Evaluates energy control strategies in a plus-energy building, suggesting optimal performance combines rule-based and predictive methods.
This paper presents a comprehensive evaluation of control strategies for a highly energy-efficient plus-energy terraced housing complex equipped with photovoltaic generation, modulating ground-source heat pumps, electrical and thermal energy storage systems, and activation of building thermal mass. The study combines long-term monitoring data, annual simulations, and hardware-in-the-loop (HiL) experiments to assess modulating heat-controlled operation (HC), PV-controlled (PVC), and predictive control strategies, including simple predictive control (SPC) and model predictive control (MPC). The simulation results show that the baseline HC operation already achieves a high load cover factor (LCF), defined as the fraction of total electrical demand covered by local PV generation (direct use + battery discharge) of 65.6% and a seasonal performance factor (SPF) of the central heat pumps of 5.8. PVC increases LCF (71.0%) by shifting heat pump operation toward PV-rich periods but leads to elevated storage temperatures up to 5 K and a reduced SPF of 4.8. MPC further enhances LCF by 4–7 percentage points in simulated and HiL environments. However, its real-world performance is strongly influenced by forecast quality and the limited controllability of the heat pump system. In addition, building thermal mass activation is investigated as a complementary flexibility option. Simulation and monitoring results demonstrate that moderate room temperature set-point (2 K) increases during PV availability significantly improve LCF from 20% to 55% while maintaining thermal comfort. Overall, the findings indicate that in highly efficient plus-energy buildings, robust rule-based strategies combined with thermal mass activation can achieve a large share of the attainable benefits, while the added complexity of MPC must be carefully weighed against practical limitations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Betzold et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: