HVAC&R Research: To Cite This Article: Mahendra Kumar & I. N. Kar (2010) Design of Model-Based Optimizing

This article was downloaded by: [RMIT University]
On: 19 August 2013, At: 03:15

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
HVAC&R Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhvc20
Design of Model-Based Optimizing

Control Scheme for an Air-
Conditioning System
a b
Mahendra Kumar & I. N. Kar
a
Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India
b
Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Delhi
Published online: 22 Feb 2011.
To cite this article: Mahendra Kumar & I. N. Kar (2010) Design of Model-Based Optimizing
Control Scheme for an Air-Conditioning System, HVAC&R Research, 16:5, 565-597
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10789669.2010.10390922
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever
as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any
opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the
authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of
the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,
actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in
relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms
& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/
terms-and-conditions
© 2010 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (www.ashrae.org).
Published in HVAC&R Research (Vol. 16, Issue 5, September 2010). For personal use only. Additional reproduction, distribution, or transmission
in either print or digital form is not permitted without ASHRAE's prior written permission.
VOLUME 16, NUMBER 5 HVAC&R RESEARCH SEPTEMBER 2010
Design of Model-Based
Optimizing Control Scheme
for an Air-Conditioning System
Mahendra Kumar I.N. Kar, PhD
Received November 22, 2009; accepted June 14, 2010
This paper presents a model-based feedback control scheme for energy minimization in an
air-conditioning system to maintain a desired level of thermal comfort. The proposed control
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 03:15 19 August 2013
scheme consists of two layers of control—setpoint optimizing control and dynamical optimizing
control. In setpoint optimizing control, the optimum setpoints for dry-bulb temperature, relative
humidity and relative velocity of air, evaporator pressure, and condenser pressure are com-
puted on-line under operational and performance constraints of the system. Dynamical optimiz-
ing control deals with the design of centralized continuous control based on output feedback to
track the optimum setpoints. This control law is designed for the complete dynamical system,
i.e., the refrigeration circuit and air circuit simultaneously. The constraints on control inputs
were also considered while designing the proposed optimizing control scheme, which has been
validated on an air-conditioning unit provided in an Indian Railway passenger coach. The
result shows that the proposed control scheme saves substantial energy as compared to the con-
stant-setpoints-based control scheme to maintain the same level of thermal comfort.
INTRODUCTION
Air-conditioning systems are major consumers of energy in all developed as well as develop-
ing countries. With a steady rise in energy demand worldwide, every effort to improve energy
efficiency counts. With the increasing complexity of air-conditioning systems, the modeling,
control, and monitoring issues have become a challenge for improving energy efficiency. The
control of an air-conditioning system plays a major role in its energy consumption. The chal-
lenge in controlling an air-conditioning system lies in providing the desired indoor thermal com-
fort with the least energy input under dynamic outdoor and indoor conditions. The thermal
comfort can be measured with the help of an index known as predicted mean vote (PMV). The
PMV is a thermal comfort index proposed by Fanger (1972) and is internationally standardized.
The energy consumption in air-conditioning systems is mainly energy consumed in compressor
motors, condenser fan motors, and evaporator fan motors. In the existing control structure, the
human operator is essential to adjust the setpoints for optimizing the performance of air-condi-
tioning systems under varying operational conditions, such as changing ambient temperature
and humidity, changes in number of occupants, and other indoor loads. However, in order to
ensure even a remotely close to optimal operation of the air-conditioning system, the interven-
tion frequency from the operator has to be quite high. It is therefore not realistic that an operator
does these adjustments in practice; thus, most air-conditioning systems operate with constant
setpoints.
Mahendra Kumar is a research student in the Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Del-
hi, and Deputy Chief Electrical Engineer with Indian Railway, New Delhi, India. I.N. Kar is a professor in the Depart-
ment of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi.
565
566 HVAC&R RESEARCH
In this paper, a model-based optimizing control approach is proposed. The idea of this pro-
posed control is to let an optimization algorithm take over the task of operating the air-condi-
tioning system and thereby replace the role of the operator in the conventional control structure.
The operator position in the proposed control scheme shifts to have a lower intervention fre-
quency, and his/her input to system has changed as well. Instead of feeding setpoints to the sys-
tem, the task is to give the reference thermal comfort level (PMV). This control approach can be
divided in two parts: (A) first layer of control: setpoint optimizing control and (B) second layer
of control: dynamical optimizing control. The proposed control approach is discussed in the sec-
tion “Model-Based Optimizing Control Scheme.”
Several researchers (Arguello-Serrano and Velez-Reyes 1999; Larsen et al. 2004; House and
Smith 1995; He et al. 1998; Wang and Jin 2000; Zaheer-uddin and Zheng 2001) have contrib-
uted to the development of model-based control of an air-conditioning and refrigeration sys-
tem. He et al. (1998) designed a multivariable controller to control a vapor-compression cycle
using the linear-quadratic Gaussian technique with an integrator. Arguello-Serrano and
Velez-Reyes (1999) designed a controller for an air circuit that consists of a regulator and a dis-
turbance rejection component. In existing control schemes, air-conditioning systems are oper-
ated at constant setpoints. Larsen et al. (2004) have contributed in optimizing the setpoints for
refrigeration systems. Wang and Jin (2000) computed optimal settings of air-handling unit
(AHU) supply temperature, outdoor ventilation rate, and chilled water temperature by mini-
mizing the cost function using a genetic algorithm. The feedback control law was designed in
these papers by considering either a refrigeration circuit or an air circuit. The proposed study is
an attempt to design an energy-efficient multi-input multi-output (MIMO) feedback control
based on a physical model for an air-conditioning system in which the refrigeration circuit and
the air circuit have been considered simultaneously. Work related to feedback control law
design by considering refrigeration and air circuit simultaneously has not been identified in the
existing literature.
The main contributions of this paper are as follows:
1. An optimization algorithm has been developed for on-line computation of setpoints for air
temperature, relative humidity, relative air velocity, evaporator pressure, and condenser pres-
sure under constraints to minimize energy consumption at a desired level of thermal comfort.
These setpoints will vary with environmental and indoor conditions.
2. The dynamical optimizing control has been designed by using output feedback control law to
track the optimal setpoints. The static output feedback-based control law for the constrained
control input has also been developed.
3. The proposed control scheme has been validated on a non-linear model of an air-conditioning
unit provided in an Indian Railway passenger coach. A comparison has been made between
the constant setpoint control scheme and the proposed control scheme in terms of energy con-
sumption for maintaining the same level of thermal comfort.
SYSTEM OPERATION
The air-conditioning system can be divided into two main subsystems or circuits: (i) the refrig-
eration circuit and (ii) the air circuit or variable-air-volume (VAV) air distribution subsystem.
The refrigeration circuit of a direct-expansion (DX) refrigeration plant consists of an evapora-
tor coil, a condenser coil, a compressor, and an expansion valve. An air circuit consists mainly
of the following components: circulating or blower fan, thermal space (passenger area), connect-
ing ductwork, dampers, and a mixing air component.
The layout of an air-conditioning system with a basic control structure is shown in Figure 1.
The proposed control structure has two layers of control. The first layer is setpoint optimizing
VOLUME 16, NUMBER 5, SEPTEMBER 2010 567

Figure 1. The layout of an air-conditioning system with a basic control structure.
control, which generates setpoints of air temperature, relative humidity, relative air velocity,
evaporating pressure, and condensing pressure. A reference thermal comfort level (PMV) is
given to this layer as an objective. This layer of control requires inside and ambient tempera-
tures, inside and ambient relative humidities, condensing and evaporating pressures, the speed
of the compressor, and the speed of the evaporator motor and condenser motor as inputs for
finding optimum setpoints. These inputs are taken at slow rates. The optimum setpoints obtained
from the first layer of control are given to the second layer of control, i.e., dynamical optimizing
control. In addition to optimal setpoints, ten input variables, Twe, Te, Td, Ti, Wd, Wi, Pe, Pc, Tc,
and Twc are given as inputs. The inputs to the second layer of control are taken at a faster rate.
The output from this layer is control inputs, which are mass of refrigerant, speed of compressors,
and speed of the evaporator motor.
Model-Based Optimizing Control Scheme

The main objective of this study is to investigate the possibilities of using models in the con-
trol of an air-conditioning system such that the overall system performance can be optimized.
The schematic diagram of a model-based control scheme is shown in Figure 2. This optimizing
control approach can be divided into two parts:
a. first layer of control: setpoint optimizing

b. second layer of control: dynamical optimizing
This way of decomposing the control system results in a cascaded structure where a dynami-
cal optimizing control loop suppresses fast disturbances, and a setpoint optimizing control loop
reacts on slow varying disturbances that have an impact on steady-state performance.
568 HVAC&R RESEARCH
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of proposed control scheme for an air-conditioning system.

