplet Mass concentration of water vapor at surface of droplet, kg/m3
Cw Local mass concentration of liquid water, kg/m3
D Diameter of water droplets (assumed constant), m
Dv,a Binary diffusion coefficient of water vapor in air, m2 /s
e(t) Difference between the current outlet temperature (Tin
C
) and the
set-point temperature (Tin,SP
C
) at time t
Hevap Heat of vaporization of water, J/kg
ka Thermal conductivity of air, W/(m ∗ K)
KD Tunable parameter for PID controller associated with the error
derivative, units based on manipulated and control variables
3
KI Tunable parameter for PID controller associated with the error
integral, units based on manipulated and control variables
KP Tunable parameter for PID controller associated with the error
value, units based on manipulated and control variables
Lcell Length of a single cooling tower cell, m
ma Mass of moist air in a discretized volume, kg
ṁa Local mass flow-rate of moist air through cooling tower, kg/s
ṁv Local mass flow-rate of water vapor through cooling tower, kg/s
miv,out Mass flow-rate of water vapor exiting the ith cooling tower cell,
kg/s
ṁw Local mass flow-rate of liquid water through cooling tower, kg/s
miw,out Mass flow-rate of water exiting the ith cooling tower cell, kg/s
n Number of cooling tower cells, unitless
Nu Nusselt number, unitless
P Power consumption of a given fan, kW
pid Personal best solution of particle i in dimension d, with units of
dimension d
pgd Global best solution of swarm in dimension d, with units of di-
mension d
Pnom Nominal power consumption for each fan, kW
Pr Prandtl number of air, unitless
ReD Reynolds number of falling, spherical water droplet, unitless
Ri Random number between [0,1]
SAdroplet Surface area of a single spherical water droplet (assumed con-
stant), m2
SAtot Total surface area of water droplets in a discretized volume, m2
Sc Schmidt number of moist air, unitless
Sh Sherwood number, unitless
Ta Temperature of moist air in a discretized volume, K
Tambient Temperature of ambient air, K

4
 C
Tin Cooling tower outlet temperature. This is the temperature of the
cooled water exiting the cooling tower and entering the condenser,
K
C
Tin,SP Set-point temperature of the water entering the condenser, K
C
Tout Return temperature. This is the temperature of the hot water
pumped from the condenser to the cooling tower to be cooled, K
Tw Temperature of liquid water in a discretized volume, K
i
Tw,out Temperature of water exiting the ith cooling tower cell, K
u0 Initial fan-speed when the PID controller is turned on at timestep
0, range [0,1]
u(t) Calculated fan-speed for timestep t, range [0,1]
va Velocity of moist air relative to cooling tower, m/s
V̇a Volumetric airflow through a given fan, m3 /s
V̇a,nom Nominal volumetric airflow through each fan, m3 /s
Vdis Discretized volume, m3
Vdroplet Volume of a single spherical water droplet (assumed constant),
m3
vid Velocity update for particle i in dimension d, with units of dimen-
sion d
vrel Relative velocity of moist air to falling water droplet, m/s
V̇tower Volumetric flow-rate of water to the cooling tower, m3 /s
vw Velocity of water droplets relative to cooling tower (assumed con-
stant), m/s
wi Hyper-parameter, inertia weight of particle in PSO algorithm
x Width; dimension along the flow of air, m
xid Location in solution space of particle i in dimension d, with units
of dimension d
∆x Width of discretized volume (See Fig. 8), m
y Height; dimension along the flow of water droplets, m
∆y Height of discretized volume (See Fig. 8), m

5
ρwater Density of liquid water, kg/m3
η Efficiency for a given fan, unitless

6
 5 1. Introduction

1.1. Background

There is a need for greater system flexibility to adjust to intermittent en-

ergy sources as the electrical grid is increasingly subjected to renewable energy
penetration [1, 2, 3]. This includes both demand-side and supply-side manage-
10 ment. Demand-side management techniques ultimately reduce to a matter of
better equipment scheduling and operating efficiency. One common method for
improved scheduling is the use of load shifting, where an industrial [4, 5, 6] or
commercial [7] building reschedules flexible processes to times with less demand.
The other major scheduling approach is peak shaving through the use of stor-
15 age. This can be applied on the district [8, 9, 10], commercial building [11, 12],
and even residential levels [13, 14]. Operating efficiency improvements include
upgrading equipment or using advanced control techniques [15]. On the other
hand, supply-side management is typically focused on improving power station
efficiency, or plant heat rate, although this can also include the use of storage
20 to take advantage of different operating conditions [16, 17]. Lu et al. provide
a review of various supply- and demand-side management strategies, including
unit dispatching and management of microgrids [18].
The influx of renewable energy has drastically changed the economics of elec-
tricity generation in favor of more flexible power stations. In response to this,
25 many thermal power stations – traditionally designed and operated to provide
baseload power – now perform load-following operation to offset the increased
variability in electricity production that is inherent from solar and wind installa-
tions [19]. Among these new participants are many coal-fired power plants [20].
This work focuses on a supply-side management optimization application for
30 aiding in the efficient transition of coal-fired power stations to the real-time en-
ergy market. This work seeks to demonstrate that this method is qualitatively
better than current practice, as the quantitative benefits will vary with each
plant and piece of equipment. If this method proves effective, it will allow these
thermal plants to be more economically competitive while decreasing emissions

7
35 per unit of electricity.
This work considers the real-time optimization of an induced-draft evapora-
tive cooling tower that supports a thermal plant participating in the real-time
energy market. At a thermal power station, an evaporative cooling tower re-
ceives the hot water used to condense the steam exiting the turbine and uses
40 large fans to induce evaporation. This cools the water, which is then sent back
to the condenser to continue the cycle. Such cooling towers are divided into
cells, each with an independently controlled fan that determines the outlet tem-
perature from the cell into a collective basin (see Fig. 1).

Figure 1: Multi-cell induced-draft evaporative cooling tower; ambient air enters through the
face of the cooling tower cells (air flows into the page) and is drawn upward through the falling
water to induce evaporation. Moist air is expelled from the top and cooled water falls out the
bottom.

By achieving greater efficiency across the load range, the plant as a whole is
45 made more economically viable and can more easily meet environmental stan-
dards. This work combines three key concepts in demonstrating this optimiza-
tion methodology: particle swarm optimization, artificial neural networks, and
numerical modeling. Literature relevant to each concept is provided in Section
1.2, while technical details are given in Sections 2.2 through 2.4.
50 In order to demonstrate the optimization’s relative effectiveness, this work
uses a simulation based on a cross-flow induced-draft cooling tower that supports
a 500 MW coal-fired unit. As total energy used is influenced by the changing

8
 load on the plant, a simulation allows for direct comparison of the optimized
results to current practice under identical conditions. The cooling tower has 12
55 cells, each having a fan equipped with a variable frequency drive (VFD). The
cooling tower processes 180,000 GPM (11.36 m3 /s) of water cooled to a fixed
set-point of 70°F (21°C). Current practice treats all cooling tower cells and fans
as equally efficient and sets all fans to the same rotation speed. In reality, these
fans are not equally efficient. For example, Fig. 2 shows the historic fan power
60 usage of all 12 fans of the actual cooling tower, normalized to the average fan
power usage. With all fans at the same fan-speeds, fan power usage ranges from
a factor of 0.85 (best) to 1.25 (worst) of the average.

Average Relative Power Usage

1.3
Avg fan power usage
1.2 Fraction of avg fan
Normalized avg fan power

1.1

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Fan number

Figure 2: Fan power usage, relative to each other, using historic data from an actual cooling
tower. Data points are excluded when fans are off or not at the tower set-point. The cooling
tower fans are clearly not equally efficient.

Additionally, these relative power usage values are not constant over time.
Fig. 3 shows these same variables recorded over a 1-day window. Initially,
65 the relative fan power usage is constant, but after a large change in the load
of the plant, the relative power usage of each of the fans changes significantly,
with some fans becoming more efficient at the new plant load, and others be-

9
 Relative Power Usage of Fans over Time
Normalized fan power Fan 1
Fan 2
1.2 Fan 3
Fan 4
Fan 5
1.0 Fan 6
Fan 7
0.8
Fan 8
Fan 9
100 Fan 10
Load (MW) T C (oC) PID (%)

Fan 11
50 Fan 12
40
30
out

400
200
16 18 20 22 00 02 04 06 08 10 12
08 08 08 08 09 09 09 09 09 09 09
04- 04- 04- 04- 04- 04- 04- 04- 04- 04- 04-
Date and time (MM/DD HH)

Figure 3: Fan power usage over time, relative to each other, as well as PID output, return tem-
perature, and plant load. The efficiencies of the cooling tower fans have complex correlations
with plant load, making accurate first-principles modeling difficult.

coming less efficient. This brief analysis of operational data shows the need
for an optimization scheme that accounts for the individual fan efficiencies and
70 their dependence on environmental conditions in determining the 12 unique fan-
speeds for each control decision. Such a complex process would be difficult to
model analytically and very labor intensive to maintain accuracy over time in
an industrial setting where engineers are not typically available for such work.
As cooling towers are auxiliary equipment at a thermal power station, an ideal
75 modeling and optimization solution would not require routine manual interven-
tion. It is desirable to have a modeling method that can 1) accurately predict
cooling tower performance and 2) adjust to changes in performance over time
without manual intervention. A machine learning model is therefore an ideal

10
 choice for modeling such a system.

80 1.2. Literature Review

With cooling towers so ubiquitous in commercial and industrial applications,

much work has been done to model and optimize their performance. Singh and
Das perform a multi-objective optimization of a single cooling tower with a ge-
netic algorithm using empirical correlations to determine the optimal approach
85 temperature, evaporation rate, and operating costs [21]. Singh and Das also for-
mulate a constrained optimization problem for a commercial cooling tower that
minimizes exergy destruction while meeting the heat load. They solve the non-
linear optimization problem using an augmented Lagrangian genetic algorithm
[22].
90 Mu, Li, House, and Salsbury point out the difficulty in creating accurate
cooling tower models and the computational expense of evaluating them, which
is not desirable for optimization [23]. They instead propose using a model-
free optimization method, Extremum Seeking Control (ESC), to minimize total
power consumption of a chiller plant. They verify their method on several
95 simulated test cases, emphasizing that this method can adapt to performance
degradation.
García, Ruiz, and Lucas consider a cooling tower and chiller together and
compare 4 different control strategies: fan cycling control, multiple-speed fan
motor control in 3 stages of velocity, frequency-modulating control via VFD, and
100 a custom optimum control that directly minimizes total cost of water and energy
(while staying within a dead-band) [24]. They find 4.8% reduction in water
consumption and 10.8% energy savings when the entire system is optimized.
They also find that VFDs outperformed traditional cycling control and multi-
speed fan motor control when using the same control system. This performance
105 boost explains why many cooling towers are now built with or retrofitted with
VFDs.
There are some works that consider optimization of multiple commercial
cooling towers (treated the same as multi-cell cooling towers), notably the work

11
 of Schlei-Peters et al. [25]. These authors explain that there is a lack of re-
110 search into the operation and control of cooling water systems, while most of
the research is focused on the design and configuration of such systems. Schlei-
Peters et al. present a methodology for controlling multiple cooling towers us-
ing mass and energy balances to determine efficiency values. They apply their
methodology in a case study of a German car manufacturing plant that has four
115 mechanical draft cooling towers, reducing energy consumption by 15.8%. They
use a simple control scheme that sequentially increases each fan-speed until the
desired combined outlet temperature is reached. This study is significant in that
it shows the large amount of savings available with even a simple optimization
scheme compared to current practice. This study is also significant in that it
120 considers multiple cooling towers, but there ultimately exists a noticeable gap
in current literature regarding the optimization of multi-cell cooling towers (or
multiple cooling towers). This presents an opportunity for additional energy
savings, particularly on processes with high and variable cooling loads such as
a power plant.
125 The current work follows the same objective as Schlei-Peters et al. (increas-
ing operational efficiency), while further relaxing their modeling assumption
that each cooling tower cell is identical, which is not currently addressed in lit-
erature. While a given manufacturer may have designed parallel cells to have
identical specifications, Figs. 2 and 3 show that over time the cells can diverge
130 significantly from one another in performance.
Schlei-Peters et al. also note the inaccessibility of essential data to easily fit
cooling tower models in practice, and their model requires a notable amount of
manual work to fit it to the operational data using knowledge from operators
and manufacturer information. This manual fitting step is necessary for any
135 theoretical model used in practice, and such a model needs to be periodically
refit to operational data to adjust model parameters for performance degrada-
tion and maintenance over time. The current work seeks to drastically simplify
this model fitting process with the use of a machine learning model, specifically
an artificial neural network. A neural network can be trained on whatever op-

12
140 erational data is available and determine appropriate correlations without the
need for manual input, and it can be retrained automatically and frequently as
it does not require manual input.
The main algorithm used to find each optimal operating point for the cool-
ing tower is particle swarm optimization, which iteratively moves a population
145 of solutions (particles) through the search space until they converge on an op-
timal solution [26]. This algorithm is selected because it is a gradient-free op-
timization algorithm that can find the global optimum when properly tuned.
While there are many other such algorithms, including genetic algorithm and
ant colony optimization, there is no consistent claim that any one of these is
150 better than the others. Rather, the performance of each is problem-specific, and
the best algorithm varies from problem to problem. The particle swarm opti-
mization algorithm is selected over other gradient-free algorithms because it has
already been shown to work well for holistic optimization of a chiller plant with
non-identical chillers [27] as well as under load-following conditions for boiler
155 optimization of a thermal power station [28]. Additionally, Zhou et al. compare
genetic algorithm, ant colony optimization, and particle swarm optimization on
a machine learning objective function and find that particle swarm optimization
outperforms the others, particularly in computation costs [29].
In the fields of modeling and optimization, machine learning has already
160 been proven to be a very effective tool for addressing complex operational issues
across other industries. Regarding control, machine learning has been used in a
variety of fields. Barbosa et al. provide a review of machine learning research
and applications within the petroleum drilling industry [30], while McCoy and
Auret provide a review of such research and applications within the minerals
165 processing industry [31]. Both of these industries have ample processes that are
difficult to model and optimize, and in many cases machine learning proves to
be highly effective.
For cooling towers, existing uses of machine learning are typically focused
on performance prediction under various conditions. Hosoz, Ertunc, and Bul-
170 gurcu employ neural networks for general cooling tower performance predictions

13
 [32], while Gao et al. focus on using neural networks to model cooling tower
performance specifically under cross-wind condition [33]. The former study
achieves correlation coefficients in the range of 0.975–0.994, while the latter
study achieves ranges of 0.993–0.999. Their works show that a neural network
175 can provide accurate cooling tower predictions, but there is a lack of research
into the application of neural networks for the cooling tower operation. In prac-
tice, control of cooling towers is typically accomplished through operating curves
[34].
Machine learning has already been applied to the boiler of a load-following
180 plant to control NOx emissions [28], which are also very difficult to predict using
traditional modeling techniques. Given the capabilities of machine learning to
learn nuances of complex systems, it is an ideal tool for modeling and optimizing
a multi-cell cooling tower. Particle swarm optimization can require many iter-
ations to converge, so an ideal objective function is one that can be evaluated
185 quickly. Willis et al. demonstrate in an offline study that a neural network can
be used as an objective function for model predictive control of a distillation
column [35], specifically because it can be evaluated quickly, and it can capture
complex relationships between variables that are difficult to quantify using tra-
ditional modeling. Neural networks have also been shown to work well as an
190 objective function with particle swarm optimization for boiler optimization [28].
The final element to this work is numerical modeling. In lieu of a physical
cooling tower, a numerical model is developed to demonstrate the relative ef-
fectiveness of the particle swarm optimization and neural network at improving
efficiency. The numerical model is employed to mimic the performance of a
195 physical multi-cell cooling tower, so the neural network can have sufficient data
for training and testing. While this numerical model is certainly a simplified
representation of a cooling tower, it serves to demonstrate the effectiveness of
this technique in preparation for eventual application on a physical system. The
current work follows a similar approach as Hajidavalloo, Shakeri, and Mehrabian
200 in their numerical modeling of a cross-flow induced-draft cooling tower using a
2D discretization along the directions of water and air flow [36].

