IEEE PES General Meeting, 2016 (Accepted)

arXiv:1605.05795v2 [] 24 May 2016

Robust Reserve Capacity Provision and Peak Load
Reduction from Buildings in Smart Grids
Sarmad Hanif1,2 ∗ , Dante Fernando Recalde Melo1 † , Mehdi Maasoumy4 ‡ , Tobias Massier1 k , Thomas Hamacher3 § , Thomas Reindl2 ¶
1
TUM CREATE Limited, Singapore 138602
2
Solar Energy Research Institute of Singapore (SERIS), National University of Singapore (NUS), Singapore 117574
3
Technical University of Munich (TUM), Garching 85748, Germany
4
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
∗ sarmad.hanif@tum-create.edu.sg, † e120025@e.ntu.edu.sg, ‡ maasoumy@eecs.berkeley.edu,
k tobias.massier@tum-create.edu.sg, § thomas.hamacher@tum.de, ¶ thomas.reindl@nus.edu.sg

Abstract—This paper proposes a robust demand-side control
algorithm in a smart grid environment for heating, ventilation
and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. A robust model predictive
control (RMPC) scheme in a receding horizon fashion is deployed,
which optimizes electricity cost and capacity market participation
of the HVAC system, while satisfying comfort and operational
constraints of the building and utility, respectively. Thermal load
uncertainties experienced by the HVAC system are included to
perform a realistic assessment of the developed controller. The
National Electricity Market of Singapore (NEMS) is used as
a case study and the developed RMPC scheme is tested for
various price signals and scenarios. Numerical simulation results
show the effectiveness of the developed framework to be readily
adopted by utilities – interested in realizing a grid-friendly and
economicaly eficient demand response (DR) strategy.
Index Terms—Demand Response, Energy Market, Heating
Ventilation Air-Conditioning (HVAC), Robust Model Predictive
Control (RMPC).

I. I NTRODUCTION
One of the key concepts in smart grids is the interaction of
users and utilities. To achieve it, bidirectional communication
is promised among operators, retailers and consumers. Under
such conditions, one can realize adjusting local DR strategies,
based on exegenous signals from utility. This can help relieve
the grid’s need for a higher reserve requirements, due to
the integration of highly variable renewable energy supply.
With a similar philosophy, various utilities have established
demand response (DR) programs, aiming to improve the
overall efficiency of the grid [1]–[4].
Among all energy consumption sectors, buildings are considered as one of the major contributors of greenhouse gas
emissions and electricity consumption. Within a building, the
HVAC system consumes the largest portion of the energy.
Space cooling/heating along with the thermal inertia of buildings provides an inherent flexibility in the consumption of
electricity. In principle, the usage of space cooling’s flexibility
can provide: (1) reduced building operational cost, (2) ancillary service provision to the grid and, (3) grid secuirity.
Significant amount of work has been done for controlling
energy consumption of buildings. Recent contribution regarding price-based and direct load control was reported in [5]. The

applicability of MPC to control building energy consumption
was reported in [6]–[8]. The use of thermal electric loads
for the provision of ancillary services, and reduction of the
balancing groups’ scheduled deviations were reported in [9]
and [10], respectively. Authors in [11] mentioned methods for
dealing with uncertain thermal load of the HVAC system, by
including them as bounded disturbances.
The aforementioned papers either deal with the market
participation or the uncertainties of the HVAC system model.
Furthermore, the DR planning framework capable of analyzing
the interaction of the market-oriented robust control scheme,
subjected to various utility pricing structures and ancillary
services provision has also not yet been presented.
The contribution of this paper is twofold. First, it develops
an RMPC scheme to co-optimize the energy schedule, with
respect to both the energy and capacity market. Second, it
assesses the applicability of the developed control scheme
for minimizing the total cost of the HVAC system under an
exogenous peak load constraining utility signal.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section
II explains the HVAC system and building model, along with
the market and uncertainty settings used for developing the
RMPC scheme. The RMPC control scheme is designed in
section III. In section IV, simulation results are presented.
Section V concludes this paper with comments on adequacy
of RMPC scheme for providing flexible demand, with corporation of utility peak load reduction signal.
II. M ODELING AND M ARKET E NVIRONMENT
A. Modeling Framework
The HVAC system considered in this paper has a variable air
volume (VAV) mass flow rate. This provides us the opportunity
to change the variable frequency drive, to meet the energy
demand of a building. The cooling/heating demand is calculated based on a thermal dynamic model given in [12]. The
validation of model is given in [13]. The external and internal
loads are estimated in [14]. Essentially, the
a
 model provides