First Layer of Control: Setpoint Optimizing. For many years, air-conditioning systems
have been operated with constant setpoints. Within recent years it has been learned that the
potential energy savings using optimal setpoints in air-conditioning systems are substantial. Five
internal variables—air temperature, relative humidity, relative air velocity, evaporator pressure,
and condenser pressure—have been identified as setpoints in an air-conditioning system for
optimization. The thermal comfort and energy consumption in a system are directly related to
these variables. The setpoints for these internal variables are generated on-line for a reference
PMV and minimum energy consumption.
Second Layer of Control: Dynamical Optimizing. The five optimal setpoints as shown in
Figure 2 are given to the second layer of control, known as dynamical optimizing control. At
present, in most air-conditioning systems there exist distributed hysteresis controllers to maintain
setpoints. These controllers are vulnerable to self-inflicted disturbances caused by interaction
between distributed control loops. In particular, practice shows that distributed hysteresis control-
lers have a tendency to synchronize, i.e., the opening and closing actions of the valves coincide.
Consequently, the compressor periodically has to work hard to keep up the required flow of
refrigerant, which results in low efficiency, inferior control performance, and high wear on the
compressor. In this research, an attempt has been made to solve this problem by using a central-
ized continuous control. Here, single-loop (centralized) control has been considered by using a
dynamical model in which the refrigeration circuit and the air circuit are considered simultane-
ously. The dynamical optimizing control has been designed by considering the lumped parameter
model (Kumar et al. 2008; He et al. 1998) of an air-conditioning system. The feedback control
law is designed by using output feedback control methods. Another important requirement for
implementation of the feedback control law is that control inputs should lie in specified bounds
due to practical reasons. This necessitates designing the feedback control law with constrained
control inputs. In this study, an algorithm has been developed for designing a constrained control-
ler. The first and second layers of control are discussed in subsequent sections.
PART A: FIRST LAYER OF CONTROL
Problem Formulation and Solution

In this section, the problem of setpoint optimizing control is formulated and an on-line set-
point optimization control strategy is proposed. This control strategy seeks the optimal setpoints
of air temperature, relative humidity, relative air velocity, evaporator pressure, and condenser
pressure while meeting the plant limitations and also adopts the control objective to maintain
operational feasibility. The computation is done in two parts: in the first part, setpoints for the
temperature and relative humidity of the thermal space are computed, and in the second part,
setpoints for condenser pressure, evaporator pressure, and relative air velocity are computed. In
on-line setpoint optimization, the optimal setpoints are continuously evaluated, which ensures
that the setpoints adapt to changing operational conditions due to persistent low frequency dis-
turbances.
Computation of Setpoints for Dry-Bulb Temperature and Relative Humidity of Air

In this part, the optimal setpoints for inside temperature and relative humidity of the condi-
tioned space are computed. The air-conditioning system consumes the least energy maintaining
these setpoints in the conditioned space. The primary purpose of an air-conditioning system is to
make occupants comfortable in terms of thermal comfort. The indicator of human thermal com-
fort is called a thermal sensation index. A number of thermal sensation indices have been stud-
ied for design of air-conditioning systems. However, the most widely used thermal sensation
index is the PMV (Fanger 1972). The PMV value is zero where thermal sensation is neutral,
positive where thermal sensation is warm or hot, and negative where thermal sensation is cool or
cold. The PMV value depends upon human factors as well as environmental factors. The
time-dependent relationships between these factors and PMV are discussed (Fanger 1972; Liang
and Du 2005). These are nonlinear recursive relations and require iteratively computing the
roots of the nonlinear equations.
In this discussion, for a constant PMV value the setpoints for the inside temperature and rela-
tive humidity are computed so that minimum energy is consumed in an air-conditioning system.
There are a number of combinations of temperature, humidity, and relative air velocity that give
a single PMV. In this case, selection of one combination of temperature and humidity is done
that corresponds to minimum energy consumption in an air-conditioning system. This selection
is done by computing the enthalpy of air. The amount of energy consumed in an air-conditioning
system directly depends upon the difference in the enthalpies of supply air and conditioned air.
The supply air in this case will be the mixture of ambient air and return air, as shown in Figure 1.
In the case of the cooling mode of an air-conditioning system, the enthalpy of conditioned air
decreases, and in heating mode, the enthalpy of conditioned air increases.
The enthalpy of conditioned air is given by Arora (2000):
h co = 1.006T i, set + W i, set ( 2501 + 1.805T i, set ) (1)
The enthalpy of supply or inlet air is given by the following:
h i = ξ ( 1.006T o + W o ( 2501 + 1.805T o ) ) + ( 1 – ξ ) ( 1.006T i, set + W i, set ( 2501 + 1.805T i, set ) ) (2)
where dry-bulb temperature of air (T ) is in °C, enthalpy of air (h) is in kJ·kg–1, and humidity
ratio (W) is in kg (water) or kg–1(dry air). The optimization problem can be formulated as
min ( h i – h co )
[T ,H ]
i, set i, set
subject to the following:

570 HVAC&R RESEARCH
PMV = PMV ref

Hl ≤ Hi ≤ Hu (3)
vl ≤ vi ≤ vu
Equations 1 and 2 can be expressed in temperature (T), and relative humidity (H) is directly
related with humidity ratio (W) by the following expression (Arora 2000):
W × pa
H = ------------------------ (4)
0.622 × p s
where ps is saturation pressure of water vapor and pa is partial pressure of dry air.
PMVref is decided by the operator according to occupant demand. Hl and Hu are the lower and
upper bounds of relative humidity of air, respectively. The lower and upper bounds of relative
humidity of air are decided on the basis of human health and comfort. The lower and upper
bounds of relative air velocity will depend upon the design of the evaporator motor, air duct, and
grilles. The solution of Equation 3 will directly give optimal setpoints for air temperature and rel-
ative humidity; it may give more than one relative air velocity. In case only one value of relative
velocity is obtained, this will be the optimal setpoint of relative air velocity. If there is more than
one relative velocity obtained, then the optimal setpoint of relative air velocity will be computed
as discussed in the next subsection. The relative velocity of air is directly related to the speed of
the evaporator motor. The relationship between these two is expressed below (Arora 2000):
N ef × K 2, ef
v = -----------------------------
- (5)
γ × A c × ρ air
where γ is a constant that depends upon the design of duct and grilles. From Equation 5 it is clear
that relative air velocity (v) can be easily controlled by changing evaporator motor speed (Nef).
The steps for computing the setpoint for temperature and relative humidity are discussed in the
section “Algorithm for Finding Setpoints.”
Computation of Setpoints for Pc, Pe, and Nef

In this part of setpoint optimization, the optimal setpoints for evaporator pressure, condenser
pressure, and evaporator motor speed under system limitation and constraints are computed. The
air-conditioning system will consume the least energy for maintaining these setpoints. Three
energy-consuming components are the compressor motor, the condenser motor, and the evapo-
rator motor. The compressor motor is the major power-consuming component in an air-condi-
tioning system. The power consumed in a compressor motor is directly related to the evaporator
and condenser pressures. As evaporator pressure increases, the power consumed by the air-
conditioning system decreases; if condenser pressure increases, the power consumption increases.
The optimal control problem for the computation of evaporator and condenser pressure set-
points can be posed as the following minimization problem:
min ( W· c + W· cf + W· ef )
[P , P ]
c e (6)
subject to
Q· e = Q· e, 0
where W· denotes the power consumption and the subscript denotes the individual components:
compressor (c), condenser fan (cf ), and evaporator fan (ef ). The setpoints to the control loops,
Pc and Pe, are used as optimizing variables. Tset and Hset are obtained by solving Equation 3. If
the temperature and relative humidity in the conditioned space are kept constant at their set-
points (Tset , Hset) and the cooling load on the room is assumed constant, then the cooling
capacity Q· e must be constant and denoted by Q· e, 0 . The steady-state control objective is
o ss = Q· e – Q· e, 0 = 0 .
Equation 6 is referred to as the unconstrained optimization problem. Equality constraints can
in general be removed from the set of constraints by inserting them into the cost function, result-
ing in an unconstrained optimization problem. In the following we will deal with the system lim-
itations and the constraints they pose to optimization. The constraints can be divided into two
sets, namely, constraints on the setpoints (X) and on the control signals (U). We will start by
looking at the setpoints ( x ss = [ P c, P e ] ). Here the following operational constraints, determining
the bounds of X, can be identified:
P c ≤ P c, max ; ensuring that the designed value of maximal allowed pressure in the condenser is
respected.
P e ≥ P e, min ; ensuring that the evaporator temperature does not get too low, as there is always
a designed value of Pe,min for a vapor-compression system. The low evaporator temperature
results in a decrease in refrigerating effect, an increase in power consumption, an increase in the
specific volume of suction, and a decrease in volumetric efficiency.
P c ≥ P e ; ensuring that refrigerant flows in the right direction to make the vapor-compression
cycle work.
The above-mentioned inequality constraints related to pressures of refrigerant can be repre-
sented as
Ex ss + b x ≤ 0 , (7)
where xss is a vector containing the relevant states, E is a linear matrix, and bx is a constant
vector:
T
E = 1 0 – 1 , b x = [ – P c, max P e, min 0 ]T
0 –1 1
The system has also constrained input u ss = [ N c N cf N ef ] T due to the actuator limitations.
The constraint set u is determined by the saturations of the control signals. The bounds of evap-
orator motor speed are computed using Equations 3 and 5. First the bounds of relative air veloc-
ity are obtained using Equation 3, and then these bounds are mapped into the evaporator motor
speed using Equation 5. The constraints on u can be represented as
Fu ss ( x ss, d ss ) + b u ≤ 0 , (8)
where
T
–1 1 0 0 0 0
F = 0 0 – 1 1 0 0 , b u = [ 0 – N c, max 0 – N cf, max N ef, min – N ef, max ] .
0 0 0 0 –1 1
572 HVAC&R RESEARCH
The constrained optimization problem can be written as
min ( W· c + W· cf + W· ef )
[P , P ]
c e
subject to the following:
Q· e – Q· e, 0 = 0
Exss + b x ≤ 0 (9)
Fu ss ( x ss, d ss ) ≤ 0
By adopting an interior point method, or more specifically, a barrier method, the constraints
can be replaced by barrier functions (functions whose values tend to infinity as the constrained
variable approaches the boundary). A normal choice for a barrier function is a logarithmic func-
tion, i.e., Φ ( x ) = – log ( – g ) , where g ≤ 0 is an arbitrary inequality constraint (Boyd and Vanden-
berghe 2004). Inserting the two sets of inequalities in logarithmic barrier functions, the
following are obtained:
p
⎧
⎪ – ∑ log ( – ( e i x ss + b x, i ) ) x ss ∈ X
φ 1 ( x ss ) = ⎨ (10)
⎪ i=1 otherwise
⎩+ ∞
q
⎧
⎪ – ∑ log ( – ( f j u ss ( x ss, d ss ) + b u, j ) ) x ss ∈ Ũ
φ 2 ( x ss, v ss ) = ⎨ (11)
⎪ j=1 otherwise
⎩+ ∞
where ei is the ith row of E and fj is the jth row of F.

By using the barrier functions and introducing a scalar t ≥ 0 as a relative weight between the
barrier and the cost function, Equation 9 can be rewritten using Equations 10 and 11 as an
unconstrained optimization problem (Larsen 2006).
min [ t ( J ( x ss, o ss, d ss ) + o ss 2 ) + φ 1 ( x ss ) + φ 2 ( x ss, d ss ) ]

[x , o ]
ss ss
R (12)
where
J ( x ss, o ss, d ss ) = W· c + W· cf + W· ef
o ss = Q· e – Q· e, 0
o ss 2 = o ss
T Ro
ss
R
R is weight on the control objective and dss is the disturbance to the system. Assuming the opti-
mization problem (Equation 12) is convex, the optimizer x ss * ( t, d ) should zero the Jacobian.
ss
The Jacobian for Equation 12 is given by the following:
p q
∂J 1 1 ∂u ss
t ---------- + ∑ ---------------------------------- e iT + ∑ ---------------------------------- ---------- f jT
∂x ss – ( e i x ss + b x, i ) – ( f j u ss + b u, j ) ∂x ss
o ss i=1 j=1 o ss
0
=
⎛ ⎞ q
∂u ss 0
∂J -
t ⎜⎜ --------- + 2Ro ss⎟⎟ + ∑ ---------------------------------- ----------
1
f jT
∂o ss – ( f j u ss + b u, j ) ∂o ss
⎝ x ss ⎠ j=1 x ss
By choosing R sufficiently large, it can be assumed that
∂J -
--------- + 2Ro ss ≈ 2Ro ss .
∂o ss
x ss
The Jacobian equation can be expressed as the following:
p q
∂J 1 1
t ---------- + ∑ ---------------------------------- e iT + ∑ ---------------------------------- c x, j
∂x ss – ( e i x ss + b x, i ) – ( f j u ss + b u, j )
o ss i=1 j=1 0
∇J̃ = = (13)
q 0
1
t2Ro ss + ∑ ---------------------------------- c o, j
– ( f j u ss + b u, j )
j=1
where cx,j and co,j are the jth rows of Cx and Co, respectively. Cx and Co are evaluated in the sec-
tion “Algorithm for Finding Setpoints.” Instead of implementing an algorithm that directly cal-
culates the optimal setpoint ( x ss* ) for every time sample, the Jacobian (left-hand side of
Equation 13) can be used as a control error in an outer loop, as shown in Figure 2. This results in
a cascaded control structure, where the dynamical controllers are the inner “fast” loops and the
optimizing controller using the Jacobian as feedback is the “slow” outer loop. This method gives
the global optimum if Equation 12 is strictly convex or if the cost function declines globally
toward the optimum. If this is not the case, there are no guarantees that the method will converge
to global optimum; it could be stuck in a local minima. An algorithm has been developed for the
computation of optimal setpoints. This algorithm is discussed in the section “Algorithm for
Finding Setpoints.” The static model of an air-conditioning system is required to solve
Equation 13 and is discussed in Appendix A.
To illustrate the nature of the optimization problem, the unconstrained cost function given by
Equation 6 has been plotted in Figure 3. This has been done by using the parameter values listed
in Table 1 and the static model given by Equation A.1 to Equation A.12. The unconstrained opti-
mization problem is convex with an unambiguous global optimum. The convexity of the HVAC
system was checked for constant cooling capacity and for different cooling capacities and was
found to be convex. This means that an interior point method using a barrier function and a
steepest decent algorithm will converge toward global optimum (Boyd and Vandenberghe
2004). However, in order to compute optimal setpoints for condenser and evaporator pressures,
Equation 13 has to be computed using Equation B.1 to Equation B.6.
Algorithm for Finding Setpoints

In this subsection, different steps to compute optimum setpoints for air temperature, relative
humidity, relative air velocity, condenser pressure, and evaporator pressure are discussed.
574 HVAC&R RESEARCH

Figure 3. The unconstrained cost function, Equation 6, for a constant cooling capacity
Q· e = 7.5 kW with the setpoints Pc and Pe as optimizing variables.
Table 1. Parameter Values

Component Parameter Value
Vd 117.65 × 10–6 m3 (4.15 × 10–3 ft3)
ηvol 0.80
Compressor Nc,max 50 rev/s
fq 0.25
ηis 0.50
K1,ef 0.008 J·s2 (0.011 ft·lbf ·s2)
αe 1170
Nef,max 50 rev/s
Evaporator
K2,ef 0.002 kg (0.004 lb)
me 0.5
Pe,min 0.4 MPa (58 psia)
K1,cf 0.012 J·s2 (0.163 ft·lbf ·s2)
αc 1170
Ncf,max 50 rev/s
Condenser
K2,cf 0.085 kg (0.1874 lb)
mc 0.5
Pc,max 1.88 MPa (273 psia)
Air Cp,air 1000 J/kg·K (0.239 Btu/lb·°F)
Refrigerant Thermodynamic properties of R-22
Step 1. Select reference predicted mean vote (PMVref). This selection will be done per occu-
pant demand. PMVref will have a range, e.g., ±0.25. Set the lower and upper bounds of relative
humidity and relative velocity of air.
Step 2. Find all combinations of air temperature, relative humidity, and relative air velocity,
which should satisfy the conditions PMV = PMV ref, Hl ≤ H ≤ H u and v l ≤ v ≤ v u using Fanger’s
(1972) model or the simplified predictive model (Kumar and Kar 2009) for thermal comfort.
The measuring accuracy of commercially available temperature and humidity sensors are within
±0.2°C (±32.36°F) and ±2%, respectively. So these combinations have temperature variation in
steps of 0.2°C (32.36°F) and relative humidity variation in steps of 2%. The relative air velocity
will be varied in steps of 0.1 m/s (0.328 ft/s).
Step 3. The combinations of temperature and relative humidity found in step 2 are used to
compute air enthalpy (hco) and supply air enthalpy (hi) using Equation 1 and Equation 2.
Step 4. The differences between hi and hco are computed as hdiff and are arranged in ascending
order with their corresponding temperature and relative humidity. In first iteration the tempera-
ture (Ti,set) and relative humidity (Hi,set) are the temperature and relative humidity correspond-
ing to the minimum hdiff. If relative air velocity corresponding to the minimum hdiff is a single
value, then that will be the optimal setpoint for relative velocity for this iteration. In case the rel-
ative air velocity has more than a single value, then the optimal setpoint of relative air velocity
will be obtained in the next steps.
Step 5. Q· e is obtained for a given temperature and humidity setpoint using Equation A.11 and
Equation A.12. ⎛ ⎞
∂J- ⎟
Step 6. The Jacobian matrix ∇J ⎜⎜ = --------- , which is given in Appendix B, is computed in
∂x ss ⎟
this step. ⎝ o ss⎠
Step 7. The matrices Cx and Co of Equation 13 are approximated by the following:
⎛ dN c dN cf dN ef ⎞
⎜ --------- ----------- ----------- ⎟
⎜ dP c dP c dP c ⎟ –1 1 1 –1 0 0
C x ≈ sign ⎜
T
⎟ ⋅ FT =
⎜ dN c dN cf dN ef ⎟ 1 –1 1 –1 –1 1
⎜ --------- ----------- ----------- ⎟
⎝ dP e dP e dP e ⎠
⎛ dN dN ef dN cf ⎞
C oT ≈ sign ⎜ ---------c ----------
- ----------- ⎟ ⋅ F T = – 1 1 – 1 1 – 1 1
⎝ dQ· e dQ· e dQ· e ⎠
As it can be seen from the above expressions, very rough estimates of
∂u ss ∂u ss
---------- and ----------
∂o ss ∂x ss
x ss o ss
are used. This gives a fairly good approximation. This approximation can be computed from
only having qualitative knowledge of the system behavior.
Step 8. ∇J̃ can be computed by inserting ∇J , Cx, and Co from Steps 6 and 7 into Equation 13.
Select relative weight t between barrier function and cost function such that the plant operation
will remain well inside the feasible set. The weight on control objective R is large as long as fea-
sible set (F) is non-empty. Using ∇J̃ in feedback to a setpoint controller, the setpoints Pc and Pe
can be varied keeping Q· e constant such that ∇J̃ is driven toward zero in the steepest decent
fashion. Thus, using the steepest decent method, optimum values of Pc and Pe are obtained. The
576 HVAC&R RESEARCH
evaporator motor speed Nef, corresponding to optimum values of Pc and Pe, gives the optimal
setpoint for relative air velocity using Equation 5.
Step 9. Ti,set and Hi,set, computed in Step 4, will be the optimal setpoints for temperature and
relative humidity. The evaporator motor speed Nef, corresponding to optimum values of Pc and
Pe using Equation 5, will give the optimal setpoint for relative air velocity.
Step 10. If optimum values of Pc and Pe cannot be found using Step 8, then return to Step 2
and consider a new combination of temperature, humidity, and relative velocity corresponding
to the next minimum value of enthalpy. Then repeat Steps 4 to 8 for finding optimum values of
Pc and Pe.
Remarks: In place of Steps 1 to 4, one can use random search optimization methods like the
genetic algorithm (Mitchell 1997) or particle swarm optimization to find optimal setpoints for
dry-bulb temperature and relative humidity. In this regard, the following performance function F
can be designed:
F = h i – h co + λ PMV – PMV ref
The first term is the difference of enthalpy between the inlet and conditioned air and the second
term is the difference between the actual value of PMV and the desired value of PMV. The value
of λ will decide weightage between energy consumption and thermal comfort; it has to be
selected judiciously.
PART B: SECOND LAYER OF CONTROL
Dynamical Optimizing Control