14
 1.3. Novelties of This Work

This work assesses the potential of using machine learning to increase the
efficiency of a multi-cell cooling tower that supports a coal-fired power plant
205 participating in the real-time energy market. Machine learning models can be
expected to capture the nuances of individual cooling tower cells and the extent
to which each cell affects tower performance as a whole. Once properly trained,
the model can be used with a global optimization algorithm such as particle
swarm optimization to determine individual control moves for each cell of the
210 cooling tower to minimize the total power consumed.
This work proposes a novel application for machine learning by optimizing
a multi-cell, induced-draft cooling tower with the fan-speed of each cell consid-
ered as an independent manipulated variable. The framework for optimization
based on machine learning discussed in this work has the added benefit of being
215 able to solve in real-time, without requiring any additional hardware or prior
modeling of the particular cooling tower. Additionally, even if the manufacturer
specifications are identical, the neural network can learn the different efficien-
cies of each cell so the particle swarm optimization can optimize the system
accordingly. This optimization scheme shows potential for application to other
220 types of equipment within a power plant to further improve the heat rate of the
plant.
The following list contains the major novelties of this work:

• Developed novel method for closed-loop machine learning optimization

• Applied this novel method on a simulated PID-controlled cooling tower, a

225 system where machine learning has never before been used for closed-loop
control

• Demonstrated high level of accuracy on a system that would otherwise

be nearly impossible to maintain an accurate first-principles model due to
system degradation and other evolving factors

230 • Demonstrated that a neural network can learn simulated cooling tower

15
 behavior in closed-loop without knowing the underlying parameters, al-
lowing this method to generalize to more complex systems providing there
is sufficient data

• Created control/training structure inherently bypasses the need for addi-

235 tional constraints on fans

• Designed framework to augment existing controls without risk of instabil-

ity or plant disruption, while also minimizing power consumption

• Demonstrated significant energy savings at scale, 6.7% total energy usage

reduction of cooling tower, while achieving the same cooled water temper-
240 ature

• Proposed methodology that requires minimal operator knowledge

• Proposed methodology that requires little-to-no hardware upgrades

• Achieved solution in real-time, which is essential for an application in-

tended to be used on a physical system

245 • Showed potential for plant-wide efficiency increase by better managing

the efficiency of large, auxiliary equipment; often optimization of such
equipment is overlooked when seeking to improve plant efficiency

• Simultaneously optimized multiple, unique cooling tower cells, which is

equivalent to optimizing several parallel cooling towers

250 1.4. Organization

Section 2.1 describes the proposed optimization scheme. Section 2.2 details
the neural network structure and the real-time training process. Section 2.3 de-
tails the particle swarm optimization algorithm and parameters, while Section
2.4 explains the simulation used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the opti-
255 mization using actual plant data. Section 3 provides an analysis of the results of
the simulation by comparing the optimization scheme to current practice, and
Section 4 offers concluding remarks.

16
 2. Methods

The following section outlines the methodology and technical details of op-
260 timization and the simulation used to demonstrate its effectiveness. Section
2.1 outlines the structure of the optimization scheme. Section 2.2 explains the
configuration and training process for the neural network. Section 2.3 describes
the particle swarm optimization algorithm and parameters. Finally, Section 2.4
shows the underlying equations and assumptions for the simulation used to test
265 the neural network particle swarm optimization.

2.1. Optimization Scheme

One reoccurring hurdle to adopting new optimization schemes is the im-

plementation costs. Often, plants will forego an upgrade if there is a large
installation expense or if current, time-tested controls must be altered. For this
270 reason, this optimization scheme is designed to wrap around existing PID con-
trols with no additional hardware requirements. A diagram of the optimization
scheme is shown in Fig. 4.

Figure 4: Control scheme, optimization mode; system is in closed-loop with optimized offset
values added to minimize total power usage while still meeting the temperature set-point.

17
 Proportional–integral–derivative (PID) controllers are single-input-single-output
(SISO) controllers that manipulate the value of one variable to control the value
275 of another to a given set-point, and this controller type is ubiquitous in indus-
trial applications [37]. The PID controller determines the fan-speeds according
to Eq. 1

Z t C
d(Tin )
u(t) = u0 + KP e(t) + KI e(t)dt − KD
0 dt (1)
C C
e(t) = Tin,SP − Tin

where u(t) is the calculated fan-speed for timestep t, u0 is the initial fan-
speed at the point the controller is turned on, and e(t) is the difference between
280 the current outlet temperature (Tin
C
) and the set-point temperature (Tin,SP
C
).
KP , KI , and KD are tunable values associated with the current value, integral,
and derivative of the error.
A neural network is supplied as the objective function of a particle swarm
optimization (PSO) procedure, which determines the fan offset values that min-
285 imize total power consumption at steady-state operation. These offset values
are added to the existing PID controller output, and the sums are written to
the individual fans.
It is important to note that the timescales of the existing PID controller and
the optimization are significantly different. The optimized offset values are cal-
290 culated and implemented much less frequently than the PID controller. While
the PID controller may recalculate multiple times per minute, the optimized
offset values are calculated once or multiple times per hour. This ensures the
system remains stable because the PID controller controls all fans simultane-
ously. Therefore, offsetting individual fan-speeds relative to the PID controller
295 can be treated as a disturbance, which the PID controller can adjust to as
needed to maintain the temperature set-point. Ultimately, the key benefit to
this configuration is that the PID controller remains in control of the cooling
tower, and the optimized offset values adjust the relative speed of the fans to
ensure minimal power usage solely in response to the individual fan efficiencies,

18
300 guaranteeing overall efficiency improvements.
The PSO with a neural network as its objective function is referred to collec-
tively as the Neural Network Particle Swarm Optimization (NN-PSO). In lieu
of the actual cooling tower, a numerical model of the cooling tower is used to
simulate a full year of results based on actual historic data.
305 In order to train the initial neural network, the control scheme shown in Fig.
5 takes the place of the optimization scheme during an initial training phase.

Figure 5: Control scheme, training mode; system is in closed-loop operation with random
offset values added to ensure a variety of fan-speed combinations for neural network training.

The blue boxes in Figs. 4 and 5 are the portions that are interchangeable
when moving from training to optimization mode; the random fan offsets are
replaced with the NN-PSO results after the neural network is initially trained.
310 This process is iteratively repeated until a desired accuracy is achieved (in this
case, an R2 value of greater 0.96). In practice, it can be repeated indefinitely.
It is possible that, if the neural network were not configured properly, min-
imizing the power consumption would simply result in setting all fans to the
lowest power setting. This is undesirable because the temperature set-point for
315 the cooling tower would not be achieved and the main process would be dis-

19
 rupted. However, the control scheme is structured such that maintaining the
temperature set-point and minimizing power consumption are not in conflict.
This is accomplished by providing only steady-state ambient and plant values
as inputs to the neural network. A key component of this configuration is that
320 when using a trained neural network to make predictions, the required tempera-
ture set-point is input as a state variable to the network (rather than the current
temperature), forcing the neural network to only consider solutions where the
PID controller has achieved the desired set-point. When a change in ambient
conditions or within the plant occurs, the NN-PSO immediately adjusts the fan
325 offsets using the new steady-state conditions. Then the PID controller can make
further adjustments as necessary.
The final key benefit of the NN-PSO is its adaptability. After an initial
training phase, the neural network can be retrained using the past optimization
results. This has the effect of rapidly converging the neural network to more
330 accurate predictions in the vicinity of optimal solutions as well as adapting to
the changes of a real system over time.

2.2. Neural Network

Fig. 6 depicts the neural network structure that predicts the cooling tower’s
power consumption, which is ultimately the objective function to be minimized.
335 The manipulated (decision) variable inputs are the 12 fan offset values, and the
disturbance (fixed) inputs are the ambient and tower conditions. This includes
the return temperature of the water, the temperature of the cooled water leav-
ing the tower, the ambient temperature, and the relative humidity. These 16
inputs are used to estimate the resulting steady-state power consumption of the
340 cooling tower at these conditions. The PID output is not given to the neu-
ral network, but the steady-state PID output is a function of the ambient and
plant conditions, so the training data produces a one-to-one mapping of inputs
to power consumption.
When performing the PSO algorithm, the neural network is evaluated many
345 times to ultimately determine the optimal fan offset values which minimize

20
 Figure 6: Particle swarm optimization with a neural network as the objective function. Ob-
jective is to minimize steady-state power consumption by changing the fan offset values.

power consumption. A neural network is an ideal objective function because

most of the computational effort takes place during the one-time training phase.
Therefore, within the context of the PSO algorithm, the neural network can be
evaluated much faster than could a numerical model of the cooling tower. In
350 addition to speeding up the optimization procedure, the neural network has
the added advantage over empirical and first-principles models of continuously
adjusting to changes in performance through retraining.
While theoretical models of cooling towers can offer accurate performance
predictions, they require costly manual analysis of the cooling tower to deter-
355 mine the necessary parameters. Furthermore, following any maintenance or
performance degradation, these parameters will change in unpredictable ways
and need to be determined through additional analysis. From an operations
perspective, it is very desirable to have a data-driven model that can automati-
cally adapt to changing conditions and performance over time, such as a neural
360 network.
The training process for the neural network occurs as follows:

1. The system is run in training mode (see Fig. 5) with random offset values
as inputs for each fan at each time-step. One year of typical meteorological

21
 year (TMY) data is used to represent weather conditions, and random
365 return temperatures are generated to simulate the constant ramping of the
power plant. Data snapshots are taken after the system (particularly the
PID controller) is allowed to reach new steady-state operating conditions.
2. The neural network is trained on the dataset created during step 1.
3. The system is switched to optimization mode (see Fig. 4) and run again
370 using the TMY data and random return temperatures
4. The resulting dataset is appended to the current training dataset.
5. The neural network is retrained on the full dataset.
6. Steps 3 through 5 are repeated until a desired neural network accuracy is
achieved.

375 The repeated retraining of the model on system results helps the model to
rapidly explore the potential variable space and identify relationships between
many unique input combinations and actual real-time performance. As the
model is exposed to more data, it rapidly increases in prediction accuracy
through exposure to numerous unique training instances across the variable
380 space, rather than only the common operational configurations. In addition,
the initial seeding of the training set with random offset values helps further
ensure the neural network has sufficient training data across the variable space.

2.3. Particle Swarm Optimization

Particle swarm optimization is a global optimization technique that relies

on swarm intelligence to find an optimal solution [26]. A collection of particles,
which each represent a proposed solution to the optimization problem, are ran-
domly initialized and systematically moved through the solution space according
to calculated vectors, called velocities. Each velocity calculation incorporates
weighted information of the particle’s previous velocity, the particle’s personal
best solution, and the swarm’s best solution. The velocity and position of the

22
 particle are updated according to Eq. 2 [26]

vid = wi vid + c1 Ri (pid − xid + c2 Ri (pgd − xid ) (2a)

xid = xid + vid (2b)

where vid is the velocity update for particle i in dimension d, pid is the personal
385 best solution of the particle, pgd is the global best solution of the swarm, xid is
the location in the solution space of the particle, and Ri is a random number.
Additionally, wi , c1 , and c2 are hyper-parameters of the PSO algorithm that
can be tuned to the problem.
For this problem, the values selected for wi , c1 , and c2 are 0.6571, 1.6319,
390 and 0.6239 respectively. 63 particles were used in the swarm. These values were
recommended by Pedersen based on the size of the problem [38].
After updating the solutions values, xid , each particle is evaluated using the
objective function and the personal and swarm best solutions are updated. The
neural network is the objective function in this case, so it is evaluated for each
395 particle once per iteration. This process is repeated until the particles converge
on a solution, which represents the optimal steady-state power usage of the
cooling tower at the current conditions.

2.4. Simulated Cooling Tower

In order to prove the viability of this optimization scheme, a simulation of the

400 cooling tower is created to show relative gains achievable through optimization.
The simulation takes the place of the physical cooling tower, and data snapshots
are taken once the simulation reaches a steady-state following a change in plant
and ambient conditions. However, in practice, this optimization scheme can be
applied to actual cooling towers and other equipment without the need for any
405 modeling or simulation because the physical system provides all the training
and testing data necessary for the neural network.
A numerical model of the cooling tower is developed for the purpose of
validating the optimization control scheme before application to the live system.
The model is based on empirical heat and mass transfer relationships that are

23
410 solved repeatedly throughout the cooling tower in small discretized volumes.
After solving a single discretized volume to determine the conditions of the
water and air, these values are used to solve adjacent volumes. Fig. 7 shows
a discretized diagram of a single cooling tower cell. This diagram depicts a 2
by 4 square grid for each side of the cell, while the actual simulation uses a
much finer rectangular grid, 100 by 5. Fig. 8 depicts a single discretized control

Figure 7: A diagram of the numerical cooling tower model, with air and water flow directions.
415

volume within a cooling tower cell.

While this numerical model is certainly a simplified approximation of a cool-
ing tower, it has been tuned in order to display similar behaviour as a physical
cooling tower. This model is sufficient to validate the performance of the NN-
PSO on such a system and generalize the qualitative results to a physical cooling
tower. Eq. 3 describes the differential equations used in the numerical simula-
tion to determine the temperature and flow-rate exiting each cooling tower cell.
Eq. 3a is based on the mass transfer correlation. Eq. 3b is based on the heat
transfer correlation. Eqs. 3c and 3d are mass and energy balances, respectively.

24
 Figure 8: Discretized control volume; water vapor and heat are transferred between droplet
surface and bulk through convection.

∂Cw Sh ∗ Dv,a
Vdis = SAtot ∗ ∗ (Cv − Cv,droplet ) (3a)
∂y D ∗ vw
∂Ta N u ∗ ka
ma ∗ Cp,a = SAtot ∗ ∗ (Ta − Tw ) (3b)
∂y D ∗ va
∂Cw ∂Cv
=− (3c)
∂y ∂x
∂Tw ∂Ta ∂ ṁw
ṁw ∗ Cp,w ∗ = −ṁa ∗ Cp,a ∗ − Hevap ∗ (3d)
∂y ∂x ∂y

Vdis is the discretized volume. Cw and Cv are the local mass concentrations
of liquid water and water vapor respectively, with Cv,droplet being the mass
concentration of water vapor at surface of a droplet. x and y are the distances
420 along the chosen coordinate system, with x in the direction of air flow and y
in the direction of water flow. SAtot is the total surface area of water droplets
in a discretized volume. Sh and N u are the Sherwood and Nusselt numbers
for the mass and heat transfer correlations of the water vapor. Dv,a is the
binary diffusion coefficient of water vapor in air. D is the diameter of the water

25
425 droplets. Regarding the moist air in a discretized volume, ma is the mass, Cp,a
is the heat capacity, Ta is the temperature, ka is the thermal conductivity, va
is the velocity relative to the cooling tower, and ṁa is the local mass flow-rate.
Similarly, regarding the water in a discretized volume, Cp,w is the heat capacity,
Tw is the temperature, vw is the velocity relative to the cooling tower, and ṁw
430 is the local mass flow-rate. Finally, Hevap is the heat of vaporization of water.
This model assumes that:

• heat and mass diffusion are negligible

• water droplets can be treated as spheres of equal, constant size that are
evenly distributed

435 • water falls at a constant velocity

• there is a consistent bulk mass concentration of water vapor across each

discretized area for a given timestep

• pressure is uniform

• fluid flow is uniform

440 • free convection is negligible compared to forced convection.