ˆ
nonlinear relationship of the form ẋt = f xt , ut , dt between
the room temperature xt ∈ Rnd and the air flow input ut ∈ Rj

from the HVAC, experiencing disturbance dˆt ∈ Rnd . The
thermal dynamic model of a room is represented as a network
of n = i + j nodes. Where i and j represent walls and room,
respectively:


00
1  X Tj − Twi
dTwi
=
+ ri αi Ai qradi  ,
(1a)
dt
Cwi
Rij
j∈Nwi

dTri
1  X Tj − Tri
=
+ ṁri cp (Tsi − Tri )
dt
Cri j
Rij
∃Nri
i
00
+ wi τwi Awi qradi + q̇int ,
(1b)
Where Twi , Cwi , αi , Ai and cp represent the temperature,
thermal capacitance, absorptivity factor, area, and specific heat
capacity of the room i, respectively. Nwi shows the set of
all neighboring nodes to wi . The value of ri is equal to 0
for internal, and 1 for peripheral walls. For the i-th room,
Tri , Cri and ṁri show its temperature, thermal capacitance
and air mass flow rate, respectively. The transmittance and
area of the i-th window is given by τwi and Ai , respectively.
00
qradi is the solar irradiation experienced by room i, and
q̇int represents the internal heat generated due to equipments,
furniture and occupancy. wi shows if windows are present on
the surrounding walls of the room.
It can be observed from (1), the system at hand is non-linear.
For the purpose of designing a controller, linear models are
desirable. In [12], author proposed a method based on Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP), to obtain a linearized
model. After the linear system is obtained, Zero-order hold
is performed to discretize it. The resultant discrete time state
system is represented as:
xk+1 = Axk + Buk + E dˆk

(2)

Where xk+1 ∈ Rn is the temperature of all the states at
step k + 1, due to control input uk ∈ Rj and disturbance
dˆk ∈ Rn , at time step k. To calculate the cost of consumption
as a function of fan power uk , K (uk ) is represented in (3).
Where the electricity price at time step k is represented as ck .
And sample time to convert power to energy is taken as ∆t:
K (uk ) = ∆t ck (Pf,uk + Pc,uk + Ph,uk )

(3)

In (3), Pf,uk , Pc,uk and Ph,uk are power consumed by the
fan, cooling and heating coil of the HVAC system, respectively
(more details regarding units and dimensions are given in [12]–
[14]).
B. Model Extension
To align the model with our objectives, two modifications
are performed to the original model presented above. Firstly,
to account for the uncertainties into the model, additive
uncertainty wk ∈ Rnw is introduced. Where nw are the
number of uncertain variables. The origin of disturbance is
the in-ability to model part of the thermal behaviour of
the room acurately. We consider box-constrained disturbance

uncertainty with uniform distribution i.e. to be known bounded
by some measure, other wise unknown.
xak+1 = Axk + Buk + E(dˆk + wk ),
Wk = {w : kwk ≤ σk }

(4)
(5)

where Wk is the set of all possible disturbance uncertainties
(∀k = 0, 1, . . . , N − 1) and wk ∈ Wk . N is the prediction
horizon to be used in developing the controller in section III.
The dimensions of vectors and matrices in (4) follows directly
from the original system. Moreover, the introduction of boxconstrained disturbance variable wk in (4) is done by adjusting
the original disturbance vector dˆk .
The next extension to the model is performed based on the
idea suggested by authors in [9]. To enable the HVAC system
for offering its reserve capacity, we have extended the state
space model of (4) as:
xk+1 = Axk + Buk + E(dˆk + wk ) + Br rk

(6)

At each time step k, the matrix Br ∈ Rn×j translates
the effect of the extra power in the form of reserve capacity
rk ∈ Rj on to the temperature of zones. Matrix Br (by
multiplying 0 or 1 with original input coefficients from B)
indicates whether the HVAC system is considering to offer
some reserve capacity or not. Similar to (3), the cost K (rk )
of allocating reserve capacity rk for the reserve price of bk at
time step k is calculated by:
K (rk ) = ∆t bk (Pf,rk + Pc,rk + Ph,rk )

(7)

For the purpose of the development of a model-oriented
control scheme, the modeled system presented above, with
the given initial state x0 , is used to predict the future states
of the system as:
xk = Ax0 + Buk + Ed̂k + wk + Br rk

