You are on page 1of 6

Distributed model predictive control based on Benders’ decomposition

applied to multisource multizone building temperature regulation
Petru-Daniel Moros¸an, Romain Bourdais, Didier Dumur, Jean Buisson
Abstract—This paper presents a distributed model predic-
tive control algorithm based on Benders’ decomposition for
temperature regulation in buildings. It is well known that
the main objective of this control problem is to minimize
the heating (cooling) energy bills while maintaining a certain
indoor thermal comfort. In order to reduce the energy costs,
many buildings are equipped with several heating sources with
different dynamics, gains and energy prices, an example is the
use of a hot water based central heating and local electric
convectors as a complementary heating source. Using a linear
system model of the controlled process, the MPC minimization
problem can be solved by linear programming. The Benders’
decomposition exploits a particular structure (block-angular) of
the constraint matrix and distributes the computational demand
among local controllers.
I. INTRODUCTION
Nowadays the optimization of the energy consumption is
a world target and it is no longer feasible to design a system
without considering it. Within the services and households
sector, the major energy consumer is the heating/cooling
system. Even if the new trends are to construct buildings
to accomplish new environmental standards, the problem
remains unsolved for buildings where thermal insulation
works are difficult to be implemented. A solution to reduce
the energy bills is the use of multiple heat sources. One
of the most common example is the use of a central gas
or oil heating system as the base heating source and local
electric convectors as complementary sources, in order to
take advantage of the lower price of the kWh of the fossil
fuels and in the mean time to use the faster dynamics of
the electrical heating systems to ensure good control per-
formances. To efficiently control these two types of heating
sources an optimal control law is required. This is the context
in which the presented work takes place.
Even if many studies were performed in order to optimize
the energy efficiency of heating systems, the controllers that
are mostly used today remain the on/off and PID. To ensure
a proper regulation, auto-tuning methods of PID parameters
have been proposed in [1]. Other approaches can be found
in the literature like fuzzy logic [2], neural networks [3] or
genetic algorithms [4]. To the author’s knowledge, studies
on control strategies for multiple heating sources are almost
inexistent.
Petru-Daniel Moros¸an, Romain Bourdais and Jean Buisson are
with IETR-SUPELEC, Avenue de la Boulaie - B.P. 81127, F-
35511 Cesson-S´ evign´ e Cedex, France {petru-daniel.morosan,
romain.bourdais, jean.buisson}@supelec.fr
Didier Dumur is with SUPELEC Systems Sciences (E3S), Au-
tomatic Control Department, 91190 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France
didier.dumur@supelec.fr
During the last two decades a growing interest has been
granted to model predictive control (MPC) due to its ability
to handle constraints in an optimal control environment. In
MPC, the control input is calculated by solving an optimal
control problem (minimization of a cost function) over a
given horizon. Only the first element of the open-loop
command sequence is applied to the system. At the next
instant, a new optimization is performed based on current
measurements. The predictive control has been successfully
used in many and varied applications [5], [6]. In particular,
for heating and cooling systems, different formulations of
cost functions and constraints have been analyzed in [7] to
minimize the consumption or to guarantee a desired comfort
level. A stochastic predictive control approach is proposed
in [8] handling with chance constraints.
Especially in the case of multiple heating sources, the
optimization objective should be the minimization of the
price paid for the indoor heating to favor the cheapest heating
source. The anticipative effect of the predictive control can
be efficiently used when the future reference profile is
known. Most of the rooms/offices have an intermittent use
(composed of occupation and inoccupation periods), which
in most cases can be well known in advance. Defining
the thermal comfort as optimization constraints implies that
they will have a dynamical evolution due to the fact that
the comfort should be defined only during the occupation
periods. When dealing with relatively slow dynamics, as
thermal systems, the anticipative effect of the MPC can
be a main advantage over the common controllers, because
knowing the occupation periods in advance it allows to turn
on the heating system at the optimal moment (which can vary
between some minutes and several hours before the start of
the occupation period) in order to accomplish the comfort
constraints from the beginning of the occupation period.
A fully centralized MPC for large-scale systems (build-
ings with many rooms) is often undesirable and difficult
to implement. The dimension of the optimization problem
grows with the number of subsystems composing the global
process and for a large number of subsystems (rooms), the
computational demand explodes. Another drawback of the
centralized strategies is their poor flexibility and reliability.
Alternatively, large-scale control problems can be solved
by several controllers which take care of the local control
parameters. In order to improve their control performances,
the local controllers communicate over so-called negotiation
iterations, leading to a distributed control strategy. In this
paper we propose a distributed MPC architecture, based on
Benders’ decomposition technique, controlling a central heat-
ing system and several local heating sources in a multizone
building.
The paper is organized as follows. Section II introduces
the control model and formulates the MPC optimization
problem, including the energy prices, the occupation profile
and the temperature comfort bounds. In Section III, we
present the Benders’ decomposition used to obtain a dis-
tributed predictive control strategy, synthesized in an iterative
algorithm. The efficiency of the method is illustrated by
simulation results is Section IV. Conclusions and future
directions are proposed in Section V.
II. PROBLEM FORMULATION
The anticipative effect of MPC consists in using a model
of the process in order to predict its behavior during a finite
horizon. A linear discrete time state space representation of
a zone model i ∈ S = {1, 2, ..., s} can be stated as:
_
_
_
xxx
i
(k + 1) = AAA
i
xxx
i
(k) +
_
BBB
i1
BBB
i2
¸
·
_
u
i
(k)
u
c
(k)
_
y
i
(k) = CCC
i
xxx
i
(k)
(1)
where the vector xxx
i
∈ R
n
i
is the local state, u
i
, u
c
, y
i
∈ R
are the local and the shared input (electrical heating power
and power input of the boiler) and the output (measured
room temperature), respectively. Using the model (1), we
can write the prediction equation for a control horizon N
u
and a prediction horizon N
2
as:
ˆ yyy
i
(k) =
_
ˆ y
i
(k + 1|k) · · · ˆ y
i
(k + N
2
|k)
¸
T
= ΨΨΨ
i
xxx
i
(k) +ΦΦΦ
i1
uuu
i
(k) +ΦΦΦ
i2
uuu
c
(k),
(2)
where the matrices ΨΨΨ
i
, ΦΦΦ
i1
and ΦΦΦ
i2
are defined in Appendix.
The control objective is to minimize the energy bill due
to the indoor heating, which is usually a linear function
of the consumed energy (our control inputs). The thermal
comfort (defined here by an upper w
i
(k + j) and a lower
w
i
(k+j) temperature bounds) and the physical limitations of
the process are the constraints of our optimization problem.
As mentioned before, the thermal comfort should be defined
only during the occupation periods (see Fig. 1). So denote
δδδ
i
(k) =
_
δ
i
(k + 1) · · · δ
i
(k + N
2
)
¸
T
as the future oc-
cupation profile over the prediction horizon for the room i.
Intuitively, each element of this vector is defined as:
δ
i
(k + j) =
_
1, k + j ∈ Occupation
i
0, k + j ∈ Inoccupation
i
.
(3)
Now we are able to formulate the linear programming
problem corresponding to our control objectives as:
min
uuu
c
(k),uuu
i
(k),∀i∈S
J(k) =

i∈S
ccc
T
i
(k)uuu
i
(k) +ccc
T
c
(k)uuu
c
(k) (4)
subject to
µ
low
i
(k + j) = δ
i
(k + j)(w
i
(k + j) − ˆ y
i
(k + j|k)) ≤ 0
µ
up
i
(k + j) = δ
i
(k + j)(ˆ y
i
(k + j|k) −w
i
(k + j)) ≤ 0
∀i ∈ S, ∀j = 1..N
2
(5)
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
(
δ
i
)
T
e
m
p
.
[
o
C
]
Time
Time
k
N
2
15
20
22.5
1
0
w
i
w
i
ˆ y
i
y
i
Fig. 1. Occupation profile illustration
0 ≤ uuu
i
≤ uuu
i
(k) ≤ uuu
i
, ∀i ∈ S (6)
0 ≤ uuu
c
≤ uuu
c
(k) ≤ uuu
c
, (7)
with
uuu
i
(k) =
_
u
i
(k) · · · u
i
(k + N
u
−1)
¸
T
, (8)
uuu
c
(k) =
_
u
c
(k) · · · u
c
(k + N
u
−1)
¸
T
, (9)
ccc
i
(k) = [ c
i
(k) ··· c
i
(k+N
u
−2)

N
2
−1
j=N
u
−1
c
i
(k+j) ]
T
, (10)
ccc
c
(k) = [ c
c
(k) ··· c
c
(k+N
u
−2)

N
2
−1
j=N
u
−1
c
c
(k+j) ]
T
. (11)
where c
i
(k) and c
c
(k) are the prices for local and shared
inputs, respectively, at time step k. The sum of the last
element of the cost sequences is due to the fact that the
control input is considered constant out of the control horizon
and equal to the value corresponding to the time step k +
N
u
−1.
According to (3), the comfort constraints (5) are activated
only during the occupation periods of the zones, allowing to
reduce the energy consumption without affecting the comfort
of the occupants. Replacing (2) in (5) and rewriting in a
compact form we obtain
∆∆∆
i
(ΦΦΦ
i1
uuu
i
(k) +ΦΦΦ
i2
uuu
c
(k)) ≥ ∆∆∆
i
(www
i
(k) −ΨΨΨ
i
xxx
i
(k)) ,
∆∆∆
i
(ΦΦΦ
i1
uuu
i
(k) +ΦΦΦ
i2
uuu
c
(k)) ≤ ∆∆∆
i
(www
i
(k) −ΨΨΨ
i
xxx
i
(k)) ,
(12)
where matrix ∆∆∆
i
is obtained by eliminating the zero lines of
the matrix ∆∆∆

i
= diag(δδδ
i
(k)).
A. Relaxing the comfort constraints
In the linear programming problem (4-7) the thermal
comfort is considered as hard constraints. If, at a certain time
step, one of these constraints cannot be satisfied the global
optimization problem becomes unfeasible. In practice, to
avoid this issue the comfort constraints are softened, adding
a penalty to the cost criterion if they are not satisfied. The
minimization problem is:
min
uuu
c
(k),uuu
i
(k),∀i∈S
J
f
(k) = J(k) +

i∈S
N
2

j=1
f
i
(k + j) (13)
subject to (6) and (7), where the comfort penalty function f
i
is defined as:
f
i
(k + j) =
_
¸
_
¸
_
0, µ
up
i
(k + j) ≤ 0 and µ
low
i
(k + j) ≤ 0
λ
i
µ
up
i
(k + j), µ
up
i
(k + j) > 0
λ
i
µ
low
i
(k + j), µ
low
i
(k + j) > 0.
(14)
The always feasible linear programming problem (13)
subject to (6) and (7) can be written in a standard form,
dropping k for the simplicity of notations, as:
min
uuu

c
,uuu

i
,∀i∈S
ccc
′T
c
uuu

c
+ ccc
′T
1
uuu

1
· · · + ccc
′T
s
uuu

s
subject to DDDuuu

c
= ggg
EEE
1
uuu

c
+ FFF
1
uuu

1
= hhh
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
EEE
s
uuu

c
+ FFF
s
uuu

s
= hhh
s
uuu

c
, uuu

1
· · · , uuu

s
≥ 000
(15)
where the matrices and the vectors composing this formula-
tion are defined in Appendix. The optimization variables uuu

c
and uuu

i
are obtained by adding the required number of slack
variables to the uuu
c
and uuu
i
, respectively. One of the most com-
mon solver for linear programming problems is the Simplex
algorithm. To distribute the computational demand among
local controllers, we will use the special block structure of
the constraint matrix. This block-angular structure can be
efficiently exploited by the Benders’ decomposition, which
will be detailed in the next section.
III. BENDERS’ DECOMPOSITION
Bender’s decomposition, also known as the dual of
Dantzig-Wolfe decomposition [9], uses the block-angular
structure of the constraint matrix in order to parallelize the
computation of a linear optimization problem. This decom-
position method splits a single large-scale linear program-
ming problem into several independent problems which are
coordinated by a single master problem (MP). The optimal
solution of the original large-scale problem can be shown to
be identical to the solution obtained after a finite number of
iterations, solving sequentially the MP and the subproblems
[10].
Even if any linear programming problem can be solved
applying this decomposition technique, the method is re-
commended for structured linear programs. Consider a linear
optimization problem having a block-angular constraint ma-
trix structure in a standard form (15). Optimization variable
uuu

c
, also called complicating variable, prevents obtaining the
optimal solution by solving each subproblem independently.
But, for a fixed value of this complicating variable, we
know that solving independently the subproblems leads to the
global optimum. This is the main idea of this decomposition,
where at each iteration l the master problem optimal solution
uuu
′l
c
tends to the optimal value uuu
′∗
c
. In order to write explicitly
the master problem and the subproblems, we will firstly
rewrite the original linear programming problem (15) as:
min
uuu