In existing air-conditioning systems there are distributed hysteresis controllers to track the
setpoints. These controllers are vulnerable to self-inflicted disturbance caused by interaction
between the distributed control loops, which results in low efficiency, inferior control perfor-
mance, and high wear on components of the air-conditioning system. In this section, a single
loop, i.e., centralized control, has been considered by using a dynamical model (Kumar et al.
2008) in which the refrigerant circuit and air circuit are considered simultaneously. The purpose
of dynamical optimizing control is to track the setpoints that are generated by the setpoint opti-
mizing control layer. The optimal setpoints are to be attained in minimum energy without violat-
ing operational constraints. These are the concerns that should be handled in the dynamical
optimization layer, along of course with other demands to the dynamic performance such as fast
settling time, minimal control action, etc. For designing the feedback controller, the dynamical
model of the system is linearised around an equilibrium point. The dynamical model of the sys-
tem is given in state space form as (Kumar et al. 2008):
x· = g ( x, u, d ) (14)
y = h ( x, u, d ) (15)
This model is highly nonlinear in its state variables, and several parameters such as the heat
transfer coefficients between ambient air and heat exchangers can vary substantially due to the
change of operating conditions. In most cases, however, an air-conditioning system is designed
to operate in the vicinity of a predetermined setpoint given that the ambient conditions remain
relatively unchanged. As long as the control system can properly regulate the air-conditioning
system, the dynamic deviation from a setpoint is usually small and can be properly described by
the linearised model around the setpoint. The state variables x(t) and control inputs u(t) can be
expressed as follows:
x ( t ) = x e + x̃ ( t ), u ( t ) = u e + ũ ( t ) (16)
where xe and ue are state and input vectors evaluated at an equilibrium point and x̃ ( t ) and ũ ( t )
represent the small, dynamic deviation from xe and ue, respectively. The linearised model that
describes the dynamic deviation can be written as the following:
∂g ∂g
x· ( t ) = ------ x ( t ) + ∂g
------ u ( t ) + ------ d (17)
∂x ∂u ∂d
x e, u e x e, u e x e, u e
≡ A ( x e, u e )x ( t ) + B ( x e, u e )u ( t ) + E ( x e, u e )d (18)
The linearised system can be represented in state space form as
x· ( t ) = Ax ( t ) + Bu ( t ) + Ed (19)
y ( t ) = Cx ( t ) (20)
where
x = x 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 x 6 x 7 x 8 x 9 x 10 x 11 x 12
x 1 = l e ; x 2 = T we ; x 3 = T e ; x 4 = T d ; x 5 = T i ; x 6 = W d ;
x 7 = W i ; x 8 = P e ; x 9 = P c ; x 10 = T c ; x 11 = T wc ; x 12 = l c
The control input vector is given by u and the disturbance vector is given by d:
u = u1 u2 u3 ′
d = d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 ′
where
u 1 = m· r ; u 2 = N c ; u 3 = μ ; d 1 = T 0 ; d 2 = W 0 ; d 3 = q i ; d 4 = M 0 ; d 5 = q o
The output vector is given by
y = y 1 y 2 y 3 y 4 y 5 y 6 y 7 y 8 y 9 y 10 ′
where
y 1 = T we ; y 2 = T e ; y 3 = T d ; y 4 = T i ; y 5 = W d ;
y 6 = W i ; y 7 = P e ; y 8 = P c ; y 9 = T c ; y 10 = T wc
578 HVAC&R RESEARCH
The details of the dynamic model are given in Appendix C. The complete representation of
the dynamic model of an air-conditioning system requires two different models depending upon
the condensation of moisture in the air. One model is valid at a time, and switching between two
models is decided by humidity and temperature conditions, as follows.
1. When the evaporator wall temperature is more than the dew-point temperature of air, there
will be no condensation of water vapor. Then Equation 19 is given as
x· ( t ) = A N x ( t ) + B N u ( t ) + E N d . (21)
The matrices AN, BN, and EN are given in Appendix C.

2. When the evaporator wall temperature is less than the dew-point temperature of air, there will
be condensation of water vapor. Then Equation 19 is given as
x· ( t ) = A C x ( t ) + B C u ( t ) + E C d .
(22)
The elements of the matrices are obtained from the dynamic model after linearising about the
equilibrium point (xe).The matrices AC, BC, and EC are given in Appendix C. These models
are used to design output feedback-based controllers.
Output Feedback Controller

Output feedback controllers require that only the output should be measurable. The system
model in terms of small, dynamic deviation from xe and ue will be represented using Equations
16 and 18.
·
x̃ ( t ) = Ax̃ ( t ) + Bũ
(23)
ỹ = Cx̃
The system possesses a time-invariant asymptotically stable control law:
ũ ( t ) = – Kỹ (24)
In terms of the original output, total control effort is
u ( t ) = – Ky ( t ) + u e + Ky e . (25)
Find control law ũ ( t ) = – Kỹ where K is a constant unconstrained gain matrix that minimizes
the following performance index subject to initial conditions x̃ ( 0 ) ≡ x 0 :
∞
1
J = --- ∫ ( x T Qx + u T Ru ) dt (26)
2
0
where Q and R are positive definite, real, symmetric, constant matrices.

The above problem is a linear quadratic tracking problem, and the optimal controller designed
for this problem is known as the linear quadratic tracker. The design equations for the linear
quadratic tracker with output feedback (Lewis and Syrmos 1995) are given by
0 = ( A – BKC ) T P + P ( A – BKC ) + C T K T RKC + Q (27)

0 = ( A – BKC )S + S ( A – BKC ) T + E { x ( 0 )x T ( 0 ) } (28)
K = R –1 B T PSC T ( CSC T ) – 1 (29)
Solve Equations 27 and 28 for a constant, symmetric, positive-semi definite matrix P and
symmetric matrix S. K is found by using Equation 29. The control effort u(t) can be found using
Equation 25. In the present problem there are two models, given by Equations 21 and 22. So, in
this optimal problem, there will be also two gain matrices, which further leads to two different
control laws. Hence, the total control effort will be switching in nature. This control effort will
be validated on a nonlinear dynamic model.
Constrained Controller
The unconstrained controller, discussed in the previous section, may be difficult to implement
in practice due to natural limitations in the capacity of actuators (e.g., bounds on the magnitude
of valve opening). This problem is generally tackled in the industry by limiting the upper and
lower bounds on the control input. This type of control will be called saturated linear control.
The saturated linear control by modifying Equation 25 is given by (Lyshevski 2001)
u
u = sat u max ( – Ky ( t ) + u e + KY e ) ,
min
where umax and umin are the upper and lower bounds of control input.
However, this approach might be seriously deficient in performance and stability, even
though the unconstrained linear control yields a stable closed-loop system. In this paper, an
alternative approach is discussed. The approach is the following: the system is first stabilized by
a lower gain output feedback control (L). A quadratic Lypunov function (V) is found on the basis
of which another linear output feedback gain matrix (Ka) is computed. Then the control is given
by (Gutman and Hagander 1985)
u = ( B T PC T K a – L )y + u e + ( L – B T PC T K a )y e . (30)
The control inputs obtained from Equation 30 must satisfy the following bounds:
u i, min ≤ u i ≤ u i, max i = 1, 2, …, m (31)
A linear static output feedback gain (Ka) is selected such that control input u does not violate
the control constraints in Equation 31. The proposed output feedback controller may give rea-
sonably good performance without violating bounds on control inputs. The results related to the
output feedback control are discussed in Appendix D and are in the line of Gutman and Hagan-
der (1985), wherein full state feedback design is reported. The algorithm for designing the con-
strained controller is given in the following.
Algorithm for Constrained Controller
Step 1. Determine D. D is the set of initial conditions in the state space from which it is desir-
able to stabilize the system to the reference input. The set D is determined a priori, as restric-
tively as possible.
Step 2. Find L such that (A – BLC) is a stable matrix. This can be done, for example, by solv-
ing an LQ problem, with state penalty Q reflecting the design objectives. The control penalty R
is increased until the control LCx satisfies the constraint (Equation 31) for x in D. This check is
easily done since the constraint is linear:
580 HVAC&R RESEARCH
u i, min ≤ maxg i x ≤ u i, max i = 1, 2, …, m

x∈D (32)
If D is such that Equation 32 cannot be satisfied for any L, then this design is not appropriate.
Obviously, other criteria for linear design (e.g., pole placement) can be used to generate stabi-
lizing matrices L that satisfy Equation D.12.
Step 3. Find P and c. First a P = PT > 0 is sought such that PA + A cT P < 0 . If the linear qua-
dratic technique was used in finding L, the stationary solution of the Riccati equation may serve
as P. Now determine λ by choosing the parameter c such that D ⊆ λ ⊆ E :
maxx T Px ≤ c ≤ minx T Px
x∈D x ∈ δE (33)
where δE designates the boundary of E. Using constrained optimization it can be shown that
(Gutman and Hagander 1985)
minx T Px = min ⎧ -------------------

u i2, min u i2, max ⎫
x ∈ δE ⎨ T –1 -, -------------------
T P –1 g
- for i = 1, 2, …, m ⎬ . (34)
⎩ i
g P g g
i i i ⎭
Both conditions are then easily checked numerically. If this fails, choose another P; if this does
not help, select a “lower gain” L in order to enlarge the set E. Finally, cutting down the size of D
might be considered.
Step 4. Set up the control u according to Equation D.12 and tune the parameters ki by simula-
tions. The constrained controller for the tracking problem can be obtained by using Equation 30.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this section, the results are discussed for the setpoint optimization and dynamical optimiza-
tion of an air-conditioning system. In setpoint optimization, the computations for setpoints of air
temperature, relative humidity, relative air velocity, evaporator pressure, and condenser pressure
have been done. The results of dynamical optimal control using output feedback will be dis-
cussed. All computations were done using MATLAB (MathWorks 2007).
Setpoint Optimization
Computations of optimal setpoints and energy consumption in an air-conditioning system
were done for two sets of ambient conditions that were recorded on an hourly basis during two
different days. These computations were done using parameters shown in Table 1. In one set of
ambient conditions, temperature is high and relative humidity is low. In the second set of ambi-
ent conditions, temperature is moderate and relative humidity is high. In these computations the
setpoint of relative humidity varies from 40% to 60%. The setpoint of relative air velocity varies
from 0.1 to 0.5 m/s (0.33 to 1.64 ft/s). The activity level was assumed to be 58.2 W/m2 (1 MET),
corresponding to a seated, quiet condition, and clothing insulation was assumed to be 0.5. The
mean radiant temperature was assumed to be equal to the dry-bulb temperature of air.
Table 2 shows optimal setpoints of temperature, relative humidity, relative air velocity, evap-
orator pressure, and condenser pressure for high temperature and low humidity ambient condi-
tions at different cooling loads ( Q· e ) . In Table 2, the temperature setpoint varies from 25.8°C to
28.2°C (78.4°F to 82.8°F) and the humidity setpoint varies from 40% to 60% for different ambi-
ent conditions. The comparison of power consumption in an air-conditioning system with the
proposed control scheme and the constant setpoint control scheme with hysteresis control is
shown in the last column of Table 2.
Table 2. Temperature, Relative Humidity, Air Velocity, Evaporator Pressure, and Condenser Pressure Setpoints for PMV Range of ±0.2
Ambient Inside Temperature/ Power Consumption,

Relative Air Cooling Load Watt (Btu/h)
Temperature / Inside Relative Pe , Pc ,
Time Velocity, ( Q· e ) ,
Relative Humidity, Humidity Setpoints, (MPa)/(psia) (MPa) /(psia) Proposed Constant Setpoint
(m/s)/(ft/s) Watt (Btu/h)
°C (°F)/(%) °C (°F)/(%) Control Scheme Control Scheme
10 A.M. 36.1 (97)/35 27.8 (82)/60 0.5/1.64 6300 (21494) 0.55 (80.5) 1.68 (244) 3337 (11385) 4090 (13954)
11 A.M. 37.3 (99.1)/34 27.8 (82)/60 0.5/1.64 7250 (24736) 0.525 (76.1) 1.77 (257) 4012 (13688) 4920 (16786)
12 P.M. 37.8 (100)/33 27.8 (82)/60 0.5/1.64 7300 (24906) 0.525 (76.1) 1.79 (260) 4080 (13920) 5010 (17093)
1 P.M. 38.8 (101.8)/32 27.8 (82)/60 0.5/1.64 8000 (27294) 0.505 (73.2) 1.86 (270) 4653 (15875) 5475 (18680)
2 P.M. 39.6 (103.3)/31 27.8 (82)/60 0.5/1.64 8500 (29000) 0.5 (72.5) 1.90 (275) 5082 (17339) 6080 (20744)
3 P.M. 39.5 (103.1)/30 27.8 (82)/60 0.5/1.64 8000 (27294) 0.51 (73.9) 1.89 (274) 4692 (16008) 5615 (19157)
VOLUME 16, NUMBER 5, SEPTEMBER 2010
4 P.M. 38.1 (100.6)/30 27.8 (82)/60 0.5/1.64 7200 (24565) 0.53 (76.8) 1.80 (261) 4030 (13750) 4990 (17025)
5 P.M. 37.2 (99)/31 27.8 (82)/60 0.5/1.64 6300 (21494) 0.56 (81.2) 1.73 (251) 3395 (11583) 4410 (15046)
6 P.M. 36 (96.8)/32 27.8 (82)/60 0.5/1.64 5300 (18083) 0.595 (86.3) 1.64 (238) 2772 (9457) 3820 (13033)
7 P.M. 34.8 (94.6)/33 27.8 (82)/60 0.5/1.64 4400 (15012) 0.6 (87) 1.57 (228) 2362 (8059) 3110 (10611)
8 P.M. 33.6 (92.5)/34 27 (80.6)/60 0.3/0.98 4400 (15012) 0.52 (75.4) 1.52 (220) 1976 (6742) 2850 (9724)
9 P.M. 32.5 (90.5)/35 27.6 (81.7)/54 0.3/0.98 4300 (14671) 0.535 (77.6) 1.48 (215) 1823 (6220) 2540 (8666)
10 P.M. 31.4 (88.5)/37 27.6 (81.7)/52 0.3/0.98 4250 (14500) 0.53 (76.8) 1.44 (209) 1760 (6005) 2210 (7540)
11 P.M. 30.2 (86.4)/38 27.2 (81)/50 0.3/0.98 4250 (14500) 0.52 (75.4) 1.39 (202) 1735 (5919) 1930 (6585)
12 A.M. 29.2 (84.6)/39 27.4 (81.3)46 0.3/0.98 4100 (13988) 0.515 (74.7) 1.35 (196) 1657 (5653) 1765 (6022)
*1 A.M. 28.2 (82.8)/41 28.2 (82.8)/41 0.5/1.64 — — — — —
*2 A.M. 26.9 (80.4)/43 26.9 (80.4)/43 0.2/0.66 — — — — —
*3 A.M. 25.8 (78.4)/44 25.8 (78.4)/44 0.1/0.33 — — — — —
*4 A.M. 25.0 (77)/45 26.2 (79.1)/40 0.1/0.33 — — — — —
*5A.M. 25.6 (78.1)/44 26.6 (79.9)/40 0.1/0.33 — — — — —

*6 A.M. 27.1 (80.8)/43 27.1 (80.8)/43 0.2/0.66 — — — — —
7 A.M. 29.5 (85.1)/41 28.2 (82.8)/46 0.5/1.64 4400 (15012) 0.6 (87) 1.35 (196) 1893 (6458) 2225 (7591)
8A.M. 32 (89.6)/39 27.8 (82)/56 0.4/1.31 4300 (14671) 0.58 (84.1) 1.46 (212) 1965 (6704) 2610 (8910)
9 A.M. 34.5 (94.1)/37 27.8 (82)/60 0.5/1.64 5300 (18083) 0.585 (84.8) 1.58 (229) 2718 (9273) 3570 (12180)
581
* During these ambient conditions, cooling is not required.

582 HVAC&R RESEARCH
In this example, the constant control scheme has setpoints for air temperature, relative humid-
ity, relative air velocity, condenser pressure, and evaporator pressure as 27.5°C (81.5°F), 50%,
0.5 m/s (1.64 ft/s), 1.9 MPa (275.5 psia), and 0.5 MPa (72.5 psia), respectively. In this case, the
amount of energy saving varies from 10% to 30% when the proposed control scheme is used in
place of the constant setpoint control scheme. The desired PMV in both control schemes is in the
range of ±0.2. The optimal setpoints will also vary with PMV. The optimal setpoints for moder-
ate temperature and high humidity ambient conditions have also been computed. It was found
that temperature setpoint varies from 27.4°C to 27.8°C (81.3°F to 82°F) and humidity setpoint
varies from 46% to 60% for the PMV range of ±0.1. The energy saving in this example with the
proposed control scheme instead of the constant setpoint control scheme varies from 4% to 28%.
The exact amount of energy saving depends upon parameters of the system and ambient and
inside conditions.
Dynamical Optimal Control

In this section, the results of the dynamical optimal controller are discussed. The aim of this
controller is to track setpoints with small steady-state errors and good dynamic response. The
setpoints in this problem are dry-bulb temperature, relative humidity of conditioned space, evap-
orator pressure, and condenser pressure. In addition to optimal setpoints. the degree of superheat
of refrigerant plays an important role in the performance of an air-conditioning system. Thus,
the superheat of refrigerant is also analyzed. The optimal setpoints are taken from the setpoint
optimization control layer as shown in Figure 2. The control of the complete system requires
two different feedback control laws because the system can be fully represented by using two
different models. Thus, dynamical optimal control of an air-conditioning system requires a
switching type control. In this section, results for a switching type linear quadratic tracker are
analyzed for output feedback control.
The unconstrained and constrained feedback controls are validated on a nonlinear dynamic
model of an air-conditioning system provided in an Indian Railway passenger coach. The fol-
lowing optimal setpoints are considered in these simulation results:
Tset = 27.6°C (81.7°F)
Hset = 60%
vset = 0.5 m/s (1.64 ft/s)
Pe,set = 0.5 MPa (72.5 psia)
Pc,set = 1.9 MPa (275.5 psia)
The upper bounds on control inputs are u1,max = 0.071 kg/s (0.156 lb/s), u2,max = 60 rev/s, and
u3,max = 1.9 m3/s (67.1 ft3/s). The lower bounds on control inputs are u1,min = u2,min = u3,min = 0.
The values of internal variables at the time of start-up were as follows:
le = 0 Twe = 36°C (96.8°F)
Te = 36°C (96.8°F) Tae = 36°C (96.8°F)
T3 = 37.2°C (99°F) Ws = 24.5 g/kg (dry air)
W3 = 24.5 g/kg (dry air) Pe = 0.6 MPa (87 psia)

Pc = 0.6 MPa (87 psia) Tc = 38°C (100.4°F)
Twc = 39°C (102.2°F) lc = 0
The equilibrium point in this case is the following:
le = 0.665 m (2.18 ft) Twe = 18.0°C (64.4°F)
Te = 2.6°C (36.7°F) Tae = 20.7°C (69.3°F)
T3 = 27.6°C (81.7°F) Ws = 13.6 g/kg (dry air)
W3 = 13.9 g/kg (dry air) Pe = 0.58 MPa (84.1 psia)

Pc = 1.9 MPa (275.5 psia) Tc = 49.5°C (121.1°F)
Twc = 43.5°C (110.3°F) lc = 1.13 m (3.7073 ft)
Two gain matrices are given for constrained control after tuning; gain matrix K is for the
model in which condensation takes place, and gain matrix K1 is for the model in which conden-
sation does not take place.
– 0.0010 – 0.0030 0.0001 0.0010 – 0.1925 2.1906 0.0152 0.0021 0 0

K = – 0.0172 – 0.0034 – 0.0005 – 0.0212 – 2.4679 – 68.5490 – 0.1198 0.8751 –0.0012 0.0008
0.0064 0.0008 – 0.0017 – 0.0310 – 1.1573 – 56.7921 0.0091 – 0.0151 0 0
– 0.0008 – 0.0030 – 0.0002 0.0019 – 0.7226 0.6343 0.0151 0.0024 0 0

K 1 = – 0.0484 – 0.0056 – 0.0039 – 0.0979 – 5.4921 – 29.9110 – 0.1534 0.8543 –0.0012 0.0004
– 0.0118 – 0.0009 – 0.0101 – 0.1096 – 3.3808 – 52.6139 – 0.0147 – 0.0484 0 0
It has been found that eigenvalues of a closed-loop linearised system matrix move deeper in
the left half with gain after tuning in comparison to gain without tuning. The physical parame-
ters for the mathematical model are shown in Table 3.
Figure 4 shows temporal variation of output variables using constrained and unconstrained
control. The responses of Figure 4 show that coach air temperature, relative humidity, evapora-
tor pressure, and condenser pressure are able to track their respective setpoints with small
steady-state errors. The response of Figure 4a shows that with constraint control inputs, the set-
tling time of temperature response increased, and this response also has small undershoot. The
dynamic response of the system deteriorates with constrained control input as compared to
unconstrained control input, as shown in Figure 4. In the proposed scheme, simulated results of
superheat using Equation C.16 show that SH is changing between 5.47°C and 6.95°C (41.85°F
and 44.5°F), as shown in Figures 4e and 4f for constrained control input.
It may be noted here that if control inputs (u1 and u2) are generated based on superheat SH, the
energy efficiency of the evaporator will improve. The desired value of superheat can be set rela-
tively low in systems with MIMO control and, therefore, overall energy efficiency can be
increased. Figure 5 shows comparison between unconstrained and constrained control inputs for
airflow rate, refrigerant mass flow rate, and compressor speed with time. The upper bounds of
control inputs are also shown in Figure 5. It is clear from Figures 5a and 5b that the unconstrained
584 HVAC&R RESEARCH
Table 3. Physical Parameters of Case Studies