(8)

0

Where xk = xk|k , xk|k+1 . . . , xk|k+N ∈ Rn(N +1) represents the predicted states at time step k along a prediction
horizon N . The subscript “k|k + 1” is used to denote the
prediction state at time k for time k + 1. Similar explanation
is valid for other predicted state vectors uk , rk ∈ Rj(N ) ,
d̂k ∈ Rnd (N ) and wk ∈ Rnw(N ) . The matrices A, B, Br ,
and E are of appropriate dimensions.
C. Market Environment
Note that in (6), the extension considers two scenarios i.e.
curtailment or not-curtailment of the HVAC’s load, which
means the offered capacity from the HVAC system is always
kept positive. This setting is used because in this paper
the market framework of NEMS is used [15]. These two
trajectories are implemented to replicate the interruptible load
(IL) program, already in place in the NEMS [15]. In IL, the
load operator can submit its bid for each 48 half-hourly period
of the day. In the case of load bid getting accepted, the load
operator must then curtail its offered load [4].

𝐝𝑘 = [𝑑𝑘|𝑘 , 𝑑𝑘|𝑘+1 … , 𝑑𝑘|𝑘+𝑁 ]

Utility Peak
Power
Signal

Robust
Model
Predictive
Control
Scheme
𝑘
𝑁
𝑥0
𝐀, 𝐁, 𝐄, 𝐁𝐫
𝐝𝑘
𝞂𝑘
𝚽𝑘
𝒒𝒓𝒂𝒅 𝒌
𝐛𝑘
𝐜𝑘
𝐮∗𝑘
𝐫𝑘∗

𝚽𝑘 = [𝛷𝑘|𝑘 , 𝛷𝑘|𝑘+1 … , 𝛷𝑘|𝑘+𝑁 ]

∗
∗
∗
𝐮𝑘∗ = [𝑢𝑘|𝑘
, 𝑢𝑘|𝑘+1
… , 𝑢𝑘|𝑘+𝑁
]
∗
∗
∗
𝐫𝑘∗ = [𝑟𝑘|𝑘
, 𝑟𝑘|𝑘+1
… , 𝑟𝑘|𝑘+𝑁
]

𝞂𝑘 = [𝜎𝑘|𝑘 , 𝜎𝑘|𝑘+1 … , 𝜎𝑘|𝑘+𝑁 ]

Fig. 1.

Disturbance

𝑥0 ,
𝐀, 𝐁, 𝐄, 𝐁𝐫

Building
Energy
Management
System

Time instant
Prediction Horizon
Initial State
System Matrices
Disturbance Vector
Disturbance Bound Vector
Utility Peak Power Signal
Smart Grid
Irradiation Prediction Vector
Interface
Reserve Capacity Price Vector
Energy Price Vector
Optimal Consumption Schedule
Optimal Reserve Capacity Schedule

stay within their respective comfort zones of (14) and (15),
respectively. (16) and (17) imposes the actuator limits of the
HVAC system.
The maximization term presented in (12) and (13) can be
manually made robust using standard procedures presented in
the literature [17]. Essentially the procedure is to calculate the
robust counterpart of the uncertain problem to yield a linear
program. For the curtailed case of (12):

∗
𝑢𝑘|𝑘

C
max xC
k+1 = Axk + Buk + E(d̂k + wk )

𝐛𝑘 = [𝑏𝑘|𝑘 , 𝑏𝑘|𝑘+1 … , 𝑏𝑘|𝑘+𝑁 ]
𝐜𝑘 = [𝑐𝑘|𝑘 , 𝑐𝑘|𝑘+1 … , 𝑐𝑘|𝑘+𝑁 ]

s.t.
Market

− σk ≤ wk ≤ σk

(18)

Using Lagrangian multipliers λw,1 and λw,2 , dual of (18) can
be expressed as:

∗
𝑟𝑘|𝑘

C
min xC
k+1 = Axk + Buk + Ed̂k + σk (λw,1 + λw,2 )

Experimental set-up of the RMPC control scheme.

s.t.

λw,1 − λw,2 = E
λw,1 , λw,2 ≥ 0

III. C ONTROLLER D ESIGN
As shown in (1), a perfect two way communication channel
between the smart grid interface (SGI) and the Building
Energy Management System (BEMS) is assumed. The RMPC
scheme for each time step k is formulated as:

(19)

When strong duality holds, then for any feasible λw,1/2 in
(19), the maximization term of (18) becomes upper bounded.
Hence, the minimization term can be dropped. The resulting
robust counterparts of both cases (curtailed and not-curtailed)
is jointly written as:

∗ ∗min∗ K (uk ) + K (−rk ) + ρk + βk

(9a)

C
xC
k+1 = Axk + Buk + Ed̂k + σk (λw,1 + λw,2 )

subject to

 

φ0k Pf,uk Pc,uk Ph,uk ≤ 1 1 1 βk

(10)

C
NC
xN
+ Buk + Ed̂k + Br rk + σk (λw,1 + λw,2 )
k+1 = Axk

(11)

λw,1 − λw,2 = E

C
max xC
k+1 = Axk + Buk + E(d̂k + wk )

(12)

λw,1 , λw,2 ≥ 0

C
NC
max xN
+ Buk + E(d̂k + wk ) + Br rk
k+1 = Axk

(13)

uk ,−rk

kwk k≤σk

kwk k≤σk
x−
k − k
x−
k − k
u−
k − rk

+
≤ xC
k ≤ xk + k

≤
≤

≤ x+
k + k
+
uk ≤ uk − rk

C
xN
k

rk , uk − rk , k ≥ 0

(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)

For the entire prediction horizon N , the solution of the
optimization problem formulated in (9) results in the cost
optimal schedule u∗k and reserve r∗k capacity sequence. The
slack variable k – penalized by a scalar ρ in the objective
function is implemented as a soft constraint on the upper
−
x+
k and lower limits xk of both curtailed and not-curtailed
scenarios. A utility peak-power-penalty (PPP) φk ∈ RN
($/kW) is communicated to the BEMS and the peak power
term – defined as an epigraph βk – is minimized in the
objective function [16]. The benefit of restricting the peak load
in the objective function provides: (1) dynamic inclusion of an
updated PPP signal from the utility signal at each time step k,
and (2) keeps the economic objective function of the RMPC
scheme generic and consistent, with and without the inclusion
of PPP.
C
Constraints (12) and (13) restricts the not-curtailed xN
k+1
C
and curtailed xk+1 trajectories within the feasibile region.
This procedure robustify the consumption schedule of both
the curtailed (uk ) and not-curtailed (uk − rk ) scenarios, to

(20)

The RMPC scheme presented above, though deployed receding horizongly, still is an open-loop control strategy. Because, while optimizing the schedule, RMPC scheme does not
incorporate that the adjustment of input is also possible after
the measurement of state is available for the next time step.
A better approach to deal with this is the closed-loop MPC,
which incorporates affine policies of the uncertainty in the
optimization problem. Unfortunately, the robust counterpart
of the closed-loop MPC results in larger number of variables
than the open-loop MPC. Various techniques are provided
in the literature on how to overcome the problem of large
number of variables [18]. But, for the case studies of this
paper, the improvement in objective function from the closedloop implementation was almost insignificant. Hence for the
purpose of saving the computational efforts, it was decided to
deploy an open-loop RMPC. In future studies. Neverthless,
in the future, the sensitivity analysis with respect to the
computational tractability and accuracy of the closed-loop and
the open-loop MPC strategies could serve as an interesting
topic.
IV. S IMULATION R ESULTS
The linear robust optimization problem of (9)-(20) has
been implemented using YALMIP [19] and CPLEX [20].
All simulations are performed with the real time energy and
reserve price taken from the NEMS (2). The prediction horizon
of 1 day (48 periods) is chosen as a compromise between

−4

−4

x 10

x 10

Energy Price

(a)

Reserve Price
30

5

Capacity

kW

20
10

2
3

Reserve price
(SGD/kWh)

Energy price
(SGD/kWh)

4

23−01−14

24−01−14

kW

1
1

25−01−14

(b)
30

2

0
23−01−14

Power

3

Power

Capacity

20
10

0
25−01−14

24−01−14

23−01−14

24−01−14

25−01−14

(c)

kW

30

Fig. 2. Real time energy and reserve price in Singaporean Dollars (SGD)
taken from the NEMS.