c
ccc
′T
c
uuu

c
+
s

i=1
z
i
(uuu

c
)
subject to DDDuuu

c
= ggg
uuu

c
≥ 000,
(16)
where
z
i
(uuu

c
) = min
uuu

i
ccc
′T
i
uuu

i
subject to FFF
i
uuu

i
= hhh
i
−EEE
1
uuu

c
uuu

i
≥ 000
, i ∈ S. (17)
We call (17) the subproblem i, once the complicating variable
uuu

c
has been chosen. Applying the duality, z
i
(uuu

c
) can also
be computed through the dual of (17), defined as:
z
i
(uuu

c
) = max
ppp
i
ppp
T
i
(hhh
i
−EEE
i
uuu

c
)
subject to FFF
T
i
ppp
i
≤ ccc

i
, i ∈ S. (18)
The reason of using the dual subproblem is that the
polyhedron D
i
=
_
ppp
i
| FFF
T
i
ppp
i
≤ ccc

i
_
that defines the feasible
region of (18) is independent of uuu

c
. D
i
can also be defined
(via the theorem of convex combination) by a finite number
of extreme points ppp
1
i
, ..., ppp
I
i
i
and a finite number of extreme
rays rrr
1
i
, ..., rrr
J
i
i
. The solution of (18) is an extreme point
if the dual problem is feasible and bounded or an extreme
ray if the dual is unbounded. The dual problem (18) cannot
be unfeasible, because it should imply that the primal is
unbounded, which is false by its definition. On the other
hand, using the relaxed comfort constraints, none of the
primal subproblems can be unfeasible. Consequently, using
an algorithm to solve exactly the dual subproblems (18), it
will return one of the extreme points, ppp
i
, of the feasible
region D
i
and the subproblem objective function will be:
z
i
(uuu

c
) = ppp
T
i
(hhh
i
−EEE
i
uuu

c
) = max
k=1,...,I
i
(ppp
k
i
)
T
(hhh
i
−EEE
i
uuu

c
). (19)
Now we are able to write the MP at iteration l, knowing the
solutions of all dual subproblems at every previous iteration
l
p
< l:
min
uuu

c
,z
ccc
′T
c
uuu

c
+ z
s.t. DDDuuu

c
= ggg
uuu

c
≥ 000
z ≥ 0
s

i=1
(ppp
l
p
i
)
T
EEE
i
uuu

c
+ z ≥
s

i=1
(ppp
l
p
i
)
T
hhh
i
, ∀l
p
= 1..l −1.
(20)
The Algorithm 1 that solves the original problem (15)
using the Benders’ decomposition is iterative. Each iteration
will have two main steps, consisting of solving the master
problem and then solving (in parallel) the subproblems using
the current value of the complicating variable. We add the
new constraint to the master problem (also called Benders
cut) and a new iteration can begin. Note that over the
iterations, the dimension of subproblems is constant while
the constraint matrix of MP increases after each iteration.
The algorithm reaches the optimal solution of (15) when
z
l
=

s
i=1
z
l
i
. In practice at each iteration l an upper and a
lower bound of the optimum is computed:
V AL
l
up
= ccc
′T
c
uuu
′l
c
+
s

i=1
ccc
′T
i
uuu
′l
i
, (21)
V AL
l
low
= ccc
′T
c
uuu
′l
c
+ z
l
, (22)
and the stop condition of the iterative algorithm will be
V AL
l
up
−V AL
l
low
< ǫ.
Algorithm 1 Distributed MPC version for multi-source
heating system based on Benders’ decomposition
Require: Global problem formulation (15), ǫ, xxx
i
, ∀i ∈ S
Ensure: Optimum control input sequences uuu
′∗
c
and uuu
′∗
i
, i ∈
S
1: Initialization: l = 1
2: Solve the master problem (20), obtaining uuu
′l
c
and z
l
3: Send uuu
′l
c
to all local controllers MPC
i
4: Solve (in parallel) the subproblems (in both primal (17)
and dual (18) forms), obtaining uuu
l
i
and ppp
l
i
5: Compute the current upper and lower bounds (21) and
(22)
6: if V AL
l
up
−V AL
l
low
≤ ǫ then
7: uuu
′∗
c
= uuu
′l
c
and uuu
′∗
i
= uuu
′l
i
, ∀i ∈ S, Stop
8: else
9: Update the constraints of the master problem (by
adding the new Benders cut)
10: Update current iteration l = l + 1 and Goto step 2
11: end if
The resulting control scheme has the structure presented in
figure 2. The central controller, MPC
c
, acts like a coordinator
for the local controllers, MPC
i
. It also tests the stop condition
of the algorithm after every iteration. The local predictive
controllers solve their subproblems once they have received
from the master the current value of the complicating vari-
able. If the algorithm does not offer a solution within a
sample time, the last iteration solution can be applied to the
system, as it is always feasible.
u
c
u
2
xxx
1
MPC
c
MPC
1
MPC
2
MPC
s
u
s
u
1
xxx
2
xxx
s
Fig. 2. Distributed MPC scheme using Benders’ decomposition
IV. SIMULATION RESULTS
A. Empirical study of efficiency
Since the distributed algorithm was implemented on a
sequential machine, the computational time required by the
decomposition algorithm to solve a linear programming
problem is:
t
seq
=
l

l=1
_
_
t
MPC
c
(l) +

j∈S
t
MPC
j
(l)
_
_
, (23)
where l is the number of Benders iterations needed to
solve the problem, t
MPC
c
(l) is the time required by the
central MPC to solve the master problem at iteration l, while
t
MPC
j
(l) is the computational time to solve the subproblem
j. The computational time using a distributed computing
environment, ignoring the communication time required at
each iteration, can be expressed as:
t
distr
=
l