3.982×10–5 m2 33.5 kg
Ae W0 19 g/kg (dry air) Mc
(42.86 × 10–5 ft2) (73.85 lb)
0.665 m 5 m3
γe 0.85 Le Vd
(2.18 ft) (176.55 ft3)
0.0706 kg/s 2.05 m2
m· r ωc 47.5 rev/s Aic
(0.155 lb/s) (22.066 ft2)
566.5 W·m–2·K–1 40 W·m–2·K–1
αie c 0.04 αoc
(99 Btu/h·ft·°F) (7 Btu/h·ft·°F)
0.00712 m 117.65 × 10–6 m3 1.13 m
Die Vc Lc
(0.0234 ft) (4.15 × 10–3 ft3) (3.71 ft)
17.2 kg 3.982 × 10–5 m2 5750 W
Me Ac qo
(37.9 lb) (42.86 × 10–5 ft2) (19618 Btu/h)

1.189985 m2 7.26842 × 10–5 m2
Aei γc 0.125 Aoc
(12.81 ft2) (78.24 × 10–5 ft2)
124 W·m–2⋅K–1 900 W 150 m3
αoe qi Vs
(21.84 Btu/h·ft·°F) (3071 Btu/h) (5297 ft3)
0.000094 kg (dry air)/s
7.26842 × 10–5 m2 42°C M0
Aeo T0 (0.00021lb/s)
(78.24 × 10–5 ft 2) (107.6°F)
Parameters during off process
1764 W/m2⋅K 20 W·m–2 ·K–1 20 W·m–2·K–1
ξ 0.25 αic αie αic
(311 Btu/h·ft·°F) (3.5 Btu/h·ft·°F) (3.5 Btu/h·ft·°F)
1.1111 m3/s 0.00712 m 10 W·m–2 ·K–1 4 W·m–2 ·K–1
v Dic αoe αoc
(39.234 ft3/s) (0.0234 ft) (1.76 Btu/h·ft·°F) (0.7 Btu/h·ft·°F)
controller disobeys the upper bound marginally in case of refrigerant mass flow rate and signifi-
cantly in case of airflow rate. All constrained control inputs are well within bounds.
CONCLUSION
The conclusions regarding model-based optimizing control of an air-conditioning system are
as follows.
1. A MIMO feedback control, consisting of a setpoint optimizing control and a dynamical opti-
mizing control, has been proposed to regulate an air-conditioning system. The proposed feed-
back control is based on a static and dynamical lumped parameter model of an
air-conditioning system. In setpoint optimizing control, an algorithm was developed for find-
ing the optimal setpoints for air temperature, relative humidity, relative air velocity, evapora-
tor pressure, and condenser pressure. These optimal setpoints are tracked by designing a
dynamical optimizing control based on an output feedback control. It was shown by simula-
tion that the implementation of the proposed control scheme on a DX air-conditioning system
can save substantial energy as compared to the existing scheme to maintain the same level of
thermal comfort.
2. The implementation of this control scheme requires variable speed of the compressor and
evaporator motor and a variable opening of the expansion valve. These devices are commer-
cially available. The implementation of the output feedback controller requires measurement
VOLUME 16, NUMBER 5, SEPTEMBER 2010
Figure 4. Temporal variation of different output variables for output feedback based unconstrained and constrained linear quadratic
trackers: (a) coach air temperature in °C, (b) relative humidity of coach air in percentage, (c) evaporator pressure in MPa, (d) condenser
pressure in MPa, (e) variation of superheat with time, and (f) expanded view of Figure 4(e).
585
586 HVAC&R RESEARCH
Figure 5. Temporal variation of unconstrained and constrained control inputs (a) refrigerant mass flow rate in kilograms per second
(kg/s), (b) airflow rate in meters cubed per second (m3/s), and (c) compressor speed in revolution per second (rev/s).
of ten internal variables. However, the number of measurements can be reduced by designing
a suitable observer.
3. The optimal setpoints will vary with changes in ambient and indoor conditions. So, the fre-
quency of updating optimal setpoints needs to be optimized. This optimization should be
done under operational and performance constraints on the system.
4. The performance of this control scheme depends upon the accuracy of the dynamic model.
The accuracy of the lumped parameter model considered here depends upon the accuracy of
estimating the thermal load, heat transfer coefficient, bypass factor, etc.
NOMENCLATURE
H = relative humidity M = mass, kg
T = dry-bulb temperature Cp = constant-pressure specific heat of air
W = humidity ratio Vs = volume of thermal space
h = enthalpy l = length of the two-phase section
ξ = ratio of fresh air to total intake air A = cross-sectional area

W· = power consumption Nc = speed of compressor
P = pressure qo = sensible heat load from outside
v = relative velocity of air Mo = moisture load
Q· = heat exchange rate qi = sensible heat load from inside
N = speed, rev/s SH = superheat
fq = heat loss factor in compressor L = length of heat exchanger
ηis = isentropic efficiency Vc = volumetric displacement of compressor
Vd = volumetric displacement of compressor c = clearance factor
m· = mass flow rate γ = mean void fraction
ηvol = volumetric efficiency J = cost function
ρ = density η = mechanical efficiency
τcf = torque on the shaft of the condenser fan Tmrt = mean radiant temperature
D = heat exchanger tube diameter fc1 = clothing area factor
K1,cf = constant in power consumption in M/ADu = metabolic rate
condenser fan hc = convective heat transfer coefficient
K1,ef = constant in power consumption in Pws = saturation vapor pressure
evaporator fan Icl = thermal resistance from skin to outer
K2,cf = constant in mass flow rate of air across surface of the clothed body
condenser tc1 = mean temperature of outer surface of
K2,ef = constant in mass flow rate of air across clothed body
evaporator μ = volumetric flow rate of air
α = heat transfer coefficient Pw = vapor pressure
Subscripts
i = inside o = outlet or outside
c = condenser r = refrigerant
e = evaporator aoc = air out of condenser
a = air l = lower
g = gas u = upper
o = outlet or outside aoe = air out of evaporator
r = refrigerant d = duct
co = conditioned air mc = exponent in overall heat transfer coef-
ref = reference ficient, condenser
set = setpoint me = exponent in overall heat transfer coef-
ss = steady state ficient, evaporator
cf = condenser fan w = tube wall
ef = evaporator fan v = valve
588 HVAC&R RESEARCH
REFERENCES
Arguello-Serrano, B., and M. Velez-Reyes. 1999. Nonlinear control of a heating, ventilating and air condi-
tioning system with thermal load estimation. IEEE Transaction on Control Systems Technology
7(1):56–63.
Arora, C.P. 2000. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Com-
pany Limited.
Boyd, S., and L. Vandenberghe. 2004. Convex Optimization. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University
Press.
Fanger, P.O. 1972. Thermal Comfort Analysis and Application in Environmental Engineering. New York:
Mc Graw-Hill Book Company.
Gutman, P., and P. Hagander. 1985. A new design of constrained controllers for linear systems. IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control AC-30(1):22–33.
He, X.-D., S. Liu, H.H. Asada, and H. Itoh. 1998. Multivariable control of vapor compression systems.
HVAC&R Research 4(3):205–30.
House, J.M., and T.F. Smith. 1995. Optimal control of building and HVAC systems. Proc.: American Con-
trol Conference, pp. 4326–30.

Kumar, M., and I.N. Kar. 2009. Non-linear HVAC computation using least square support vector
machines. Energy Conversion and Management 50(6):1411–18.
Kumar, M., I.N. Kar, and A. Ray. 2008. State space based modelling and performance evaluation of
air-conditioning system. HVAC&R Research 14(5):797–816.
Larsen, L.F.S. 2006. Model-based control of refrigeration systems. PhD thesis, Department of Control
Engineering, Aalborg University, Denmark.
Larsen, L.F.S., C. Thybo, J. Stoustrup, and H. Ramussen. 2004. A method for on-line steady state energy
minimization, with application to refrigeration systems. Proc.: 43rd IEEE Conference on Decision and
Control, pp. 4708–13.
Lewis, F.L., and V.L. Syrmos. 1995. Optimal Control. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Liang, J., and R. Du. 2005. Thermal comfort control based on neural network for HVAC application.
Proc.: IEEE Conference on Control Applications, pp. 819–824.
Lyshevski, S.E. 2001. Control systems theory with engineering applications. Boston: Birkhauser.
MathWorks. 2007. MATLAB. Natick, MA: The Math Works, Inc.
Mitchell, M. 1997. An Introduction to Genetic Algorithm. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Stoecker, W.F., and J.W. Jones. 1982. Refrigeration & Air Conditioning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wang, S., and X. Jin. 2000. Model-based optimal control of VAV air-conditioning system using genetic
algorithm. Building and Environment 35:471–87.
Zaheer-uddin, M., and G.R. Zheng. 2001. Multistage optimal operating strategies for HVAC systems.
ASHRAE Transactions 107(2):346–52.
APPENDIX A—STATIC MODEL OF AN AIR-CONDITIONING SYSTEM