Power

Capacity

20
10

the stability of the MPC and computational efforts. Since, in
principle, a longer prediction horizon provides more stability
to the MPC scheme. But for our simulations, prediction
horizon larger than 1 day showed very little improvement in
the cost, but with great increase in computational expense. 3
Scenarios considered for evaluating the RMPC schemes are:
a
Nominal MPC scheme (NMPC)
b
RMPC scheme without PPP
c
RMPC scheme with PPP of 1.5 (SGD/kW)

(a)

deg C

24

22

20
23−01−14

XC
R

XNC
R

24−01−14

Tolerance
25−01−14

(b)

deg C

24

22

20
23−01−14

XC
R

XNC
R

24−01−14

Tolerance
25−01−14

(c)

deg C

24

22
XC
R

20
23−01−14

PPP

24−01−14

XNC
R

Tolerance

PPP

25−01−14

Fig. 3. The curtailed and not-curtailed temperature evolution for the (a)
NMPC, (b) RMPC without PPP and (c) RMPC with PPP scenarios.

For all scenarios, simulation results from 2 days of the year
2014 are presented in fig. 3 and 4. Where XC * and XNC * from

23−01−14

24−01−14

25−01−14

Fig. 4. Power consumption and reserve capacity allocation for the (a) NMPC,
(b) RMPC without PPP and (c) RMPC with PPP scenarios.

fig. 3 represent the curtailed and not-curtailed case for the
given ∗ scenario. To evaluate the performance of the RMPC
scheme, we have assumed the disturbance prediction error of
approximately 50%. That means, maximum deviation from
the actual disturbance is 50%. The NMPC scheme doesn’t
consider uncertainty in the system.
Compared to the scenario in fig. 3(a), both RMPC schemes
– without PPP fig. 3(b) and with PPP fig. 3(c) – demonstrate
successfully that they are capable of adhering to the comfort
requirements in the presence of uncertainties. One of the
key observations from fig. 3(b) and 4(b) is that the RMPC
scheme takes care of the uncertainty in the model at the
expense of extra consumption. This is due to the fixed bounds
on disturbances, which is seen by the controller as an extra
thermal load to be cooled off in the room. And as a result, the
controller ends up consuming some energy also at high price
periods. This effect is even more pronounced in fig. 4(c), due
to the inclusion of PPP signal. But nevertheless, the actual goal
of the utility – minimizing the overall peak load – is achieved.
The simulation-setup of fig. III is repeated for the whole
year of 2014. Table I shows monthly average cost of consumption and revenues from placing reserve capacity for the
year 2014. It can be observed that despite the increase in the
cost of consumption, the increase in revenue has also occured
for the scenario (b) and (c). This is due to some of the load
scheduled at high price periods, providing opportunity to also
allocate reserves. But due to low reserve prices, the magnitude
of earnings from reserves are not comparable to the total cost
of operation.

Table I
AVERAGE COST PER MONTH

VI. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Scenario

Cost (SGD)

Revenue (SGD)

Total Cost (SGD)

(a)

1471

15.25

1455.8

(b)

1530 (+4.0%)

15.52 (+1.7%)

1514.5 (+4.0%)

(c)

1565 (+6.4%)

17.10 (+12%)

1547.9 (+6.3%)

Fig. 5 shows the effect of increasing PPP on the cost and
the peak load reduction. Two new terms are introduced; %
Normalized Total Cost = Costj /M ax(Cost) ∀j = 1, 2, . . . z
and % Normalized Peak Load = P eakj /M ax(P eak) ∀j =
1, 2, . . . z . Where z values are represented by the index j,
ranging from 0.5 SGD/kW to 30 SGD/kW.
100

100

80

80

60

60

40
0

Fig. 5.
PPP.

Peak Load

5

10
15
20
Peak Power Penalty (SGD/kW)

25

% Normalized Total Cost

% Normalized Peak Load

Cost

40
30

Reduction of peak load and as increment of total cost due to the

Fig. 5 shows decrease in the load reduction after PPP signal
of 5 SGD/kW. Whereas, the opreational cost continues to
rise. Hence, the PPP beyond this value will only result in
expensive operation of the HVAC system – without providing
any significant improvement in peak load reduction for the
utility.
V. C ONCLUSION AND F UTURE W ORK
The results have shown that the developed RMPC scheme
provides a robust control framework for the HVAC system.
The developed controller optimizes energy consumption, reserve capacity provision and peak load reduction to achieve a
cost effective and grid-friendly operation of buildings. It can
also be seen from the presented results that to improve the
overall efficiency of distribution grid; utilities and buildings
must co-optimize their underlying systems. The simulationbased analysis presented in fig. 5, can be use as a simplified control and planning framework, to design the incentive
schemes for future load management schemes.
Future work regarding this paper is to incorporate the
distribution grid constraints in the developed RMPC scheme.
It is also planned to extend building model presented in this
paper to grid-oriented aggregated models.