l=1
_
t
MPC
c
(l) + max
j∈S
t
MPC
j
(l)
_
. (24)
In order to study the complexity of the distributed algo-
rithm compared to the centralized solver, we will use a very
simple thermal model of a room and supposing (without loss
of generality) that all the subsystems have the same model.
The values of the model (1) matrices are:
AAA
i
= [
0.9921 0
0 0.9931
] , BBB
i
= [
0.2595 0
0 0.1376
] , CCC
T
i
= [
1
1
] .
The efficiency of the distributed algorithm will be mea-
sured regarding the equivalent distributed computational time
and the number of iterations l. The main parameters of the
algorithm are: the number of subproblems (subsystems) s,
the dimension of the subproblems d
i
= (N
u
+ 2N
i
o
) ×
(2N
u
+ 4N
i
o
), where N
i
o
∈ {0, 1, ..., N
2
} is the number of
occupation time steps within the prediction period (i.e. the
number of lines of ∆∆∆
i
) and the tolerance ǫ. The dimension
of the prediction horizon N
2
should be chosen sufficiently
large in order to offer enough time to the heating system to
increase the indoor temperature up to the desired setpoint in
the worst situation (low initial temperatures). In the results
presented below, we fixed N
2
= 30. For the three scenarios
presented below we considered five different cases (in each
case we changed the initial state of the subsystems) for
each value of the variable parameter, in order to have more
consistent statistical results.
1) Scenario 1: s ∈ {2
1
, 2
2
, ..., 2
7
}, N
u
= 5, N
i
o
= 15,
ǫ = 10
−3
. Fig. 3 shows a very good scaling behavior
of the algorithm in a distributed computing environment,
regarding the number of subproblems. In the mean time,
for a small number of subsystems the centralized (Simplex)
method offers better performances. Concerning the number
of iterations, we observe a logarithmic dependence of l on s.
This fact shows a good convergence speed of the algorithm
and its slight dependence on the number of subproblems.
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
−2
10
0
10
2
10
4
s
T
i
m
e

[
s
]


t
centr
t
distr
10
0
10
1
10
2
0
5
10
15
20
s
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

i
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
Fig. 3. The influence of the number of subsystems, s
2) Scenario 2: s = 50, N
u
∈ {1, 5, 10, ..., 30}, N
i
o

{1, 5, 10, ..., 30}, ǫ = 10
−3
. Here we study the algorithm
performances with respect to the subproblem sizes, d
i
. The
control horizon dimension, N
u
, is a tuning parameter, while
N
i
o
depends on the occupation profiles. As Fig. 4 shows, N
i
o
has a more important influence over the computational time
than N
u
, which is normal as N
i
o
has a greater weight on the
dimension of the subproblem.
1 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
50
100
150
N
u
(N
o
i
=15) / N
o
i
(N
u
=15)
T
i
m
e

[
s
]


t
centr
(N
o
i
=const)
t
distr
(N
o
i
=const)
t
centr
(N
u
=const)
t
distr
(N
u
=const)
1 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
50
100
150
N
u
(N
o
i
=15) / N
o
i
(N
u
=15)
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

i
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s


N
o
i
=const
N
u
=const
Fig. 4. The influence of the control horizon, N
u
, and of the occupation
time steps, N
i
o
3) Scenario 3: s = 50, N
u
= 10, N
i
o
= 15, ǫ ∈
{10
−6
, 10
−5
, ..., 10
−1
}. Fig. 5 shows that the tolerance ǫ
influences very slightly the computational demand of the
distributed algorithm. The number of Benders iterations has
a logarithmic dependence on the tolerance which shows the
exponential convergence of the method.
B. Simulation study
This second part of the experimental results will focus
on testing the proposed algorithm on a virtual building com-
posed of three rooms, as shown in Fig. 6, in order to compare
10
−6
10
−5
10
−4
10
−3
10
−2
10
−1
0
10
20
30
40
ε
T
i
m
e

[
s
]


t
centr
t
distr
10
−6
10
−5
10
−4
10
−3
10
−2
10
−1
10
15
20
25
ε
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

i
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
Fig. 5. The influence of the stop condition tolerance, ǫ
the performances of the proposed control strategy with the
commonly used PI controllers. The simulation of the thermal
building behavior was made using the MATLAB toolbox
called SIMBAD. All the rooms of the simulated building
have the same surface (12m
2
) and are heated by a hot
water-based underfloor heating system and local independent
convectors of 1200W maximal power. Each room has a
double glazed window of 2m2 surface on the larger external
wall of each zone. The external wall sandwich consists of
1cm of gypsum, 8cm of extruded polystyrene and 20cm of
concrete. The internal wall is 7.2cm thick of gypsum board.
The simulator supposes a well mixed indoor air.
The control inputs of the system are the electrical power
of the local convectors and the water temperature increment
(the difference between the water temperature which enters
the boiler and the outlet water temperature). Here we suppose
that the boiler is controlled by a fast regulator which receives
∆T as reference. This inner control loop is considered in
steady state in our simulations. The water transport delay
is not considered, being negligible compared to the system
time step T
s
= 600s. Neglecting the heat loss through the
hydraulic system and considering the efficiency of the boiler
η = 0.9 we can express the central and local costs in terms
of electrical c
e
and gas/oil c
g
prices in kWh as:
c
i
(k + j) = c
e
(k + j)
T
s
3600 · 1000
,
c
c
(k + j) = c
g
(k + j)
T
s
3600 · 1000η
C
pw
ρ
w
q
w
,
(25)
where C
pw
, ρ
w
and q
w
are the specific heat, the density
and the mass flow of the water through the boiler. Table
I compares the heating energy costs for a single day. The
weather conditions are those measured at Rennes on the
1
st
January 1998. The occupation profile and the thermal
comfort bounds are those shown in Fig. 7. The electricity
price considered is c
e
= 0.0742 e/kWh, while the gas
price is c
e
= 0.063 e/kWh. Note that, for the three control
strategies compared, the thermal comfort is similar.
TABLE I
HEATING COST COMPARISON
Control law Cost [e]
dMPC with Benders decomposition 6.35
local PI for convectors and open loop control for ∆T
1
7.84
local MPC for convectors and ∆T = 0 8.80
u
3
u
1
u
2
Zone1 Zone2
Zone3
y
1
y
2
y
3
6m
2m
4m
∆T
Fig. 6. Configuration of the virtual building
V. CONCLUSION
A distributed model predictive control strategy has been
proposed for multisource multizone building temperature
regulation. In order to reduce the heating energy bill, the
MPC criterion minimizes the heating energy cost, subjected
to the comfort constraints and physical limitations of the
system, resulting in a linear programming problem. The cen-
tralized computational demand of the optimization problem
grows exponentially with the number of subsystems (rooms).
Then, for large-scale buildings, we proposed a distributed
control strategy based on Benders’ decomposition, which
allows the decrease of the computational demand by using
a network of local controllers, coordinated by a master
controller.
Future work will focus on the adaptation of the Benders’
decomposition algorithm in order to handle coupling sub-
systems (considering the thermal coupling between adjacent
rooms in the control model). In this case the global constraint
matrix will not have anymore a block-angular structure.
VI. APPENDIX
ccc
′T
i
= [ ccc
T
i
000
1,N
u
000
1,N
2
000
1,N
2
λ
i
111
1,N
2
λ
i
111
1,N
2
] ,
1
The open loop control of ∆T have the following behavior: ∆T(k) = 2,
for k ∈ [t
o
−5h, t
o
] and ∆T(k) = 0, otherwise. t
o
is the moment
when the first room is occupied. An anticipation of 3h is used also for
the PI reference. Note that this type of control strategy is currently used at
SUPELEC in Rennes.
3 5 8 9 10 14 17 18 19 24
16
18
20
22
Time [h]
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

[ o
C
]


y
1
y
2
y
3
3 5 8 9 10 14 17 18 19 24
0
0.5
1
Time [h]
P
o
w
e
r

[
x
1
2
0
0
W
]


u
1
u
2
u
3
3 5 8 9 10 14 17 18 19 24
0
2
4
Time [h]


T

[
o
C
]
Fig. 7. A one day simulation for the three zones building using the
distributed MPC based on Benders’ decomposition (N
u
= 20, N
2
= 30,
T
s
= 600s)
ccc
′T
c
= [ ccc
T
c
000
1,N
u
] , DDD = [
III
N
u
,N
u
III
N
u
,N
u
] , ggg = [ uuu
c ] ,
Φ
ij
=
_
¸
¸
_
φ
0
ij
0 ··· 0
φ
1
ij
φ
0
ij
0 ···
.
.
. ···
.
.
.
.
.
.
φ
N
2
−1
ij
··· φ
N
2
−N
u
+1
ij

N
2
−N
u
k=0
φ
k
ij
_
¸
¸
_
,
φ
k
ij
= C
i
A
k
i
B
ij
, Ψ
i
= [ (C
i
A
1
i
)
T
··· (C
i
A
N
2
i
)
T
]
T
,
EEE
i
=
_
000
N
u
,N
u
000
N
u
,N
u
−∆∆∆
i
ΦΦΦ
i2
000
N
2
,N
u
∆∆∆
i
ΦΦΦ
i2
000
N
2
,N
u
_
, hhh
i
=
_
uuu
c
−∆∆∆
i(www
i
−ΨΨΨ
i
xxx
i)
∆∆∆
i
(www
i
−ΨΨΨ
i
xxx
i
)
_
,
FFF
i
=
_
III
N
u
,N
u
III
N
u
,N
u
000
N
u
,N
2
000
N
u
,N
2
000
N
u
,N
2
000
N
u
,N
2
−∆∆∆
i
ΦΦΦ
i1
000
N
2
,N
u
III
N
2
,N
2
000
N
2
,N
2
−III
N
2
,N
2
000
N
2
,N
2
∆∆∆
i
ΦΦΦ
i1
000
N
2
,N
u
000
N
2
,N
2
III
N
2
,N
2
000
N
2
,N
2
−III
N
2
,N
2
_
.
REFERENCES
[1] C. G. Nesler, “Adaptive control of thermal processes in buildings,”
IEEE Control Systems Magazine, pp. 9–13, 1986.
[2] M. Hamdi and G. Lachiver, “A fuzzy control system based on the
human sensation of thermal comfort,” IEEE International Conference
on Fuzzy Systems, pp. 487–492, 1998.
[3] J. Liang and R. Du, “Design of intelligent comfort control system
with human learning and minimum power control strategies,” Energy
Conversion and Management, no. 48, pp. 517–528, 2008.
[4] N. Nassif, S. Kajl, and R. Sabourin, “Optimization of HVAC control
system strategy using two-objective genetic algorithm,” HVAC&R
Research, no. 3, pp. 459–486, 2005.
[5] M. Morari and J. Lee, “Model predictive control: past, present and
future,” Computers and Chemical Engineering, vol. 23, pp. 667–682,
1999.
[6] E. F. Camacho and C. Bordons, Model Predictive Control. Springer,
2004.
[7] R. Z. Freire, G. H. Oliveira, and N. Mendes, “Predictive controllers
for thermal comfort optimization and energy savings,” Energy and
Buildings, no. 40, pp. 1353–1365, 2008.
[8] F. Oldewurtel, C. Jones, and M. Morari, “A tractable approximation
of chance constrained stochastic MPC based on affine disturbance
feedback,” in Conference on Decision and Control, CDC, dec 2008.
[9] G. B. Dantzig and P. Wolfe, “Decomposition principle for linear
programs,” Operation Research, no. 8, pp. 101–111, 1960.
[10] J. F. Benders, “Partitioning procedures for solving mixed-variables
programming problems,” Numerische Mathematik, vol. 4, pp. 238–
252, 1962.