In addition to the differential equations in Eq. 3, Eq. 4 details the necessary

boundary conditions for the discretized volumes at the entrance points for the
air and water

Ta = Tambient
C
Tw = Tout
(4)
ρwater ∗ V̇tower
Cw =
vw ∗ x ∗ Lcell ∗ 2 ∗ n
Cv = Cv,ambient

where Tambient is the temperature of ambient air, Tout

C
is the return temperature,
ρwater is the density of liquid water, V̇tower is the volumetric flow-rate of water
to the cooling tower, Lcell is the length of a single cooling tower cell, n is the

26
 number of cooling tower cells, and Cv,ambient is the ambient mass concentration
445 of water vapor. For the mass concentration of water, Cw , a factor of 2 is included
to account for the water being evenly divided between the front and back faces
of the cooling tower cell.
Eq. 5 describes the heat and mass transfer correlations used to calculate the
N u and Sh. These correlations are based on a falling spherical drop for finite
velocities [39]
1/2
N u = 2 + 0.6 ∗ ReD ∗ P r1/3
(5)
1/2
Sh = 2 + 0.6 ∗ ReD ∗ Sc1/3

where ReD is the Reynolds number of a falling, spherical water droplet, P r is

the Prandtl number of air, and Sc is the Schmidt number of moist air.
Mass concentrations of liquid water and water vapor are the values tracked
throughout all discretized volumes in the cooling tower cell. However, the flow
rates are of interest at the exit points of the water and air streams. Eq. 6
converts between mass concentration (Cw and Cv ) and mass flow-rate (ṁw and
ṁv ) of the water and vapor

ṁw = Cw ∗ vw ∗ ∆x ∗ Lcell
(6)
ṁv = Cv ∗ va ∗ ∆y ∗ Lcell

450 where ∆x is the width of discretized volume and ∆y is the height of discretized
volume.
The Reynolds number (ReD ) is dependent on the velocity of the fluid around
the sphere. In this case, this is the velocity of the air relative to the velocity of
the falling water (vrel ), which is calculated using Eq. 7

(7)
p
vrel = 2 + v2
vw a

where vrel is the relative velocity of moist air to the falling water droplet.
The total surface area of the falling water in a single discretized volume,
SAtot , is calculated using Eq. 8
Cw ∗ Vdis
SAtot = SAdroplet ∗ (8)
ρwater ∗ Vdroplet

27
 where SAdroplet is the surface area of a single spherical water droplet, and
Vdroplet is the volume of a single spherical water droplet.
455 Rather than using changing droplet sizes, it is assumed the number of
droplets is proportional to the amount of water in a given discretized volume.
This accounts for the fact that the droplets are breaking apart and reforming
rapidly as they contact the fill in the cooling tower, which is designed to increase
the exposed surface area of the water and slow its descent.
In order to determine the power consumption of each cooling tower fan, Eq.
9 uses the cube rule [40], along with a predetermined efficiency value, η, that is
unique to each fan
 3
V̇a P
=η (9)
V̇a,nom Pnom
460 where V̇a is the volumetric airflow through a given fan, V̇a,nom is the nominal
volumetric airflow through each fan, η is the efficiency for a given fan, P is the
power consumption of a given fan, and Pnom is the nominal power consumption
for each fan.
After the temperature and mass concentration for every cooling tower cell
465 are calculated, the temperature of the water sent to the condenser is calculated
using an average of the temperatures exiting the 12 cells, weighted by the mass
flow-rates, as shown in Eq. 10.

P12

i=1 ṁiw,out Tw,out
i
C
Tin = P12 (10)
i=1 ṁiw,out
where Tin
C
is the cooling tower outlet temperature and Tw,out
i
is the temperature
of water exiting the ith cooling tower cell.
470 Finally, in order to demonstrate that the neural network can sufficiently
learn the nuances of the cooling tower, it is important that the cells differ from
each other, as they would in a physical cooling tower. This simulation varies two
parameters across the 12 cooling tower cells, the fan efficiency and the flow of
water through each cell. The flow of water entering a cell is taken as a percentage
475 of the total 180,000 GPM (11.36 m3 /s). The values for these parameters are
selected to give the simulated cooling tower cells relative performance that is

28
 comparable to the data from an actual tower shown in Fig. 2. The selected
values are shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Summary of cooling tower cell unique values

Cell no. (i) Flow % (µi ) Fan Efficiency (ηi )

1 11 0.95
2 10 0.99
3 8 0.86
4 10 0.84
5 7 0.94
6 8 0.91
7 6 0.77
8 9 0.76
9 9 0.94
10 8 0.76
11 8 0.95
12 6 0.77

In reality, real cooling tower cells will differ from each other in more than
480 two parameters, and as shown in Fig. 3, some of those parameters may even
change significantly across the load range of the cooling tower. The cooling
tower model shown in this work is certainly a simplification of a real cooling
tower, and it would be challenging to model and measure the exact differences
of each cell parameter for a full-scale cooling tower. This is the main motivation
485 for using machine learning to determine these parameters from data, as it is
not necessary to model the exact nuances of the cooling tower. The purpose
of this simulation is to use a simplified, tractable model of a cooling tower to
demonstrate that the NN-PSO can both learn and incorporate information in
real-time about the relative performance of the cooling tower cells without prior
490 knowledge of the underlying parameters.
In total, this simulation incorporates a system of 4 differential equations (see

29
 Eq. 3), with 4 boundary values (see Eq. 4) that change with plant and ambient
conditions, and 24 unique cooling tower cell parameters given in Table 3. In
order to accurately predict the cooling tower performance, the neural network
495 must learn all of this using only a limited set of 16 sensor values. Additionally,
the neural network must learn to account for the behavior of the PID controller
which continually adjusts the air flow rates in Eq. 3 according to Eq. 1 to
maintain the outlet temperature.
If the NN-PSO proves superior on this simulated cooling tower compared to
500 current practice, then similar results can be anticipated on a physical cooling
tower because in both cases, the underlying equations and parameters are not
given to the neural network. The key advantage of the NN-PSO method is that
it can be applied without modifying existing controls and without the need to
perform expensive and time-consuming physics-based modeling of the individual
505 cooling tower cells or the full tower itself.
A simulation is performed using Python for the modeling, TensorFlow for
the neural network [41], and the Python package pyswarm for the particle swarm
optimization [42]. The year-long simulation and optimization determined hourly
control moves each with only seconds of computation, which is appropriate for
510 real-time control of a physical system.
A mesh analysis is performed to determine adequate mesh sizing, with the
results shown in Fig. 9. Using a 100 x 5 mesh yields an error of 0.57%, which
is within the margin of error for the return temperature readings.

3. Results and Analysis

515 The neural network is trained according to the procedure outlined in Section
2.2. The size of the neural network is adjusted to maximize accuracy while
avoiding over-fitting. A feedforward neural network with two 11-node hidden
layers is used for the simulation. Fig. 10 shows a parity plot and a histogram
of the error of the trained neural network for the test data. The R2 values
520 on the training and testing sets were 0.9643 and 0.9669, respectively. There

30
 Selected node
Mesh Analysis of Numerical Error combination

1.00
0.89 0.8
0.78
Percent error of solution

0.7
(design conditions)

0.67
0.56
0.6
0.44
0.33 0.5
0.22
0.4
0.11
60
0.00 80
100
120
3 4 140 odes ion)
5 160 n s
6 7 180 axis imen
(fallingZwaxis nodes 8 9 10
200 X ow d
fl
ater dim
ension) (air

Figure 9: Mesh analysis of numerical error at cooling tower design conditions. The selected
mesh grid is shown at 100 x 5, with an error of 0.57%.

Pari y Plo of Tes ing Da a His ogram Tes ing Da a Error

1750 1000
1500
800
1250
Predic ions (kW)

1000 600
Coun

750 400
500
200
250
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 −200 0 200 400
True values (kW) Predic ion error (kW)

Figure 10: Parity plot (left) and error histogram (right) of neural network testing error. The
parity plot is tightly packed and the histogram is approximately Gaussian, which indicates an
accurate model that should generalize well.

31
 were 17,804 records used, with 80% for training and 20% for testing. Overall,
the neural network demonstrates a highly accurate prediction of the steady-
state power usage of the cooling tower fans given ambient conditions, current
water temperatures, and the fan offset values. It is of note that there appears
525 to be greater dispersion in the neural network accuracy at lower loads. The
return temperatures in the training set were randomly generated using a uniform
distribution across the operation range. The biases are a mix of random and
optimized using earlier iterations of the trained neural network. However, at
higher loads there is a more narrow range of acceptable fan-speeds that will
530 achieve the desired cooling tower outlet temperature, and in the limit of very
high loads, all of the fans are pushed to 100% by the PID controller regardless of
the bias values. This means there is a wider range of possible fan combinations
at lower loads; therefore, even though there is an equal amount of training data
for each return temperature, the fit is significantly more accurate at higher loads
535 where this variation is effectively suppressed by the PID controller driving the
fans to their limits.
A full year of actual plant operational data is used to demonstrate the ef-
fectiveness of the NN-PSO. Historic plant return temperatures from a plant in
southern Utah, are supplemented with local TMY data [43] for ambient condi-
540 tions. Overall, the NN-PSO results in a decrease in total energy usage of the
cooling tower, while maintaining the desired cooling tower outlet temperature
set-point. No manual modeling or prior analysis of the equipment is necessary,
and the neural network can be retrained to adapt to performance changes of the
cooling tower over time. No additional hardware is required if the fans can al-
545 ready be individually controlled. Optimized performance is achieved by adding
a software layer on top of existing controls that determines the optimal offset
values for the cooling tower fan-speeds. Details on the training set are provided
in Table 4. Notably, the neural network achieves the accuracy shown in Fig.
10 using only 338 days of historical data and 404 days of data generated with
550 the optimizer functioning, with a total of 24 alternating simulation and training
iterations.

