| Literature DB >> 30149631 |
Sohail Iqbal1, Safdar Abbas Khan2, Asad Waqar Malik3, Iftikhar Ahmad4, Nadeem Javaid5.
Abstract
Energy consumption in the residential sector is 25% of all the sectors. The advent of smart appliances and intelligent sensors have increased the realization of home energy management systems. Acquiring balance between energy consumption and user comfort is in the spotlight when the performance of the smart home is evaluated. Appliances of heating, ventilation and air conditioning constitute up to 64% of energy consumption in residential buildings. A number of research works have shown that fuzzy logic system integrated with other techniques is used with the main objective of energy consumption minimization. However, user comfort is often sacrificed in these techniques. In this paper, we have proposed a Fuzzy Inference System (FIS) that uses humidity as an additional input parameter in order to maintain the thermostat set-points according to user comfort. Additionally, we have used indoor room temperature variation as a feedback to proposed FIS in order to get the better energy consumption. As the number of rules increase, the task of defining them in FIS becomes time consuming and eventually increases the chance of manual errors. We have also proposed the automatic rule base generation using the combinatorial method. The proposed techniques are evaluated using Mamdani FIS and Sugeno FIS. The proposed method provides a flexible and energy efficient decision-making system that maintains the user thermal comfort with the help of intelligent sensors. The proposed FIS system requires less memory and low processing power along with the use of sensors, making it possible to be used in the IoT operating system e.g., RIOT. Simulation results validate that the proposed technique reduces energy consumption by 28%.Entities:
Keywords: demand-side management; fuzzy logic; home energy management system; time-of-use; user comfort
Year: 2018 PMID: 30149631 PMCID: PMC6164497 DOI: 10.3390/s18092802
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Nomenclature.
| Variables and Abbreviations | Description | Variables and Abbreviations | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| FIS | Fuzzy Inference System | HEMS | Home Energy Management System |
| HVAC | Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning | PAR | Peak-to-Average Ratio |
| PCT | Programmable Communicating Thermostat | ToU | Time of Use |
| Indoor temperature fuzzy input parameter | Outdoor temperature fuzzy input parameter | ||
| Occupancy fuzzy input parameter | Electricity rate fuzzy input parameter | ||
| Thermostat set point fuzzy input parameter | Relative humidity fuzzy input parameter |
Summary of the previous scheduling techniques and fuzzy logic system.
| Reference | Technique | The objective | A limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An efficient power scheduling scheme [ | Hybrid of Knapsack Problem (K-WDO) | Minimization of the appliance waiting time and electricity cost. | Thermal comfort is ignored. |
| Air-conditioning system for proactive power demand response [ | DSB and DFR | Cost and energy saving. | Use of synthetic dynamic prices and the system only works for offices. |
| The smart thermostat: using occupancy sensors [ | Hidden Markov Model for occupancy based scheduling | Improved energy conservation. | Thermal comfort is sacrificed. Simulations are limited to only one type of HVAC. |
| Occupancy behavior-based model predictive control [ | Occupancy based Model Predictive Control (MPC) | User comfort enhancement and energy consumption minimization. | High computational cost and increase the complexity of the system. |
| Hybrid Bacterial Foraging and Genetic Algorithm Optimization Techniques [ | Hybrid of BFA and GA | Reduction in cost and PAR. | Thermal comfort is neglected. Only one pricing scheme is considered. |
| Scheduling Appliances with GA, TLBO, FA, OSR and Their Hybrids [ | Hybrid of OSR with TLBO, FA, GA | Reduction in appliance waiting time, cost, PAR, and energy consumption. | Limited number of appliances. HVAC is not considered. |
| Dynamic demand response controller based on RTP [ | Dynamic Demand Response Controller (DDRC) | Energy consumption minimization | Narrow range of the temperature band is considered. User preference is ignored. |
| A fuzzy logic system for demand-side load management [ | Fuzzy logic rule based algorithm | Demand response participation. Minimization of the energy consumption. | User comfort is sacrificed. |
| An autonomous system via fuzzy logic [ | Autonomous thermostat with Fuzzy Logic System | Energy conservation | Region-specific study. Only Mamdani FIS is considered. |
| An adaptive fuzzy logic system [ | Adaptive Fuzzy Logic Model (AFLM) | Adapt the thermostat set-points according to user comfort. Energy consumption minimization. | The proposed technique only considered the cold regions. User comfort is heavily disturbed. |
| Worldwide adaptive thermostat using fuzzy inference system [ | World-wide adaptive thermostat | Works for both cold and hot cities. Reduction in peak, cost and energy consumption. | User comfort is jeopardized. |
Figure 1Conceptual diagram of the fuzzy logic controller.
Figure 2Block diagram of the proposed fuzzy inference system.
Figure 3Heater model with thermostat controller.
Figure 4Membership functions of outdoor temperature.
Figure 5Membership functions of indoor temperature.
Figure 6Input membership functions of occupancy, price, relative humidity, initialized setpoints.
Figure 7Time of Use rates by Hydro One, Ontario, Canada.
Figure 8Depiction of user comfort zone.
Variables used in calculation.
| 1 | |
| 2 | |
| 3 | |
| 4 | |
| 5 | |
| 6 |
Sample of rules defined in the proposed Fuzzy Inference System rule base.
| #Rule | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | L | L | HP | A | L | L | VL |
| 2 | L | M | OP | P | L | L | M |
| 3 | L | H | MP | P | M | H | M |
| 4 | M | H | OP | A | H | H | H |
| 5 | M | L | MP | P | M | M | M |
| 6 | H | M | OP | A | L | M | M |
| 7 | H | H | OP | P | H | H | VH |
Figure 9Temperature variation and heater state (Scenario I).
Figure 10Energy consumption in a day using Mamdani FIS (Scenario I).
Figure 11Energy consumption in a day using Sugeno FIS (Scenario I).
Figure 12Monthly energy consumption (Scenario I).
Figure 13Monthly electricity cost incurred (Scenario I).
Figure 14Temperature variation and heater state (Scenario II).
Figure 15Energy consumption in a day using Mamdani FIS (Scenario II).
Figure 16Energy consumption in a day using Sugeno FIS (Scenario II).
Figure 17Monthly energy consumption (Scenario II).
Figure 18Monthly electricity cost incurred (Scenario II).
Figure 19Energy consumption over a day for hot cities.
Figure 20One month simulation of energy consumption for hot cities.
Figure 21Energy consumption over a day for cold cities.
Figure 22One month simulation of energy consumption for cold cities.
Figure 23Daily cost for energy consumption in the hot cities.
Figure 24Monthly cost of energy consumption in the hot cities.
Figure 25Daily cost for energy consumption in the cold cities.
Figure 26Monthly cost of energy consumption in the cold cities
Figure 27Peak-to-Average Ratio (PAR) of cold cities.