The static model is derived for each of the components: the compressor, the condenser, and
the evaporator. Much of the details in the derivation of the model are left out here, as most of it
can be found in standard textbooks concerning air-conditioning and refrigeration (Stoecker and
Jones 1982). The models are written as functions of Pc and Pe, that is, the two optimizing vari-
ables.
Compressor
The power consumption in the compressor, assuming a constant heat loss coefficient fq, can
be written as
Q· e h ic ( P e, P c ) – h oe ( P e )
W· c = ------------- × ---------------------------------------------------- . (A.1)
1 – fq h oe ( P e ) – h oc ( P c )
The enthalpy at the inlet of the condenser (hic ), assuming a constant isentropic efficiency, is
given by
1 – fq
h ic = ------------- × ( h is ( P e, P c ) – h oe ( P e ) ) + h oe ( P e ) . (A.2)
η is
The mass flow of refrigerant through the compressor ( m· ref ) is given by
m· ref = N c × V d × η vol × ρ ref ( P e ) . (A.3)
Condenser
The power consumption by the condenser motor is given by
W· cf = τ cf × N cf = K 1, cf × ( N cf ) 3 . (A.4)
Mass flow of air across the condenser, m· air, c , is assumed proportional with rotational speed:
m· air, c = K 2, cf × N cf (A.5)
The outlet temperature of the air from the condenser (Taoc) can be derived by assuming that
the lumped temperature of condenser walls equals condensing temperature (Tc). The wall tem-
perature (Tc) is assumed constant across the condenser. Based on these assumptions and, more-
over, noting that the inlet temperature to the condenser is To, the outlet temperature can be
expressed as
⎛ α c × m· airc , c ⎞
m
T aoc = T c + ( T o – T c ) × exp ⎜ – -----------------------------------
-⎟ . (A.6)
⎝ m· air, c × C p, air⎠
The conservation of energy across the condenser gives
0 = m ref ( h ic ( P e, P c ) – h oc ( P c ) ) – m· air, c × C p, air ( T aoc – T o ) . (A.7)
Evaporator
The description for the evaporator is equivalent to that of the condenser; however, the heat
transfer runs in the opposite direction. The power consumption in the evaporator fan ( W· ef ) is
given by
W· ef = K 1, ef × ( N ef ) 3 . (A.8)
Mass flow of air across the evaporator is
m· air, E = K 2, ef × N ef . (A.9)
The outlet temperature of air from the evaporator (Taoe) is
⎛ α e × m· aire , e ⎞
m
T aoe = T e + ( ( ( 1 – ξ )T i + ξT o ) – T e ) × exp ⎜ – -----------------------------------
-⎟ . (A.10)
⎝ m· air, e × C p, air⎠
590 HVAC&R RESEARCH
Conservation of energy across the evaporator is given by the following:
0 = Q· e – m· air, e × C p, air ( ( ( 1 – ξ )T i + ξT o ) – T aoe ) – m· air, e × h fg ( ( ( 1 – ξ )W i + ξW o ) – W aoe ) (A.11)
Q· e = Q· sen + Q· lat (A.12)
APPENDIX B—DERIVATION OF GRADIENTS

In the section “Algorithm for Finding Setpoints,” a gradient of J = W· c + W· cf + W· ef is used. In
the following, the derivation of
dW· c dW· cf dW· ef

---------- ------------ ------------
∂J- dP c dP c dP c
--------- =
∂x ss dW· c dW· cf dW· ef
o ss ---------- ------------ ------------

dP e dP e dP e Q· e = const
will be discussed. Each of the following three elements will be derived individually:
dW· c dW· c
T
----------, ----------
dP c dP e
dW· cf dW· cf
T
------------, ------------
dP c dP e
dW· ef dW· ef
------------, ------------
dP c dP e
During the derivation it is assumed that the superheat and the subcooling are constant. The
superheat is a controlled variable that makes it a good assumption, whereas subcooling is vary-
ing. However, the subcooling normally does not vary a lot, and the variation has only an infini-
tesimal impact on total power consumption.
dW· dW·
T
Derivation of ---------c-, ---------c- :
dP c dP e
Inserting Equation A.2 into Equation A.1 gives the following:
Q· e h is ( P e, P c ) – h oe ( P e )
W· c = ------------- × ---------------------------------------------------- (B.1)
1 – fq h oe ( P e ) – h oc ( P c )
By direct differentiation of Equation B.1, the following is obtained:
dW· c Q· 1 - ⎛ ∂h ic ∂h oc h is – h oe ⎞
---------- ------e- × --------------------- ⎜ ---------- + ----------- ----------------------⎟
dP c η is h oe – h oc ⎝ ∂P c ∂P c h oe – h oc⎠
= (B.2)
dW· c Q· 1 - ⎛ ∂h is ∂h oe ∂h oe h is – h oe ⎞
---------- ------e- × --------------------- ⎜ ---------- – ----------- – ----------- ----------------------⎟
dP e η is h oe – h oc ⎝ ∂P e ∂P e ∂P e h oe – h oc⎠
dW· dW· dW· dW·

T T
cf cf ef ef
-, -----------
Derivation of ----------- - -, -----------
and ----------- - :
dPc dP e dP c dPe
cf dW·
In the following we derive the derivative -----------
- ; using the same procedure, the rest of the deriva-
dP c
tives of the above expression can be found.
cf dW·
By using Equation A.4 and Equation A.5, the derivative -----------
- can be found as
dP c
dW· cf ∂W· cf ∂m· air, C K 1, cf ∂m· air, C

· - × ------------------
------------ = ------------------ - m· air
- = 3 ------------------- 2
,
------------------- . (B.3)
dP c ∂m air, C ∂P c ( K 2, cf ) 3 C ∂P c
Using the first law of thermodynamics, the heat rejected in the condenser can also be com-
puted as
Q· c = Q· e + W· c – W· c × f q . (B.4)
cf dW·
The derivative -----------
- can be found from Equation A.6, Equation A.7, Equation B.3, and Equa-
dP c
tion B.4 after simplification. Finally, the expressions are the following:
dW· cf dW· c Q· e h ic – h oe Q· c ∂T c
------------ ---------
- ------
- ---------------------
- – ----------------
- ---------
dP c 3W· cf dP c W· c h oe – h oc T c – T o ∂P c
= -----------------------------------------------------------------------
- (B.5)
dW· cf Q· c – UA c ( 1 – m c ) ( T c – T aoc ) dW· c Q· e h ic – h oe
------------ ---------- ------
- ----------------------
dP e dP e W· c h oe – h oc
dW· cf
------------
3W· ef
0
dP c ·
= -----------------------------------------------------------------------
- ∂T (B.6)
Q· e – UA e ( 1 – m e ) ( T e – T aoe ) -----------------------
Q
dW· cf
e
- --------e-
------------ T i, set – T e ∂P e
dP e
APPENDIX C
Dynamic Model in State Space Form

The dynamic model (Kumar et al. 2008) used for designing dynamical optimizing control is
given below:
x· 1 = [ C v u 1 ρ v ( x 9 – x 8 ) ( h ge – h ie ) – α ie πD ie x 1 ( x 2 – x 3 ) ] ÷ ρ le h lge A e ( 1 – γ e ) (C.1)
Case 1, when the evaporator wall temperature is more than the dew-point temperature of air:
x· 2 = [ α ie A ei ( x 3 – x 2 ) + ( 1 – b ) ( ( 1 – u 4 )α oe A eo ( x 5 – x 2 ) + u 4 α oe A eo ( d 1 – x 2 ) ) ] ÷ M e C e (C.2)
592 HVAC&R RESEARCH
Case 2, when the evaporator wall temperature is less than the dew-point temperature of air:
α ie A ei ( x 3 – x 2 ) + ( 1 – b ) ( ( 1 – u 4 )α oe A eo ( x 5 – x 2 ) + u 4 α oe A eo ( d 1 – x 2 ) ) + 0.5 ( 1 – b )
x· 2 = ÷ Me Ce
u 3 ρ a ( h fg – C pw x 2 ) ( u 4 d 2 + ( 1 – u 4 )x 7 – 0.001 ( 0.0214x 22 + 0.1177x 2 + 4.15502 ) )
(C.3)
x· 3 = [ C v u 1 ( h ie – h ge ) ρ v ( x 9 – x 8 ) + α ie A ei ( x 2 – x 3 ) ] ÷ M e C e (C.4)
Case 1, when the evaporator wall temperature is more than the dew-point temperature of air:
( 1 – b )u 3 ρ a C p ( x 2 – x 4 ) + b ( ( 1 – u 4 )u 3 ρ a C p ( x 5 – x 4 ) + u 4 u 3 ρ a C p ( d 1 – x 4 ) )
x· 4 = ÷ Cp ρa Vd (C.5)
– u 3 h fg ρ a ( u 4 d 2 + ( 1 – u 4 )x 7 – x 6 )
Case 2, when the evaporator wall temperature is less than the dew-point temperature of air:
( 1 – b )u 3 ρ a C p ( x 2 – x 4 ) + b ( ( 1 – u 4 )u 3 ρ a C p ( x 5 – x 4 ) + u 4 u 3 ρ a C p ( d 1 – x 4 ) ) – ( 1 – b )u 3 ρ a
x· 4 = ÷ Cp ρa Vd
h fg ( 0.001 ( 0.214x 22 + 0.1177x 2 + 4.15502 ) – x 6 ) – bu 3 ρ a h fg ( u 4 d 2 + ( 1 – u 4 )x 7 – x 6 )
(C.6)
x· 5 = [ u 3 ρ a C p ( x 4 – x 5 ) – h fg u 3 ρ a ( x 6 – x 7 ) + ( 1 ⁄ u 4 ) ( d 3 – h fg d 4 ) + d 5 ] ÷ V s ρ a C p (C.7)
Case 1, when the evaporator wall temperature is more than the dew-point temperature:
x· 6 = ( u 3 ⁄ V d ) [ u 4 d 2 + ( 1 – u 4 )x 7 – x 6 ] (C.8)
Case 2, when the evaporator wall temperature less than the dew-point temperature:
x· 6 = ( u 3 ⁄ V d ) ( 1 – b ) [ 0.001 ( 0.214x 22 + 0.1177x 2 + 4.15502 ) – x 6 ] + ( u 3 ⁄ V d )b ( ( 1 – u 4 )x 7 + u 4 d 2 – x 6 )