If. respectively. k + j ∈ Inoccupationi . one of these constraints cannot be satisfied the global optimization problem becomes unfeasible. 1. allowing to reduce the energy consumption without affecting the comfort of the occupants. The minimization problem is: N2 u u c (k). So denote T δ i (k) = δi (k + 1) · · · δi (k + N2 ) as the future occupation profile over the prediction horizon for the room i. According to (3). (8) (9) (10) (11) where the vector x i ∈ Rni is the local state. . [o C] 22. (3) where ci (k) and cc (k) are the prices for local and shared inputs.∀i∈S min J(k) = i∈S T u u c T (k)u i (k) + c c (k)u c (k) (4) i subject to µlow (k + j) = δi (k + j)(wi (k + j) − yi (k + j|k)) ≤ 0 ˆ i up µi (k + j) = δi (k + j)(ˆi (k + j|k) − wi (k + j)) ≤ 0 y ∀i ∈ S.ing system and several local heating sources in a multizone building. synthesized in an iterative algorithm. The sum of the last element of the cost sequences is due to the fact that the control input is considered constant out of the control horizon and equal to the value corresponding to the time step k + Nu − 1. The paper is organized as follows. the comfort constraints (5) are activated only during the occupation periods of the zones. wi wi yi ˆ Time N2 Time Occupation profile illustration 0 ≤ u i ≤ u i (k) ≤ u i . A linear discrete time state space representation of a zone model i ∈ S = {1. ui . uc . the thermal comfort should be defined only during the occupation periods (see Fig. (12) w Φ ∆ i (Φ i1u i (k) + Φ i2u c (k)) ≤ ∆ i (w i (k) − Ψ ix i (k)) . 1). II. i A. at time step k.u i (k). In practice.u i (k). with u i (k) = ui (k) u c (k) = uc (k) c i (k) = [ ci (k) ··· c c (k) = [ cc (k) ··· ··· ··· ui (k + Nu − 1) uc (k + Nu − 1) N2 −1 j=Nu −1 (6) (7) T . we can write the prediction equation for a control horizon Nu and a prediction horizon N2 as: ˆ ˆ ˆ y i (k) = yi (k + 1|k) · · · yi (k + N2 |k) Ψixi (k) + Φi1ui (k) + Φi2uc (k). The thermal comfort (defined here by an upper wi (k + j) and a lower wi (k+j) temperature bounds) and the physical limitations of the process are the constraints of our optimization problem. where matrix ∆ i is obtained by eliminating the zero lines of δ the matrix ∆ ′ = diag(δ i (k)). k + j ∈ Occupationi 0. The control objective is to minimize the energy bill due to the indoor heating. s} can be stated as:  ui (k)  x (k + 1) = A x (k) + B i1 B i2 · i i i uc (k) (1)  yi (k) = C ix i (k) Occupation (δi ) Temp. ∀i ∈ S 0 ≤ u c ≤ u c (k) ≤ u c . In Section III. Φ i1 and Φ i2 are defined in Appendix. each element of this vector is defined as: δi (k + j) = 1.N2 (5) min Jf (k) = J(k) + i∈S j=1 fi (k + j) (13) .. ... the occupation profile and the temperature comfort bounds. P ROBLEM FORMULATION The anticipative effect of MPC consists in using a model of the process in order to predict its behavior during a finite horizon.∀i∈S Now we are able to formulate the linear programming problem corresponding to our control objectives as: u u c (k). including the energy prices. adding a penalty to the cost criterion if they are not satisfied. at a certain time step. 2. Using the model (1). . Replacing (2) in (5) and rewriting in a compact form we obtain Φ w ∆ i (Φ i1u i (k) + Φ i2u c (k)) ≥ ∆ i (w i (k) − Ψ ix i (k)) . ∀j = 1. we present the Benders’ decomposition used to obtain a distributed predictive control strategy. Conclusions and future directions are proposed in Section V. .5 20 yi 15 1 0 k Fig. Section II introduces the control model and formulates the MPC optimization problem. Relaxing the comfort constraints In the linear programming problem (4-7) the thermal comfort is considered as hard constraints. which is usually a linear function of the consumed energy (our control inputs).. = T T ci (k+Nu −2) cc (k+Nu −2) ci (k+j) ] T N2 −1 j=Nu −1 T cc (k+j) ] (2) where the matrices Ψ i . As mentioned before. The efficiency of the method is illustrated by simulation results is Section IV. Intuitively. respectively. to avoid this issue the comfort constraints are softened. yi ∈ R are the local and the shared input (electrical heating power and power input of the boiler) and the output (measured room temperature).

also called complicating variable. also known as the dual of Dantzig-Wolfe decomposition [9]. using an algorithm to solve exactly the dual subproblems (18). B ENDERS ’ DECOMPOSITION Bender’s decomposition..... We call (17) the subproblem i. . The optimal solution of the original large-scale problem can be shown to be identical to the solution obtained after a finite number of iterations..l − 1. the method is recommended for structured linear programs.. III. . We add the new constraint to the master problem (also called Benders cut) and a new iteration can begin. r Ji . This is the main idea of this decomposition. Consider a linear optimization problem having a block-angular constraint matrix structure in a standard form (15).. (18) The reason of using the dual subproblem is that the polyhedron Di = p i | F T p i ≤ c ′ that defines the feasible i i region of (18) is independent of u ′ . ∀lp = 1. zi (u ′ ) can also c be computed through the dual of (17). i ∈ S. (19) Now we are able to write the MP at iteration l. Even if any linear programming problem can be solved applying this decomposition technique. . Di can also be defined c (via the theorem of convex combination) by a finite number of extreme points p 1 . Applying the duality. Note that over the iterations. none of the primal subproblems can be unfeasible. knowing the solutions of all dual subproblems at every previous iteration lp < l: min c ′T u ′ + z c c ′ u c . where the comfort penalty function fi is defined as:  up  0. Consequently. the dimension of subproblems is constant while the constraint matrix of MP increases after each iteration. defined as: uc zi (u ′ ) = max p T (h i − E iu ′ ) i h c pi = hs ′ ··· ≥ 0 . consisting of solving the master problem and then solving (in parallel) the subproblems using the current value of the complicating variable. solving sequentially the MP and the subproblems [10]. The solution of (18) is an extreme point i i if the dual problem is feasible and bounded or an extreme ray if the dual is unbounded. prevents obtaining the c optimal solution by solving each subproblem independently. .∀i∈S c ui rewrite the original linear programming problem (15) as: s min c ′T u ′ + c c ′ uc i=1 uc zi (u ′ ) (16) subject to Du ′ = g c ′ uc ≥ 0. To distribute the computational demand among local controllers. . where at each iteration l the master problem optimal solution u ′l tends to the optimal value u ′∗ . E su ′ c u′ c + c ′T u ′ 1 1 + F 1u′ 1 ··· + c ′T u ′ s s = g = h1 . The dual problem (18) cannot be unfeasible.t. where uc zi (u ′ ) = min c ′T u ′ i i ′ ui subject to F iu ′ = h i − E 1u ′ . subject to F T p i ≤ c ′ i i . i=1 l p (p ip )T E iu ′ + z ≥ c i=1 l The Algorithm 1 that solves the original problem (15) using the Benders’ decomposition is iterative. . On the other hand. The optimization variables u ′ c and u ′ are obtained by adding the required number of slack i variables to the u c and u i .subject to (6) and (7). of the feasible region Di and the subproblem objective function will be: uc E c zi (u ′ ) = p T (h i −E iu ′ ) = i h k=1. Optimization variable u ′ . i ∈ S. c i u′ ≥ 0 i (17) c ′T u ′ c c subject to Du′ c E 1u′ c . it will return one of the extreme points. Du ′ = g c u′ ≥ 0 c z≥0 s s (20) p (p ip )T h i . F su ′ s u′ s . One of the most common solver for linear programming problems is the Simplex algorithm.. which is false by its definition. p Ii and a finite number of extreme i i rays r 1 . we will use the special block structure of the constraint matrix. This decomposition method splits a single large-scale linear programming problem into several independent problems which are coordinated by a single master problem (MP). Each iteration will have two main steps. which will be detailed in the next section.. because it should imply that the primal is unbounded. we know that solving independently the subproblems leads to the global optimum. In order to write explicitly c c the master problem and the subproblems. once the complicating variable uc u ′ has been chosen. . µup (k + j) > 0 i i   λi µlow (k + j). This block-angular structure can be efficiently exploited by the Benders’ decomposition. for a fixed value of this complicating variable. p i . dropping k for the simplicity of notations.z s. µlow (k + j) > 0. we will firstly . uses the block-angular structure of the constraint matrix in order to parallelize the computation of a linear optimization problem.u ′ . using the relaxed comfort constraints. respectively. i i (14) The always feasible linear programming problem (13) subject to (6) and (7) can be written in a standard form. But. u1 (15) where the matrices and the vectors composing this formulation are defined in Appendix. + . µi (k + j) ≤ 0 and µlow (k + j) ≤ 0 i  fi (k + j) = λi µup (k + j). as: min u ′ ...Ii pi h E c max (p k )T (h i −E iu ′ )..