This work was financially supported by the Singapore
National Research Foundation under its Campus for Research Excellence And Technological Enterprise (CREATE)
programme. This work was also sponsored by National Research Foundation, Prime Ministers Office, Singapore under its
Competitive Research Programme (CRP grant NRF2011NRFCRP003-030, Power grid stability with an increasing share of
intermittent renewables (such as solar PV) in Singapore).
R EFERENCES
[1] J. Torriti, M.G. Hassan and M. Leach., “Demand response experience
in Europe: policies, programmes and implementation.” in Energy, vol.
35(4):. IEEE, 2014, pp. 1575–1583.
[2] M. H. Albadi and E. F. El-Saadany, “A summary of demand response in
electricity markets.” in Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 78(11):.
EPSR, Nov. 2008, pp. 1989–1996.
[3] Energy Market Authority, “Demand Response Programme.” [Online].
Available: http://www.ema.gov.sg/dr/
[4] S. Swan, “Interruptible load: new partnerships for better energy management,” in 2005 International Power Engineering Conference., vol. 2.
IEEE, 2005, pp. 888–892.
[5] E. Vrettos et. al., “Predictive control of buildings for demand response
with dynamic day ahead and real-time prices.” in European Control
Conference. ECC, June 2013.
[6] F. Oldewurtel et. al., “Energy efficient building and climate control
using stochastic model predictive control and weather predictions,” in
American Control Conference. ACC, 2011.
[7] Y. Ma, A. Keman, A. Daly and F. Borrelli, “Predictive control for
energy efficient buildings with thermal storage: Modeling, stimulation,
and experiments.” in IEEE Control Systems, vol. 32(1):. IEEE, Feb.
2012, pp. 44–64.
[8] M. Maasoumy et. al., “Model predictive control approach to online
computation of demand-side flexibility of commercial buildings HVAC
systems for supply following.” in American Control Conference. IEEE,
2014.
[9] E. Vrettos, F. Oldewurtel, F. Zhu and G. Andersson, “Robust Provision
of Frequency Reserves by Office Building Aggregations.” in 19th IFAC
World Congress., vol. 19(1):. International Federation of Automatic
Control., 2014, pp. 12 068–12 073.
[10] E. Vrettos, F. Oldewurtel, M. Vasiran and G. Andersson, “Centralized
and decentralized balance group optimization in electricity markets with
demand response.” in IEEE Power Tech Conference. IEEE, 2013.
[11] M. Maasoumy et. al., “Selecting Building Predictive Control Based on
Model Uncertainty.” in American Control Conference. IEEE, 2014.
[12] M. Maasoumy, “Modeling and optimal conrol algorithm design for
HVAC systems in energy efficient buildings.” in EECS Depart. Univ.
California, Berkeley. Master’s thesis, Feb. 2011.
[13] M. Maasoumy et. al., “Model-based hierarchical optimal control design
for HVAC systems.” in Dynamic System Control Conference DSCC.
ASME, 2011.
[14] M. Maasoumy and Alberto Sangiovanni-Vincentelli., “Total and peak
energy consumption minimization of building HVAC systems using
model predictive control.” in Design and Test of Computers. IEEE,
2012.
[15] F. Lu and Henry Gan, “National Electricity Market of Singapore,” 2005.
[16] Anthony Kelman, Francesco Borrelli, “Bilinear Model Predictive Control of a HVAC System Using Sequential Quadratic Programming,” in
18th IFAC World Congress. IFAC, 20111.
[17] A. Ben-Tal and A. Nemirovski, “Robust solutions of uncertain linear
program,” in Operational Research Letters., vol. 25(1):. Operational
Research, 1999, pp. 1–13.
[18] J. Loefberg., “Approximation of closed-loop MPC.” in 42nd Conference
on Decision and Control. CDC, 2003, pp. 1438–1442.
[19] J. Loefberg., “YALMIP : A toolbox for modeling and optimization
in MATLAB.” in IEEE International Symposium on Computer Aided
Control System Design. IEEE, 2004.
[20] IBM, “IBM ILOG CPLEX Optimization Studio.” [Online]. Available:
http://www-03.ibm.com/software/products/en/ibmilogcpleoptistud