(C.9)
x· 7 = ( 1 ⁄ V s ) [ u 3 ( x 6 – x 7 ) + d 4 ] (C.10)
x· 8 = [ C v u 1 ( h ie – h le ) ρ v ( x 9 – x 8 ) ÷ h lge – u 2 + α ie πD ie x 1 ( x 2 – x 3 ) ÷ h lge ] ÷ A 3 L e ( der ) (C.11)
where der = dρge/dPe
x· 9 = [ u 2 – α ic πD ic x 12 ( x 10 – x 11 ) ÷ h lgc ] ÷ A c L c ( der2 ) (C.12)
where der2 = dρgc/dPc
x· 10 = [ C v u 1 ( h ic – h oc ) ρ v ( x 9 – x 8 ) – α ic A ic ( x 10 – x 11 ) ] ÷ M c C c (C.13)
x· 11 = [ α ic A ic ( x 10 – x 11 ) + α oc A oc ( d 1 – x 11 ) ] ÷ M c C c (C.14)
x· 12 = [ u 2 ( h lc – h ic ) + α ic πD ic x 12 ( x 10 – x 11 ) ] ÷ ρ lc h lgc A c ( 1 – γ c ) (C.15)
The superheat is given by
S H = ( x 4 – x 3 ) [ 1 – exp ( – α oe πD ie ( L e – x 1 ) ÷ C p u 2 ) ] . (C.16)
A linearised model can be obtained by linearising Equations C.1 to C.16 around an operating
point. The linearised model comprises matrices AC, BC, EC, AN, BN, EN, and C. The structure of
matrices is given below; the elements of these matrices have not been given due to space con-
straints.
A 11 A 12 A 13 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0
0 A C22 A C23 0 A C25 0 A C27 0 0 0 0 0
0 A 32 A 33 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0
0 A C42 0 A C44 A C45 A C46 A C47 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 A 54 A 55 A 56 A 57 0 0 0 0 0
0 A C62 0 0 0 A C66 A C67 0 0 0 0 0
AC =
0 0 0 0 0 A 76 A 77 0 0 0 0 0
A 81 A 82 A 83 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A 910 A 911 A 912
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A 1010 A 1011 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A 1110 A 1111 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A 1210 A 1211 A 1212
B 11 0 0
0 0 B C23
B 31 0 0
0 0 B C43
0 0 B 53
0 0 B C63
BC =
0 0 B 73
B 81 B 82 0
0 B 92 0
B 101 0 0
0 0 0
0 B 122 0
0 E C21 0 E C41 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 111 0

0 E C22 0 E C42 0 E C62 0 0 0 0 0 0
EC = 0 0 0 0 E 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 E 54 0 E 74 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 E 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
594 HVAC&R RESEARCH
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C = 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 E N21 0 E N41 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 111 0

0 0 0 E N42 0 E N62 0 0 0 0 0 0
EN = 0 0 0 0 E 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 E 54 0 E 74 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 E 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A 11 A 12 A 13 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0
0 A N22 A N23 0 A N25 0 0 00 0 0 0
0 A 32 A 33 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0
0 A N42 0 A N44 A N45 A N46 A N47 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 A 54 A 55 A 56 A 57 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 A N66 A N67 0 0 0 0 0
AN =
0 0 0 0 0 A 76 A 77 0 0 0 0 0
A 81 A 82 A 83 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A 910 A 911 A 912
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A 1010 A 1011 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A 1110 A 1111 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A 1210 A 1211 A 1212
B 11 0 0
0 0 B N23
B 31 0 0
0 0 B N43
0 0 B 53
0 0 B N63
BN =
0 0 B 73
B 81 B 82 0
0 B 92 0
B 101 0 0
0 0 0
0 B 122 0
APPENDIX D
Constrained Control
Consider a linear time invariant dynamical system:
⎧ x· ( t ) = Ax ( t ) + Bu
⎪
⎨ x ( 0 ) = x0 (D.1)
⎪
⎩ y = Cx ( t )
The control inputs are constrained:
u i, min ≤ u i ≤ u i, max i = 1, 2, …, m (D.2)
The aim is to design an output feedback control u = –Ly to solve a regulator problem on simi-
lar lines as discussed by Gutman and Hagander (1985). The following definitions are discussed
before stating the results of the output feedback control.
Definition 1: Let D be the set of initial conditions in the state space, from which it is desirable
to stabilize the system to the origin. Consider a (m × p) matrix L such that
A c = A c ( L ) = ( A – BLC ) (D.3)
is a stable matrix. Associated with each matrices L and C is the set
E = E ( L, C ) = { z z ∈ R n and u i, min ≤ ( – LC ) i z ≤ u i, max i = 1, 2, …, m , (D.4)
where E(L,C) is simply the set of initial states at which the stabilizing linear output feedback and
–Ly = –LCx does not initially exceed the constraints (Equation 31).
Another set, associated with each matrices L and C, is
Ac t –1
F = F ( L, C ) = ∩ {(e ) E} , (D.5)
t ∈ [0, ∞)
596 HVAC&R RESEARCH
where F is a subset of E. Along all trajectories emanating from F, the stabilizing output feed-
back –Ly does not exceed the constraint (Equation 31). See Figure 6.
Since Ac is a stable matrix, the Lyapunov equation,
PA c + A cT P = – Q , (D.6)
yields an (n × n) matrix,
P ( L, Q ) = P = P T > 0 , (D.7)
for every (n × n) matrix Q = QT > 0. A stability region can be defined:
λ = λ ( L, C, P, c ) = { x x T Px ≤ c } (D.8)
It is clear that
x( 0) ∈ λ ⇒ x( t) ∈ λ for all t ≥ 0 . (D.9)
From the definitions of λ and F it follows that
λ⊂E⇒λ⊆F . (D.10)
The two-dimensional case is depicted in Figure 6.
Figure 6. The sets D, λ, F, and E.

The function “sat” can be defined as follows.

Definition 2: Let F be an m × 1 vector and r a scalar. Then,
sat 1 f 1
sat 2 f 2 ⎧ u i, min if r ≤ u i, min
⋅ ⎪
sat f = where sat i r = ⎨ r if u i, min < r < u i, max . (D.11)
⋅ ⎪
⎩ u i, max if u i, max ≤ r
⋅
sat m f m
The following results related to constrained output feedback are stated in Lemma 1.
Lemma 1: Let the plant defined by Equations D.1 and D.2 be given. Assume that the set D of
interest (Definition) has the property that there exists an (m × p) matrix L satisfying
Equation D.3, an (n × n) matrix P = PT > 0 satisfying Equation D.6, and a constant c such that
D ⊆ λ ( L, C , P, c ) ⊆ E ( L ) .
Then the control law,
u = sat [ ( LC – B T PC T HC )x ] = [ LCx – B T PC T K a Cx ] , (D.12)
stabilizes the plant for all such H and all initial conditions x 0 ∈ D , where
h1 0 . 0
H = 0 . . . , h ≥ 0 , i = 1, 2, …, p (D.13)
i
. . . 0
0 . 0 hp
and
K a = diag ( k 1, k 2, …, k p ) , k i ≥ 0, i = 1, 2, …, p . (D.14)

HVAC&R Research: To Cite This Article: Mahendra Kumar & I. N. Kar (2010) Design of Model-Based Optimizing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HVAC&R Research: To Cite This Article: Mahendra Kumar & I. N. Kar (2010) Design of Model-Based Optimizing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [RMIT University]

On: 19 August 2013, At: 03:15

Design of Model-Based Optimizing

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10789669.2010.10390922

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

VOLUME 16, NUMBER 5 HVAC&R RESEARCH SEPTEMBER 2010

Received November 22, 2009; accepted June 14, 2010

566 HVAC&R RESEARCH

VOLUME 16, NUMBER 5, SEPTEMBER 2010 567

Figure 1. The layout of an air-conditioning system with a basic control structure.

Model-Based Optimizing Control Scheme

a. first layer of control: setpoint optimizing

568 HVAC&R RESEARCH

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of proposed control scheme for an air-conditioning system.

PART A: FIRST LAYER OF CONTROL

Problem Formulation and Solution

VOLUME 16, NUMBER 5, SEPTEMBER 2010 569

Computation of Setpoints for Dry-Bulb Temperature and Relative Humidity of Air

h co = 1.006T i, set + W i, set ( 2501 + 1.805T i, set ) (1)

The enthalpy of supply or inlet air is given by the following:

subject to the following:

570 HVAC&R RESEARCH

PMV = PMV ref

Computation of Setpoints for Pc, Pe, and Nef

VOLUME 16, NUMBER 5, SEPTEMBER 2010 571

572 HVAC&R RESEARCH

The constrained optimization problem can be written as

subject to the following:

where ei is the ith row of E and fj is the jth row of F.

min [ t ( J ( x ss, o ss, d ss ) + o ss 2 ) + φ 1 ( x ss ) + φ 2 ( x ss, d ss ) ]

VOLUME 16, NUMBER 5, SEPTEMBER 2010 573

By choosing R sufficiently large, it can be assumed that

The Jacobian equation can be expressed as the following:

Algorithm for Finding Setpoints

574 HVAC&R RESEARCH

Table 1. Parameter Values

VOLUME 16, NUMBER 5, SEPTEMBER 2010 575

As it can be seen from the above expressions, very rough estimates of

576 HVAC&R RESEARCH

F = h i – h co + λ PMV – PMV ref

PART B: SECOND LAYER OF CONTROL

Dynamical Optimizing Control

VOLUME 16, NUMBER 5, SEPTEMBER 2010 577

The linearised system can be represented in state space form as

The output vector is given by

578 HVAC&R RESEARCH

The matrices AN, BN, and EN are given in Appendix C.

Output Feedback Controller

The system possesses a time-invariant asymptotically stable control law:

In terms of the original output, total control effort is

where Q and R are positive definite, real, symmetric, constant matrices.

0 = ( A – BKC ) T P + P ( A – BKC ) + C T K T RKC + Q (27)

VOLUME 16, NUMBER 5, SEPTEMBER 2010 579

0 = ( A – BKC )S + S ( A – BKC ) T + E { x ( 0 )x T ( 0 ) } (28)

K = R –1 B T PSC T ( CSC T ) – 1 (29)

u i, min ≤ u i ≤ u i, max i = 1, 2, …, m (31)

580 HVAC&R RESEARCH

u i, min ≤ maxg i x ≤ u i, max i = 1, 2, …, m

minx T Px = min ⎧ -------------------

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Ambient Inside Temperature/ Power Consumption,

*5A.M. 25.6 (78.1)/44 26.6 (79.9)/40 0.1/0.33 — — — — —

* During these ambient conditions, cooling is not required.