This fact shows a good convergence speed of the algorithm and its slight dependence on the number of subproblems. j∈S (24) In order to study the complexity of the distributed algorithm compared to the centralized solver. The values of the model (1) matrices are: 0 0 A i = [ 0.. we observe a logarithmic dependence of l on s. It also tests the stop condition of the algorithm after every iteration. Empirical study of efficiency Since the distributed algorithm was implemented on a sequential machine.9921 0. ∀i ∈ S. 1. i 0 0 1 MPC1 MPC2 MPCs uc u1 x1 u2 x2 us xs Fig. 3 shows a very good scaling behavior of the algorithm in a distributed computing environment. the computational time required by the decomposition algorithm to solve a linear programming problem is:   l V ALl = c ′T u ′l + up c c i=1 c ′T u ′l . . C T = [ 1 ] . 27 }. B i = [ 0.9931 ] .2595 0. ∀i ∈ S Ensure: Optimum control input sequences u ′∗ and u ′∗ . Nu = 5. MPCc . x i . The computational time using a distributed computing environment. . N2 } is the number of occupation time steps within the prediction period (i.. we will use a very simple thermal model of a room and supposing (without loss of generality) that all the subsystems have the same model. ignoring the communication time required at each iteration. regarding the number of subproblems. as it is always feasible. The local predictive controllers solve their subproblems once they have received from the master the current value of the complicating variable. Concerning the number of iterations.. obtaining u l and p l i i 5: Compute the current upper and lower bounds (21) and (22) 6: if V ALl − V ALl up low ≤ ǫ then 7: u ′∗ = u ′l and u ′∗ = u ′l . tM P Cc (l) is the time required by the central MPC to solve the master problem at iteration l. the last iteration solution can be applied to the system. In the mean time.e. (23) where l is the number of Benders iterations needed to solve the problem. MPCc tseq = l=1 tM P Cc (l) + j∈S tM P Cj (l) . where No ∈ {0.. If the algorithm does not offer a solution within a sample time.1376 ] . The central controller. we fixed N2 = 30. For the three scenarios presented below we considered five different cases (in each case we changed the initial state of the subsystems) for each value of the variable parameter. Fig. obtaining u ′l and z l c 3: Send u ′l to all local controllers MPCi c 4: Solve (in parallel) the subproblems (in both primal (17) and dual (18) forms). up low Algorithm 1 Distributed MPC version for multi-source heating system based on Benders’ decomposition Require: Global problem formulation (15). acts like a coordinator for the local controllers. the number of lines of ∆ i ) and the tolerance ǫ. i the dimension of the subproblems di = (Nu + 2No ) × i i (2Nu + 4No ). in order to have more consistent statistical results. The dimension of the prediction horizon N2 should be chosen sufficiently large in order to offer enough time to the heating system to increase the indoor temperature up to the desired setpoint in the worst situation (low initial temperatures). for a small number of subsystems the centralized (Simplex) method offers better performances. 22 . In practice at each iteration l an upper and a lower bound of the optimum is computed: s IV. ǫ. S IMULATION RESULTS A. i ∈ c i S 1: Initialization: l = 1 2: Solve the master problem (20).. Distributed MPC scheme using Benders’ decomposition The efficiency of the distributed algorithm will be measured regarding the equivalent distributed computational time and the number of iterations l. In the results presented below. MPCi . 2. i i (21) (22) V ALl = c ′T u ′l + z l . The main parameters of the algorithm are: the number of subproblems (subsystems) s. .. low c c and the stop condition of the iterative algorithm will be V ALl − V ALl < ǫ. i 1) Scenario 1: s ∈ {21 . Stop c c i i 8: else 9: Update the constraints of the master problem (by adding the new Benders cut) 10: Update current iteration l = l + 1 and Goto step 2 11: end if The resulting control scheme has the structure presented in figure 2. −3 ǫ = 10 . can be expressed as: l tdistr = l=1 tM P Cc (l) + max tM P Cj (l) .The algorithm reaches the optimal solution of (15) when s l z l = i=1 zi . No = 15. while tM P Cj (l) is the computational time to solve the subproblem j.

while i i No depends on the occupation profiles. being negligible compared to the system time step Ts = 600s. . is a tuning parameter. = 15. Nu . The number of Benders iterations has a logarithmic dependence on the tolerance which shows the exponential convergence of the method. Each room has a double glazed window of 2m2 surface on the larger external wall of each zone. ǫ i 2) Scenario 2: s = 50. Neglecting the heat loss through the hydraulic system and considering the efficiency of the boiler η = 0. 4 shows. 3600 · 1000 Ts Cpw ρw qw .9 we can express the central and local costs in terms of electrical ce and gas/oil cg prices in kWh as: Ts . while the gas price is ce = 0. for the three control strategies compared. 6. No (25) 3) Scenario 3: s = 50. No ∈ −3 {1. 10−5 . All the rooms of the simulated building have the same surface (12m2 ) and are heated by a hot water-based underfloor heating system and local independent convectors of 1200W maximal power. 7.0742 e/kWh. in order to compare i No where Cpw . The external wall sandwich consists of 1cm of gypsum. This inner control loop is considered in steady state in our simulations. 4.. The electricity price considered is ce = 0. Simulation study This second part of the experimental results will focus on testing the proposed algorithm on a virtual building composed of three rooms. The internal wall is 7. Nu ∈ {1. Nu . s Fig. . 3. The occupation profile and the thermal comfort bounds are those shown in Fig. Note that.. Table I compares the heating energy costs for a single day. and of the occupation i time steps. The influence of the number of subsystems. . The influence of the stop condition tolerance.2cm thick of gypsum board. The control inputs of the system are the electrical power of the local convectors and the water temperature increment (the difference between the water temperature which enters the boiler and the outlet water temperature). 5.. The water transport delay is not considered. No has a more important influence over the computational time i than Nu .. The simulator supposes a well mixed indoor air. the thermal comfort is similar. 10. Here we study the algorithm performances with respect to the subproblem sizes. di . which is normal as No has a greater weight on the dimension of the subproblem. ρw and qw are the specific heat. B. 8cm of extruded polystyrene and 20cm of concrete. cc (k + j) = cg (k + j) 3600 · 1000η ci (k + j) = ce (k + j) Fig. Nu = 10. . 10. ǫ = 10 . The weather conditions are those measured at Rennes on the 1st January 1998. 30}. 5. The influence of the control horizon. 150 tcentr (No=const) i Time [s] 100 50 0 t t t distr centr distr (N =const) (N =const) u i o (N =const) u 1 5 10 i 15 i 20 25 30 Nu (No=15) / No (Nu=15) Number of iterations 150 Ni =const o u 100 50 0 N =const 1 5 10 u i o 15 i o u 20 25 30 N (N =15) / N (N =15) the performances of the proposed control strategy with the commonly used PI controllers. 30}. Fig. as shown in Fig.. 5 shows that the tolerance ǫ influences very slightly the computational demand of the distributed algorithm. The simulation of the thermal building behavior was made using the MATLAB toolbox called SIMBAD. Here we suppose that the boiler is controlled by a fast regulator which receives ∆T as reference. As Fig. The control horizon dimension. the density and the mass flow of the water through the boiler. 10−1 }....063 e/kWh. 5.10 4 40 t centr tcentr tdistr Time [s] Time [s] 10 2 tdistr 30 20 10 10 0 10 −2 10 20 Number of iterations 15 10 5 0 10 1 10 2 0 −6 10 25 Number of iterations 10 −5 10 −4 s ε 10 −3 10 −2 10 −1 20 15 0 0 10 10 1 10 2 10 −6 10 10 −5 10 −4 s ε 10 −3 10 −2 10 −1 Fig.. ǫ ∈ {10−6 .