32
 Table 4: Neural network training details

Total training entries 17,804 (≈742 days)

Training entries w/o optimization 8,110 (≈338 days)
Num. of alternating simulation and training iterations 24
Entries used for testing dataset 20%
Hidden layers 2
Nodes in each hidden layer 11
Learning rate 0.001
Training R2 value 0.9643
Testing R value
2
0.9669

For comparison, the same year of data is simulated again using the current
practice, with all 12 fans at the PID output value. Fig. 11 shows a compari-
son of the optimization and current practice methods. The year of simulated
555 data is plotted based on the return temperature of the water, which is strongly
correlated to the generation load of the plant (see Fig. 3). A simple average of
power consumption is also plotted for each method, with averages taken every
2.5°F (1.4°C). The optimized results clearly demonstrate an efficiency improve-
ment over the current practice results; however, the amount of energy saved is
560 dependent on the load at which the plant operates. As the return tempera-
ture increases, the cooling tower approaches 100% capacity, and opportunity to
redistribute the cooling burden across the fans is diminished–which results in
diminished opportunity for improvement. There are also many cases in which
the cooling tower is unable to achieve its temperature set-point. When this
565 happens, all fans are set to 100% in both the optimized and current practice
cases. The historic plant return temperatures are available to the nearest 0.5°F
(0.28°C), but for visualization purposes, the points were shifted horizontally
slightly on the graph. There is no data below a 70°F (21°C) return temperature
because this is the set-point of the cooling tower at the outlet, so any return
570 temperatures below this value would result in the tower being shut off because

33
 Cooling Tower Power vs Return Temperatures
1600
1400
Cooling tower power (kW)

1200
1000
800
600 Optimized
400 Current practice
Average optimized
200 Average current
20 25 30 35 40 45
Return temperature (oC)

Figure 11: Cooling tower power usage vs plant load; a comparison of the performance of the
cooling tower with and without the optimization in place.

it would not be needed.

It is worth noting that the actual cooling tower is designed to cool a range
of 23.9°F (13.2°C), which corresponds to a return temperature of 34.4°C. At
this load only, there is an average of 2.6% savings in simulation. However,
575 using a year of data from a load-following profile yields 6.7% savings, which
is approximately 20,000 kWhr of annual energy savings from the cooling tower
fans. This large difference between the savings at design specifications and under
recent historic conditions shows that the savings are even more significant for
power stations that are performing load-following operation than ones that are
580 still performing baseload operation.
Fig. 12 displays the same simulation results, organized by month of the year.
The potential savings vary by month as well, with warmer months achieving
less savings. The colder months demonstrate the most savings potential as the
cooling tower operates more efficiently due to a lower wet bulb temperature.

34
 Energy Consumption by Month
12 Optimized
Current practice
10
100,000-kWhr

0
Jan FebMar AprMay Jun Jul AugSep Oct NovDec
Month
Figure 12: Cooling tower power usage vs month; current practice is compared to the optimized
case.

585 The savings are shown by season in Table 5. The instantaneous savings are
highly dependent on the loads placed on the tower, the ambient conditions, and
the performance degradation of the cooling tower cells relative to one other.

Table 5: Summary of simulated seasonal

cooling tower energy savings

Season Savings (%)

Dec-Feb (winter) 6.9

Mar-May (spring) 9.7
Jun-Aug (summer) 1.1
Sep-Nov (fall) 3.4

Figs. 13 through 16 show several 72-hour snapshots over various times

throughout the year. These snapshots provide a more granular look at the ac-
590 tual optimization results as well as a more detailed view of the trends observed

35
 in Figs. 11 and 12.
Fig. 13 shows a 72-hour simulation using data from the fall with the current
practice, meaning the PID output is written directly to each of the fans. The

72-hours in Fall, Current Practice

Fan speed Temperature (oC)

40
TinC , tower outlet temp
20 Tambient, ambient air Temp
C , return temp
Tout
0 C , setpoint temp
Tin, SP
1.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Median representative fan
Lowest representative fan
0.5
Highest representative fan
PID output
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Tower power (kW)

1500

1000

500
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (hours)

Figure 13: Current practice, 72-hours in fall; PID controller value is written directly to each
fan.

ambient temperature can be seen to follow the day and night cycle (hour 0 is
595 midnight), with the highest temperatures during the day. Conversely, the return
temperature (and thus load) can also be seen to cycle but with the highest loads
during times renewable energy is less available. The total power of the cooling
tower fans follows the PID output exactly because no fans are offset from this
value.
600 Fig. 14 shows the same 72-hour simulation as Fig. 13, but using the NN-PSO
rather than current practice. With the NN-PSO, all fan-speeds are determined
by the PID output with the optimized fan offsets added, then clamped between
0 and 1. In order to ensure the PID can achieve the desired set-point, the
PID upper and lower bounds are adjusted after each NN-PSO calculation to
605 allow for all fans to reach their extreme values. For example, if the smallest
offset calculated by the NN-PSO is -50%, then the PID output would be limited
between 0 and 1.5 to ensure the lowest fan can still achieve its maximum value
if necessary. The PID output for the fall can be seen to briefly go above 1 to

36
 72-hours in Fall, Optimized
Temperature (oC) 40
TinC , tower outlet temp
20 Tambient, ambient air Temp
Tout
C , return temp
0
TinC , SP, setpoint temp
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Median representative fan
Fan speed

1.0 Lowest representative fan

0.5 Highest representative fan
PID output
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Tower power (kW)

1500 Optimized
Current practice
1000

500
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (hours)

Figure 14: Optimized solution, 72-hours in fall; the sum of the PID controller value and the
array of fan offset values are written to the fans.

maintain the temperature set-point with the given offset values; however this
610 does not result in any fans performing above 1 because the final values are
clamped between 0-1.
Although there are 12 fans, only three representative fans are shown on the
plot to simplify the figure. The fan with the highest average fan-speed, the fan
with the lowest, and the fan with the median were selected to give a sense of
615 the range of the control decisions using the NN-PSO and PID. The “current
practice” plot is the same power output from Fig. 13 included for reference. It
is clear that the NN-PSO outperforms or matches the current practice at every
timestep. The profile of the power usage still roughly follows the PID output,
but overall less energy is used. Energy savings are amplified at lower loads, and
620 this is consistent with the findings from Fig. 11.
Fig. 15 shows another NN-PSO 72-hour snapshot during the winter months.
The savings are again more dramatic at lower loads. There are also more savings
overall compared to the fall months, which is consistent with Fig. 12.
Fig. 16 shows 72-hours of the NN-PSO during the summer months. As
625 expected based on Fig. 12, there is very limited energy savings compared to
the colder months. The key point is that the return temperatures can be so

37
 72-hours in Winter, Optimized
Temperature (oC)

TinC , tower outlet temp

25
Tambient, ambient air Temp
C , return temp
Tout
0
TinC , SP, setpoint temp
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1.0 Median representative fan
Fan speed

Lowest representative fan

0.5 Highest representative fan
PID output
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Tower power (kW)

1500 Optimized
Current practice
1000

500
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (hours)

Figure 15: Optimized solution, 72-hours in winter; savings are more significant in colder
months.

