Search

Recent advancements in machine learning based energy management approaches, specifically reinforcement learning with a safety layer (OptLayerPolicy) and a metaheuristic algorithm generating a decision tree control policy (TreeC), have shown promise. However, their effectiveness has only been demonstrated in computer simulations. This paper presents the real-world validation of these methods, comparing against model predictive control and simple rule-based control benchmark. The experiments were conducted on the electrical installation of 4 reproductions of residential houses, which all have their own battery, photovoltaic and dynamic load system emulating a non-controllable electrical load and a controllable electric vehicle charger. The results show that the simple rules, TreeC, and model predictive control-based methods achieved similar costs, with a difference of only 0.6%. The reinforcement learning based method, still in its training phase, obtained a cost 25.5\% higher to the other methods. Additional simulations show that the costs can be further reduced by using a more representative training dataset for TreeC and addressing errors in the model predictive control implementation caused by its reliance on accurate data from various sources. The OptLayerPolicy safety layer allows safe online training of a reinforcement learning agent in the real-world, given an accurate constraint function formulation. The proposed safety layer method remains error-prone, nonetheless, it is found beneficial for all investigated methods. The TreeC method, which does require building a realistic simulation for training, exhibits the safest operational performance, exceeding the grid limit by only 27.1 Wh compared to 593.9 Wh for reinforcement learning.

Safe reinforcement learning (RL) with hard constraint guarantees is a promising optimal control direction for multi-energy management systems. It only requires the environment-specific constraint functions itself a priori and not a complete model. The project-specific upfront and ongoing engineering efforts are therefore still reduced, better representations of the underlying system dynamics can still be learnt, and modelling bias is kept to a minimum. However, even the constraint functions alone are not always trivial to accurately provide in advance, leading to potentially unsafe behaviour. In this paper, we present two novel advancements: (I) combining the OptLayer and SafeFallback method, named OptLayerPolicy, to increase the initial utility while keeping a high sample efficiency and the possibility to formulate equality constraints. (II) introducing self-improving hard constraints, to increase the accuracy of the constraint functions as more and new data becomes available so that better policies can be learnt. Both advancements keep the constraint formulation decoupled from the RL formulation, so new (presumably better) RL algorithms can act as drop-in replacements. We have shown that, in a simulated multi-energy system case study, the initial utility is increased to 92.4% (OptLayerPolicy) compared to 86.1% (OptLayer) and that the policy after training is increased to 104.9% (GreyOptLayerPolicy) compared to 103.4% (OptLayer) - all relative to a vanilla RL benchmark. Although introducing surrogate functions into the optimisation problem requires special attention, we conclude that the newly presented GreyOptLayerPolicy method is the most advantageous., Comment: post-print

Reinforcement learning (RL) is a promising optimal control technique for multi-energy management systems. It does not require a model a priori - reducing the upfront and ongoing project-specific engineering effort and is capable of learning better representations of the underlying system dynamics. However, vanilla RL does not provide constraint satisfaction guarantees - resulting in various potentially unsafe interactions within its safety-critical environment. In this paper, we present two novel safe RL methods, namely SafeFallback and GiveSafe, where the safety constraint formulation is decoupled from the RL formulation. These provide hard-constraint, rather than soft- and chance-constraint, satisfaction guarantees both during training a (near) optimal policy (which involves exploratory and exploitative, i.e. greedy, steps) as well as during deployment of any policy (e.g. random agents or offline trained RL agents). This without the need of solving a mathematical program, resulting in less computational power requirements and a more flexible constraint function formulation (no derivative information is required). In a simulated multi-energy systems case study we have shown that both methods start with a significantly higher utility (i.e. useful policy) compared to a vanilla RL benchmark and Optlayer benchmark (94,6% and 82,8% compared to 35,5% and 77,8%) and that the proposed SafeFallback method even can outperform the vanilla RL benchmark (102,9% to 100%). We conclude that both methods are viably safety constraint handling techniques applicable beyond RL, as demonstrated with random policies while still providing hard-constraint guarantees., Comment: 26 pages, 14 figures

Model-predictive-control (MPC) offers an optimal control technique to establish and ensure that the total operation cost of multi-energy systems remains at a minimum while fulfilling all system constraints. However, this method presumes an adequate model of the underlying system dynamics, which is prone to modelling errors and is not necessarily adaptive. This has an associated initial and ongoing project-specific engineering cost. In this paper, we present an on- and off-policy multi-objective reinforcement learning (RL) approach, that does not assume a model a priori, benchmarking this against a linear MPC (LMPC - to reflect current practice, though non-linear MPC performs better) - both derived from the general optimal control problem, highlighting their differences and similarities. In a simple multi-energy system (MES) configuration case study, we show that a twin delayed deep deterministic policy gradient (TD3) RL agent offers potential to match and outperform the perfect foresight LMPC benchmark (101.5%). This while the realistic LMPC, i.e. imperfect predictions, only achieves 98%. While in a more complex MES system configuration, the RL agent's performance is generally lower (94.6%), yet still better than the realistic LMPC (88.9%). In both case studies, the RL agents outperformed the realistic LMPC after a training period of 2 years using quarterly interactions with the environment. We conclude that reinforcement learning is a viable optimal control technique for multi-energy systems given adequate constraint handling and pre-training, to avoid unsafe interactions and long training periods, as is proposed in fundamental future work., Comment: 43 pages, 29 figures