H.N2 I ∆ iΦ i1 0 N2 . ··· N −Nu +1 ··· φij2 . Sabourin.” Energy Conversion and Management. CDC.” IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems. pp.N2 0 Nu .Nu ∆ −∆ iΦ i2 0 N2 .N2 I ∆ −∆ iΦ i1 0 N2 .80 22 20 18 16 y1 y 2 y3 3 5 8 9 10 Time [h] 14 17 18 19 24 Power [x1200W] 1 0. 487–492. Oliveira.N2 λi1 1. Lee. [6] E. resulting in a linear programming problem.Nu I N2 . Du. [2] M. T . VI. 2005. .Nu 0 N2 .5 0 3 4 5 8 9 10 Time [h] 14 17 18 19 u u 1 y1 u1 Zone1 Zone2 u2 3 24 ∆ T [ C] 4m y2 u2 o 2 0 3 5 8 9 10 Time [h] 14 17 18 19 24 y3 u3 ∆T 6m Zone3 2m Fig. Nesler. 23.N2 0 Nu . Springer. . ].84 8. C. 459–486. pp. [10] J. 1962. In order to reduce the heating energy bill. 667–682.  ] . “Predictive controllers for thermal comfort optimization and energy savings.Nu 0 φ0 ij ··· 0 I Nu . Freire. . Ψi = [ (Ci A1 )T i ij i Ei = Fi = 0 Nu . In this case the global constraint matrix will not have anymore a block-angular structure. subjected to the comfort constraints and physical limitations of the system. and R. 1986. G. [9] G. 238– 252. . hi = uc Ψ ∆ −∆ i (w i −Ψ ix i ) w Ψ ∆ i (w i −Ψ ix i ) I Nu . 2004. Morari. Kajl. Z. F. S. coordinated by a master controller. 101–111. pp. 7. pp. Camacho and C. pp. 1353–1365. dec 2008.Nu  Φij =    φ0 ij φ1 ij 0 ··· φij2 N −1 .N2 R EFERENCES [1] C. Liang and R. “A tractable approximation of chance constrained stochastic MPC based on affine disturbance feedback. Hamdi and G. Wolfe. Note that this type of control strategy is currently used at SUPELEC in Rennes. no. vol.N2 φk = Ci Ak Bij . pp. Oldewurtel. N2 −Nu k=0 . the MPC criterion minimizes the heating energy cost.  φk ij ··· (Ci Ai N2 T )  .Nu 0 1. 3.Nu Fig.Nu 0 Nu . . pp.” Numerische Mathematik. 8. Lachiver. Jones. [4] N.” Operation Research. [8] F. 6. D = [ I Nu . C ONCLUSION A distributed model predictive control strategy has been proposed for multisource multizone building temperature regulation. Mendes. vol. “Decomposition principle for linear programs.35 7. The centralized computational demand of the optimization problem grows exponentially with the number of subsystems (rooms).” in Conference on Decision and Control. 517–528. A PPENDIX c ′T = [ c T i i 0 1. we proposed a distributed control strategy based on Benders’ decomposition. ] . N2 = 30. 48. 40. An anticipation of 3h is used also for the PI reference. A one day simulation for the three zones building using the distributed MPC based on Benders’ decomposition (Nu = 20. otherwise.N2 λi1 1. [5] M. 9–13. . to ] and ∆T (k) = 0. B. 2008. which allows the decrease of the computational demand by using a network of local controllers. “Model predictive control: past. 1999.N2 0 N2 . Dantzig and P. Morari and J. 1 The open loop control of ∆T have the following behavior: ∆T (k) = 2. for k ∈ [to − 5h. g = [ uc ] . no.Nu 0 Nu . Model Predictive Control. . “Optimization of HVAC control system strategy using two-objective genetic algorithm.N2 −I N2 . Nassif. 4. 2008. [3] J. Benders. pp. 1960. Bordons.N2 0 1. for large-scale buildings.” Energy and Buildings. G. “A fuzzy control system based on the human sensation of thermal comfort.N2 0 N2 . F. .N2 I N2 .N2 −I N2 .Temperature [oC] TABLE I H EATING COST COMPARISON Control law dMPC with Benders decomposition local PI for convectors and open loop control for ∆T 1 local MPC for convectors and ∆T = 0 Cost [e] 6. no.Nu I Nu . “Design of intelligent comfort control system with human learning and minimum power control strategies. Ts = 600s) c ′T = [ c T c c 0 1. and M. 1998. [7] R. no. to is the moment when the first room is occupied..Nu ] .Nu ∆ iΦ i2 0 N2 .N2 0 Nu . “Partitioning procedures for solving mixed-variables programming problems. “Adaptive control of thermal processes in buildings. Then.” Computers and Chemical Engineering. present and future.” IEEE Control Systems Magazine.N2 0 N2 . Future work will focus on the adaptation of the Benders’ decomposition algorithm in order to handle coupling subsystems (considering the thermal coupling between adjacent rooms in the control model). and N.” HVAC&R Research. Configuration of the virtual building V.