72-hours in Summer, Optimized

Temperature (oC)

40
TinC , tower outlet temp
Tambient, ambient air Temp
20 C , return temp
Tout
TinC , SP, setpoint temp
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1.5 Median representative fan
Fan speed

1.0 Lowest representative fan

0.5 Highest representative fan
PID output
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Tower power (kW)

1500 Optimized
Current practice
1000

500
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (hours)

Figure 16: Optimized solution, 72-hours in summer; savings are less significant in warmer
months, and often the cooling tower fans are saturated at 100%.

38
 high that even at full capacity, the cooling tower is unable to reach its set-point
(such as hours 60-70). This happens frequently on peak summer days with high
loads as well as any day with very high wet-bulb temperatures that approach or
630 exceed the set-point. While there are less savings to be found, this figure does
showcase the robustness of the control scheme by ensuring the cooling tower
outlet temperature set-point is higher priority than the fan power minimization,
which is a key element of the design of the NN-PSO. This is accomplished by
allowing the PID controller to adjust the fans collectively between calculations
635 of the offsets by the NN-PSO. The PID operates at a much higher frequency
than the NN-PSO, so the PID is able to push all of the fans to 100% to try
to meet the temperature set-point in between each NN-PSO calculation. The
NN-PSO is only used to determine relative fan-speeds for optimal power usage,
and the PID regulates the cooling tower outlet temperature by moving all fans
640 up or down collectively. If all fans are at 100% and the return temperature
were to drop enough to make it possible to meet the temperature set-point with
less cooling, the fan with the most negative offset value would decrease below
100% (such as hours 50-60). This explains why the PID output is at different
values above 1 for much of the time window. In practice, this same result would
645 likely be achieved with custom control logic, rather than by modifying the PID
controller limits.

4. Conclusion

In context of the increased renewable energy penetration into the electrical

grid, this work presents a novel application of machine learning to real-time op-
650 timization of a multi-cell induced-draft cooling tower that supports a coal-fired
power plant performing load-following. This is the first work to demonstrate
simultaneous optimization of a multi-cell cooling tower, in addition to using
machine learning for closed-loop control on a cooling tower. The optimization
scheme entails training an artificial neural network using data from steady-state
655 load-following operations to learn the nuances of the tower behavior at various

39
 loads. A numerical simulation of the cooling tower is created for the purpose of
demonstrating the effectiveness of the optimization relative to current practice.
The trained neural network accurately learns the performance of a simulated
cooling tower which is based on a system of 4 differential equations, boundary
660 conditions that change each timestep, 24 cooling tower cell-specific parameters,
and closed-loop PID control of outlet temperature. An R2 value of 0.9669 is
achieved by the neural network on the testing dataset, which is based on actual
operational data. A total of 24 alternating simulation and training iterations
are used to achieve this accuracy, with intermediate optimized results appended
665 to the training dataset. The neural network is not given any of the simula-
tion dynamics or parameters, only measurable values from simulated operation.
Therefore, this same neural network optimization framework can be extended to
capture the behavior more complex systems, including an actual cooling tower,
given enough data.
670 The optimization methodology is proven in a year-long simulation using
historic operational data and demonstrates the potential to increase the overall
heat rate of the power plant. 6.7% annual energy savings are achieved for
the optimized cooling tower compared to current practice. This shows that
significantly better performance can be achieved by including each fan as a
675 decision variable in the optimization, rather than treating them all as a single
decision variable. It is also found that greater savings are achieved during colder
months as well as at lower electrical generation loads of the plant, which now
happen more frequently due to load-following operation.
This method has several advantages over other conventional modeling and
680 optimization methods: the machine learning model can easily adapt to nuanced
and complex changes in the plant operation over time by retraining; it is more
likely to be adopted in practice because it can be installed without needing to
change the existing plant controls; no expensive analysis, specialize knowledge,
or additional sensors are required for operation because the model trains itself
685 using existing historic data.
Application of this method on an actual cooling tower would allow the plant

40
 to more readily contribute flexibility and reliability to the grid by improving
its overall heat rate as intermittent renewable energy becomes more prevalent.
Additionally, this method can generalize to capture behavior of any system that
690 is difficult to model, where real-time operational data is readily available, and
the current control scheme simplifies a multiple-input-single-output system into
a single-input-single-output system, such as treating a dozen cooling tower fans
as a single manipulated variable. This work agrees well with the previous works
of Schlei-Peters et al. [25], with demonstrates large savings available for multiple
695 cooling towers using simple operational rules, and the work of Tuttle et al. [28],
which demonstrates a similar concept for NOx reduction of a coal-fired boiler.
This optimization method is limited in that it depends on steady-state op-
eration to be quickly achievable. Future work could consider extending this
real-time optimization to dynamic optimization on systems that have signifi-
700 cant dynamics and spend substantial time operating away from steady-state.
Additionally, future work could also include applying the proposed technique
to a physical system and comparing online optimized performance to historical
performance.

Acknowledgments

705 The authors are grateful for the funding sources provided in part by the
U.S. Department of Energy’s office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
under Grant Number DE-EE0007712 as well as the Utah Governor’s Office of
Energy Development. In addition, the authors are grateful for the funding from
the PacifiCorp Sustainable Transportation and Energy Plan as well as generous
710 access from PacifiCorp to their data and equipment to aide with this research.
Conflict of interest - none declared.

References

[1] S. C. Johnson, D. J. Papageorgiou, D. S. Mallapragada, T. A. Deetjen, J. D.

Rhodes, M. E. Webber, Evaluating rotational inertia as a component of grid

41
715 reliability with high penetrations of variable renewable energy, Energy 180
(2019) 258–271. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2019.04.216.

[2] N. Mararakanye, B. Bekker, Renewable energy integration impacts within

the context of generator type, penetration level and grid characteristics,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 108 (2019) 441–451. doi:
720 10.1016/j.rser.2019.03.045.

[3] M. Hannan, S. Y. Tan, A. Q. Al-Shetwi, K. P. Jern, R. Begum, Optimised

controller for renewable energy sources integration into microgrid: Func-
tions, constraints and suggestions, Journal of Cleaner Production (2020)
120419doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120419.

725 [4] D. L. Summerbell, D. Khripko, C. Barlow, J. Hesselbach, Cost and carbon

reductions from industrial demand-side management: Study of potential
savings at a cement plant, Applied energy 197 (2017) 100–113. doi:10.
1016/j.apenergy.2017.03.083.

[5] B. Westberg, D. Machalek, S. Denton, D. Sellers, K. Powell, Proactive

730 automation of a batch manufacturer in a smart grid environment, Smart
and Sustainable Manufacturing Systems 2 (2) (2018) 110–131. doi:10.
1520/SSMS20180020.

[6] A. Pechmann, F. Shrouf, M. Chonin, N. Steenhusen, Load-shifting potential

at smes manufacturing sites: A methodology and case study, Renewable
735 and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 431–438. doi:10.1016/j.rser.
2017.04.081.

[7] L. Gomes, J. Spínola, Z. Vale, J. M. Corchado, Agent-based architecture

for demand side management using real-time resources’ priorities and a
deterministic optimization algorithm, Journal of Cleaner Production 241
740 (2019) 118154. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118154.

[8] A. Peltokorpi, M. Talmar, K. Castrén, J. Holmström, Designing an orga-

nizational system for economically sustainable demand-side management

42
 in district heating and cooling, Journal of Cleaner Production 219 (2019)
433–442. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.106.

745 [9] L. Blackburn, A. Young, P. Rogers, J. Hedengren, K. Powell, Dynamic

optimization of a district energy system with storage using a novel mixed-
integer quadratic programming algorithm, Optimization and Engineering
20 (2) (2019) 575–603. doi:10.1007/s11081-018-09419-w.

[10] H. Chamandoust, G. Derakhshan, S. M. Hakimi, S. Bahramara, Tri-

750 objective optimal scheduling of smart energy hub system with schedu-
lable loads, Journal of Cleaner Production 236 (2019) 117584. doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.059.

[11] Y. Cao, J. Du, E. Soleymanzadeh, Model predictive control of com-

mercial buildings in demand response programs in the presence of ther-
755 mal storage, Journal of cleaner production 218 (2019) 315–327. doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.266.

[12] J. Lizana, D. Friedrich, R. Renaldi, R. Chacartegui, Energy flexible building

through smart demand-side management and latent heat storage, Applied
energy 230 (2018) 471–485. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.08.065.

760 [13] A. R. Kalair, N. Abas, Q. U. Hasan, M. Seyedmahmoudian, N. Khan,

Demand side management in hybrid rooftop photovoltaic integrated smart
nano grid, Journal of Cleaner Production (2020) 120747doi:10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.120747.

[14] Y. Wang, H. Lin, Y. Liu, Q. Sun, R. Wennersten, Management of household

765 electricity consumption under price-based demand response scheme, Jour-
nal of cleaner production 204 (2018) 926–938. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.
2018.09.019.

[15] D. Machalek, K. M. Powell, Model predictive control of a rotary kiln for

fast electric demand response, Minerals Engineering 144 (2019) 106021.
770 doi:10.1016/j.mineng.2019.106021.

43
 [16] M. Richter, G. Oeljeklaus, K. Görner, Improving the load flexibility of coal-
fired power plants by the integration of a thermal energy storage, Applied
energy 236 (2019) 607–621. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.11.099.

[17] K. Ellingwood, S. Safdarnejad, K. Rashid, K. Powell, Leveraging energy

775 storage in a solar-tower and combined cycle hybrid power plant, Energies
12 (1) (2019) 40. doi:10.3390/en12010040.

[18] X. Lu, K. Zhou, X. Zhang, S. Yang, A systematic review of supply and de-
mand side optimal load scheduling in a smart grid environment, Journal of
Cleaner Production 203 (2018) 757–768. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.
780 08.301.

[19] M. A. Gonzalez-Salazar, T. Kirsten, L. Prchlik, Review of the operational

flexibility and emissions of gas-and coal-fired power plants in a future with
growing renewables, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018)
1497–1513. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.278.

785 [20] S. M. Safdarnejad, J. F. Tuttle, K. M. Powell, Dynamic modeling and op-

timization of a coal-fired utility boiler to forecast and minimize nox and co
emissions simultaneously, Computers & Chemical Engineering 124 (2019)
62–79. doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2019.02.001.

[21] K. Singh, R. Das, Simultaneous optimization of performance parameters

790 and energy consumption in induced draft cooling towers, Chemical En-
gineering Research and Design 123 (2017) 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.cherd.
2017.04.031.

[22] K. Singh, R. Das, Exergy optimization of cooling tower for hgshp and
hvac applications, Energy conversion and management 136 (2017) 418–430.
795 doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2017.01.024.

[23] B. Mu, Y. Li, J. M. House, T. I. Salsbury, Real-time optimization of a

chilled water plant with parallel chillers based on extremum seeking control,

44
 Applied energy 208 (2017) 766–781. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.09.
072.

800 [24] C. García Cutillas, J. Ruiz Ramírez, M. Lucas Miralles, Optimum design
and operation of an hvac cooling tower for energy and water conservation,
Energies 10 (3) (2017) 299. doi:10.3390/en10030299.

[25] I. Schlei-Peters, M. G. Wichmann, I.-G. Matthes, F.-W. Gundlach, T. S.

Spengler, Integrated material flow analysis and process modeling to increase
805 energy and water efficiency of industrial cooling water systems, Journal of
Industrial Ecology 22 (1) (2018) 41–54. doi:10.1111/jiec.12540.

[26] R. Eberhart, J. Kennedy, Particle swarm optimization, in: Proceedings

of the IEEE international conference on neural networks, Vol. 4, Citeseer,
1995, pp. 1942–1948. doi:10.1109/ICNN.1995.488968.

810 [27] M. Karami, L. Wang, Particle swarm optimization for control operation of
an all-variable speed water-cooled chiller plant, Applied Thermal Engineer-
ing 130 (2018) 962–978. doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.11.037.

[28] J. F. Tuttle, R. Vesel, S. Alagarsamy, L. D. Blackburn, K. Powell, Sustain-

able nox emission reduction at a coal-fired power station through the use
815 of online neural network modeling and particle swarm optimization, Con-
trol Engineering Practice 93 (2019) 104167. doi:10.1016/j.conengprac.
2019.104167.

[29] H. Zhou, L. Zheng, K. Cen, Computational intelligence approach for nox

emissions minimization in a coal-fired utility boiler, Energy conversion and
820 Management 51 (3) (2010) 580–586. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2009.11.
002.

[30] L. F. F. Barbosa, A. Nascimento, M. H. Mathias, J. A. de Carvalho Jr,

Machine learning methods applied to drilling rate of penetration prediction
and optimization-a review, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering
825 183 (2019) 106332. doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106332.

45
 [31] J. McCoy, L. Auret, Machine learning applications in minerals process-
ing: A review, Minerals Engineering 132 (2019) 95–109. doi:10.1016/j.
mineng.2018.12.004.

[32] M. Hosoz, H. Ertunc, H. Bulgurcu, Performance prediction of a cooling

830 tower using artificial neural network, Energy Conversion and Management
48 (4) (2007) 1349–1359. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2006.06.024.

[33] M. Gao, F.-z. Sun, S.-j. Zhou, Y.-t. Shi, Y.-b. Zhao, N.-h. Wang, Perfor-
mance prediction of wet cooling tower using artificial neural network under
cross-wind conditions, International Journal of Thermal Sciences 48 (3)
835 (2009) 583–589. doi:10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2008.03.012.

[34] J. Liao, X. Xie, H. Nemer, D. E. Claridge, C. H. Culp, A simplified method-

ology to optimize the cooling tower approach temperature control sched-
ule in a cooling system, Energy Conversion and Management 199 (2019)
111950. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2019.111950.

840 [35] M. J. Willis, G. A. Montague, C. Di Massimo, M. T. Tham, A. J. Morris,

Artificial neural networks in process estimation and control, Automatica
28 (6) (1992) 1181–1187. doi:10.1016/0005-1098(92)90059-O.

[36] E. Hajidavalloo, R. Shakeri, M. A. Mehrabian, Thermal performance

of cross flow cooling towers in variable wet bulb temperature, Energy
845 Conversion and Management 51 (6) (2010) 1298–1303. doi:10.1016/j.
enconman.2010.01.005.

[37] D. E. Rivera, M. Morari, S. Skogestad, Internal model control: Pid con-

troller design, Industrial & engineering chemistry process design and de-
velopment 25 (1) (1986) 252–265. doi:10.1021/i200032a041.

850 [38] M. E. H. Pedersen, Good parameters for particle swarm optimization, Hvass
Lab., Copenhagen, Denmark, Tech. Rep. HL1001 (2010) 1551–3203.

[39] F. P. Incropera, A. S. Lavine, T. L. Bergman, D. P. DeWitt, Fundamentals

of heat and mass transfer, Wiley, 2007.

46
 [40] Y. Chen, H. Yan, Y. Luo, H. Yang, A proportional–integral (pi) law
855 based variable speed technology for temperature control in indirect evapo-
rative cooling system, Applied Energy 251 (2019) 113390. doi:10.1016/
j.apenergy.2019.113390.

[41] M. Abadi, A. Agarwal, P. Barham, E. Brevdo, Z. Chen, C. Citro, G. S. Cor-

rado, A. Davis, J. Dean, M. Devin, S. Ghemawat, I. Goodfellow, A. Harp,
860 G. Irving, M. Isard, Y. Jia, R. Jozefowicz, L. Kaiser, M. Kudlur, J. Lev-
enberg, D. Mané, R. Monga, S. Moore, D. Murray, C. Olah, M. Schuster,
J. Shlens, B. Steiner, I. Sutskever, K. Talwar, P. Tucker, V. Vanhoucke,
V. Vasudevan, F. Viégas, O. Vinyals, P. Warden, M. Wattenberg, M. Wicke,
Y. Yu, X. Zheng, TensorFlow: Large-scale machine learning on heteroge-
865 neous systems, software available from tensorflow.org (2015).
URL https://www.tensorflow.org/

[42] L. J. V. Miranda, PySwarms, a research-toolkit for Particle Swarm Opti-

mization in Python, Journal of Open Source Software 3. doi:10.21105/
joss.00433.
870 URL https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00433

[43] NREL (2010). [link].

URL https://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/1991-2005/
tmy3/by_state_and_city.html

47
Declaration of interests

☐ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered
as potential competing interests: