A Fuzzy-Based

Building
Automation
Control System
Optimizing the level of energy performance and comfort in an office space
by taking advantage of building automation systems and solar energy

BY LUIGI MARTIRANO, GIUSEPPE PARISE,

LUIGI PARISE, & MATTEO MANGANELLI

B
uilding automation systems
(BASs) are the key to improving the ener-
gy performance of buildings as well as the
occupants’ comfort. There is a need to
IEEE In dustry A p plication s M ag az in e • M ar |Apr 2016 • www.ieee.or g/ia s
build a knowledge base on the matter and to grow suit-
able algorithms for a smart management of intelligent
buildings. Therefore, fuzzy logic is a valuable candidate
for developing robust algorithms. The scope of this article

is to validate a fuzzy-logic approach with the ability to

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MIAS.2015.2459097
Date of publication: 8 January 2016 optimize the level of energy performance and comfort in

images licensed by graphic stock

10

1077-2618/16©2016IEEE
an office space by taking advantage of lighting level. Matching the lighting
BASs and solar energy. In BASs, A facade control with facade design can allow
dynamic elements, e.g., dynamic the lighting to be automatically adjust-
facade and luminaires, can exploit day- is the interface ed according to available daylight [7],
light and solar gain based on the con- [8]. The ultimate goal is to have light
dition that well-programmed between the where needed, when needed, and as
integrated multicriteria decision-mak- much as needed [28].
ing methods are used. In this article, a outdoor One of the innovative aspects of this
virtual model of a smart office room article is the evaluation of an automat-
(SOR) equipped with dynamic shading, climate and ed dynamic facade control system as a
lighting, and an air-conditioning con-
trol system was studied, and four differ-
the indoor key element to reach both energy sav-
ing and occupant comfort. Shading ele-
ent scenarios were considered: control requirements. ments are vital for thermal comfort and
versus no control, economy versus com- visual comfort as they control solar
fort mode, fluorescent versus light- gains and solar glare, respectively [2].
emitting diode (LED), and dimming The introduction of dynamic shading
versus switching. Both economy and comfort mode showed and lighting controls allows for a better exploitation of
a better energy performance than the noncontrolled scenar- available resources, such as solar gains and daylight, while
ios. In conclusion, the proposed model is a valuable tool for maintaining occupants’ comfort [2], [16].
optimizing comfort features and energy demand. A second innovative element of this article is the eval-
uation of the potentialities of fuzzy logic as a flexible tool
Advantages of Building Automation Systems for building simple and robust algorithms to program the
Buildings account for a large portion of energy con- automated system. Indeed, several algorithms are current-
sumption, with 32% of total final energy and around ly available that can make multicriteria decisions in light-
40% of primary energy in most International Energy ing and air-conditioning control, and these algorithms
Agency countries. The Directive 2010/31/EU of the need to be implemented in building automation. Howev-
European Parliament and Council of 19 May 2010 on er, simple and reliable methods for building automation
the energy performance of buildings requires all new applications are preferable. Traditional control systems
buildings to be nearly zero-energy buildings (NZEBs) based on mathematical models have shown their limits in
by 2020. Thus, energy efficiency in buildings has daylight harvesting and energy management [7], [8].
become a priority at every level within the building When the random pattern of potentially available day-
environment [1]. On the other hand, as technology light, the rapid change of its characteristics, and the user’s

I E E E I ndu str y Appl ic ations Ma gazin e • M ar|A pr 2016 • www.ieee.org/ias

advances, a demand for indoor occupants’ comfort is interference must be considered, some authors have found
growing. To an extent, the comfort demand fuels the fuzzy control to be a more convenient solution. Further-
energy demand [1]. Eventually, the goal is to strike the more, when different variables are considered, i.e., tem-
right balance between energy demand and comfort perature and heat fluxes, a fuzzy-logic approach that is fit
requirements. So far, the optimization of energy for handling complex systems is favored [27].
demand and user comfort has been explored in [1], [5], An overall optimization approach is the final innova-
and [9]–[17]. tive element in this article. In the summer, lighting and
The recently introduced BASs provide the most effec- cooling energy demands vary oppositely as solar irradi-
tive tools to improve the energy performance of build- ance (SI) and shading aperture vary; e.g., improving the
ings, as reported in the European Normalization (EN) interior daylight conditions reduces the lighting energy
15232 [2]. These tools include lighting and shading con- demand but increases the heat gain at the same time, and
trol systems. The primary goal of BASs is to save energy vice versa [12], [13], [18]. Present control systems, based
and reduce the operating cost of large buildings through on dedicated controllers, are unfit when an overall
the automation of heating, ventilation, and air-condi- approach is required. Controllers typically yield control
tioning systems (HVAC). As technology advances, the signals that are proportional to the difference between a
reach of BASs has extended to more types of building control variable and a set point or triggered by a thresh-
systems, working toward the goal of the intelligent old value. On the other hand, a suitable algorithm is
building [3]–[5]. needed to weigh both energy demands and assess an opti-
With regard to energy demand and comfort, facade mal facade configuration. Since an analytical approach is
design and control are key elements. A facade is the interface excessively complex, an experiential method is necessary.
between the outdoor climate and the indoor requirements, Once again, a set of fuzzy inferential rules is a simple and
and, thus, it has a great impact on indoor comfort and the effective solution. To write up fuzzy rules, a knowledge
related energy demands [1]. Optimal facade design, however, base of the light and thermal models is needed, and this
is a complex discipline. Many, and often contradictory, can be obtained via a cost function (CF) [27]. The CF
parameters of considerable interdependence need to be maps the values of the event-associated variables (irradi-
addressed [6]. ance and shading) onto a real number, representing the
Another key element is lighting. The strategies used global electric power spent in the room for lighting and
attempt to avoid wasting energy for lighting unoccupied cooling or heating. In the winter, both daylight and solar
11
spaces and to reduce energy demand by adjusting the gain are beneficial for comfort and energy performance.
 The optimal shading, with regard to
energy demand, would be the maxi-
mum aperture, and the only limit is
assessed by visual comfort. In the sum-
mer, solar gain associated with day-
light may cause an excessive energy
demand for cooling.
The desired equilibrium between
energy demand and occupant comfort
can only be achieved at room level,
because it is only possible to evaluate
the physical behavior and the require-
ments for occupant comfort at this scale
[1]. Based on this assumption, a virtual
model of a smart room, including ther-
mal and light behavior, was studied.
Simulink was used to model the scenar-
ios. MATLAB’s Fuzzy Inference System
was used to program fuzzy-logic con-
trollers. DIALux was used for daylight
evaluation and the lighting system project.
1.2
Z
0
W
TZ
IZ
6.
60
IEEE In dustry A p plication s M ag az in e • M ar |Apr 2016 • www.ieee.or g/ia s
A 3-D rendering of the case study consisting of an office
room of 6.60 m # 4 m. WZ, TZ, and IZ are displayed accord-
ing to the daylight penetration.
Weather Daylight
(Irradiance
Illuminance)
Users Occupancy
Mode
Selector (Eco/Comfort)
12
The control system hierarchy.
Methods
The proposed Room Model
model is a In the first instance, the model of an
SOR has been expanded through a
valuable tool physical model and the methodology
described in [27]. According to [19]–
for optimizing [21], the SOR has been divided into
three zones: 1) the window zone
comfort (WZ), 2) the transition zone (TZ),
and 3) the internal zone (IZ), as
features while shown in Figure 1. The daylight fac-
decreasing tors for each zone, which represent the
indoor daylight illuminance to exter-
the energy nal illuminance (EI) ratio, have been
evaluated through DIALux simula-
demand. tions. To simulate occupancy and
weather conditions, the model was
given the following inputs: occupancy
signal (OS); EI, measured in lux; SI,
measured in watt/m2; cooling load temperature differ-
ence (CLTD), measured in °C; and external temperature
(ET), measured in °C. In an actual case, these inputs cor-
respond to either signals produced by sensors (OS, EI,
and SI) or physical phenomena (ET and CLTD). Outputs
correspond to signals supplied to actuators: 1) shading
factor (SF) (in p.u., typically proportional to a value
from 0 to 255), 2) lighting output level (LOL) (in p.u.,
in the case of dimming technique from 0 to 255, in the
3
case of switching related to the control groups switched
on). A sample case of control system hierarchy is shown
in Figure 2 where the inputs are OS and SI and the out-
puts are SF and LOL.
Hourly thermal loads were evaluated using the Ameri-
1 can Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Condition-
ing Engineers method, as described in [22], [23], and [27].
An hourly electric-load profile and daily energy demand
were calculated.
Control System
Controller A fuzzy-logic control sys-
tem was programmed (Fig-
ure 2) according to the
methodology described in
Shading Shading Illuminance
Control Actuator [27]. Fuzzy control systems
belong to smart control sys-
tems and have been pro-
posed to control systems
that are hard to model
mathematically and hard to
control analytically. On the
Lighting Lighting other hand, fuzzy control
Control Drivers systems proved to be effec-
tive because they are able to
absorb the expert knowl-
edge of human operators
Temperature HVAC into linguistic- or rule-
based engines [28]. The key
elements of fuzzy-based sys-
2 tems are fuzzy subsets and
fuzzy rules.
 A fuzzy subset is a pair set and grade of membership
whose elements are included according to a certain grade of
membership. Suitable membership functions (MFs), e.g.,
triangular- or Gaussian-shaped, assess the grade of mem-
bership of each element. In a fuzzy control system, the con-
trol law is usually described by a set of if–then rules in the
following format:
If a is A and b is B then x is X,
where a, b, and x are fuzzy linguistic variables and A, B,
and X are fuzzy subsets. The if part is the antecedent, and
the then part is the consequent. This applies in Mamdani’s
inference method, which is among the first and most com-
mon methods.
The process of fuzzy elaboration consists of the following
stages:
■■ Fuzzification: Crisp nonfuzzy input signals, e.g., signals
from sensors, are first translated into linguistic variables, the optimal shading grade. As a CF, the electric power re-
i.e., fuzzified, via fuzzy subsets.
■■ Combination of Antecedent Values: As rules are often based
on a combination of antecedents, as in a is A and b is
B, via a logical operator (e.g., and), the overall grade of
membership is to be calculated through suitable mathe-
matical operators (e.g., minimum).
■■ Fuzzy Inference: Antecedents enter an inference engine
where they fire
appropriate rules,
which, in turn,
Occupancy Irradiance
generate conse-
quents in the form
of fuzzy subset.
based on independent logics. The system control hierarchy
in Figure 2 utilizes the following steps:
■■ First, the SS is set according to a selected mode (economy
mode or comfort mode); the inputs are the OS and the SI
signals from the sensors, and the output is the SF.
■■ The LS is then adjusted according to the amount of day-
light indoors, while considering the SF regulated by the
SS, to match illuminance requirements; the inputs are
the OS and the internal illuminance (II), and the output
is the LOL.
In the economy mode, the control system dynamically
operates the shading as to admit a suitable amount of so-
lar radiation to minimize the electric load. In the comfort
mode, it admits as much daylight as possible without ex-
ceeding a comfort limit. As noted in [27], economy-
mode programming needs a CF that can predict the
amount of electric power required for lighting and air
conditioning versus the shading grade, thus predicting
quired for lighting and cooling of solar gain for each val-
ue of solar radiation I and shading grade SF has been
considered [27].
CF ^ I, SF h = Pel, light ^ I, SF h

+ Pel.cool, solar ^ I, SF h 6W @ . (1)
CF (W)
500 700
650
400 600

I E E E I ndu str y Appl ic ations Ma gazin e • M ar|A pr 2016 • www.ieee.org/ias

■■ C ombination of 550
SI, I (W/m2)

Consequent Values: 300 500

As many rules are 450
200
fired, a single con- 400
sequent can have 350
100
different grades if 300
it has member- 250
ship; therefore, an SF
25 50 75 100
overall grade is to SF (%)
be calculated via a (a) (b)
suitable operator
(e.g., maximum).
■■ D efuzzification: Fuzzy Rules
100
Fuzzy controls are Shading Grade
translated back Irradiance Occupancy 80
into control sig- 60
SF (%)

Empty Occupied
nals to be given to Zero Shut Wide Open 40
actuators via Minimum Shut Wide Open
appropriate defu­ 20
Low Shut Half Open 0
zzification meth- 0
ods (e.g., centroid). Medium Shut 1/4 Open 0 100
300 200
The control system High Shut 1/4 Open Occupancy 400
1 500
is structured in a Maximum Shut 1/4 Open SI
2)
prime shading-con- (W/m
trolling subsystem (c) (d)
(SS) and in an assistant 3
lighting-controlling The representation of the fuzzy SS. (a) and (b) The system receives input signals and yields output
subsystem (LS), which signals via a CF chart. (c) A set of fuzzy rules is written that yields the suitable output. (d) The fuzzy
13
operate sequentially rules can be displayed in the form of a fuzzy surface.
 Shading-Controlling Subsystem fuzzy rules. The fuzzy controls are final-
The SS detects SI and OS and, via fuzzy
rules, sets the suitable SF [Figure 3(a)].
A set of fuzzy ly translated back into control signals to
be given to actuators via the defuzzifica-
The fuzzification of the crisp SI signal is inferential tion method called centroid (Figure 4).
done by a set of six MFs (zero, mini-
mum, low, medium, high, maximum), rules is a simple Lighting-Controlling Subsystem
as shown in Figure 3(c). The combina- Regarding the LS, in the case of a dim-
tion of antecedent values is done by the and effective ming technique, a simple fuzzy method
set of rules shown in Figure 3(c). They was used (Figure 5). The lighting control
are created according to the CF. To solution. detects the total II and the OS and, via
achieve this, simulations were run with fuzzy rules, controls the lighting system
increasing solar radiation and shading by diming the lamps based on illumi-
grade, and the resulting CF was plotted against the solar nance level, matching the set point illuminance value, as
radiation and the shading grade, as presented in Figure 3(b). long as occupancy is detected and by switching off the lumi-
The resulting chart shows the optimal shading grade for naires when personnel are absent. In the case of a switching
each value of SI and allowed the construction of a set of technique, the lighting control detects II and OS and switch-
es the luminaires via
a set of threshold
values, as described
Irradiance Occupancy Rule 4: If (Irradiance Is Low) and Shading in [27] and shown
(Occupancy Is Occupied) then in Figure 5(a).
(Shading Is Half Open)
Simulations
Rule 5: If (Irradiance Is Medium)
180 1 and (Occupancy Is Occupied)
A typical summer day
then (Shading Is 1/4 Open) was simulated since
summer optimization
0 0.365 1 of solar energy is most
Inputs by Sensors Output to Actuator needed. The electric
(a) (b) (c) load profile and the
4 resulting daily energy
consumed were calcu-
The representation of the fuzzy SS operation. (a) The inputs (occupancy detected and irradiance
lated for each case
IEEE In dustry A p plication s M ag az in e • M ar |Apr 2016 • www.ieee.or g/ia s

180 W/m2) trigger the corresponding MFs through fuzzification. (b) The MFs trigger the appropriate
fuzzy rules. (c) The rules trigger the output MFs and, hence, the output value through defuzzification
study. In addition to
(shading 36.5%). the two shading

Start Start
Control Group 1

Get Occupancy Get Occupancy and

and Illuminance Illuminance Levels on
Three Zones
Yes Switch
Illuminance 2
Off–Threshold 1 Off Control
No Yes Group 1 No Yes
Occupancy? Occupancy?
No
Control Switch all Dim CGs According to
Switch all Group 1 Yes Control Illuminance Leves Via
Control Switch
Groups Off Illuminance 1 Groups Off Fuzzy Rules:
Control On–Threshold 1 On Control
Group 1 g
Group 2
If (Illuminance Is Low)
No Then (Flux Is High)
Control g
Group 3

Stop Stop

(a) (b)
5
The lighting controls. (a) In the case of a switching technique, the lighting control detects II and OS and operates by thresh-
14
old values. (b) In the case of a dimming technique, a simple fuzzy method was used.
modes (economy and comfort), three fixed Summer Hourly Electric Load
shading modes (shut, half open, and wide
open) were simulated for each case study as
The use of in Dynamic Control
The analysis of the hourly electric load
a benchmark. a natural profile when the control system is
activated (dynamic control) demon-
Case Studies resource, such strated that the latter properly reduces
A three-dimensional (3-D) rendering the electric load profile in all of the
of the defined SOR is shown in Fig- as solar energy, three lighting types. Therefore, the
ure  1. It has been previously demon- economy mode works as expected. It is
strated [27] that the control system is is an important interesting to note that the comfort
sensitive to the lighting type and con-
trol technique, thus inferring that it is
tool for mode follows the same path. This
demonstrates that comfort does not
necessary to study at least two lighting reducing work against saving energy. As the
types and control techniques to accu- shading has a great impact on the
rately detect how these features affect energy electric load, three fixed shading load
the control system. Accordingly, the profiles (i.e., shut, half-open, and
following case studies were simulated: consumption open) were considered for comparison
■■ 
fluorescent tube luminaires with a with our economy and comfort mod-
dimming control technique and improving els. The economy and comfort load
■■ LED lamp luminaires with a dim- plotted the three preset fixed shading
ming control technique psychophysical load profiles reported in Figure 7. The
■■ LED lamp luminaires with a switch-
ing control technique.
wellness. comparison demonstrated that the
proposed control system reduces the
economy and comfort profiles (green
Results and blue, respectively) with respect to
open and half open fixed shading load profiles and
Cost Function approaches the closed fixed shading, which is the lowest
An evaluation of the CF that predicts the amount of elec- load profile because it minimizes the cooling load.
tric power required for lighting and air conditioning ver-
sus the shading grade was carried out. The results Summer Daily Energy Demand
demonstrated that the CF allowed us to predict a suitable Versus Control Settings
shading grade that yields the minimum electric load for The economy, comfort, shut, half, and open shading daily

I E E E I ndu str y Appl ic ations Ma gazin e • M ar|A pr 2016 • www.ieee.org/ias

each value of SI. The related CF is reported in Figure 6 for
dimmed fluorescent lamps, dimmed LED lamps, and
switched LED lamps, respectively. Ultimately, the fuzzy
control system operates the SS at the maximum aperture
compatible with the CF.
energy demands were calculated for each case study and
reported in Figure 8. The results showed that the lowest
values were achieved with shut shading, with a positive
standard, whereas the highest values were observed with
wide-open shading, with a negative standard. The best

500 700 500 700 500 600

450 650 450 650 450
600 500
400 600 400 400
350 550 350 550 350 400
SI (W/m2)

500
SI (W/m2)

SI (W/m2)

300 500 300 300

250 450 250 450 250 300
200 400 200 400 200
350 200
150 350 150 150
100 300 100 300 100
100
50 250 50 250 50
200 200 0
n

n
1/ hut

ut

pe

pe

pe

pe
pe

pe

pe

pe

pe

pe

pe

pe
Sh

O
S

O
O

fO

fO

4
al
4

1/

3/
al

al

H
3/

1/

3/
H

Shading Shading Shading

(a) (b) (c)
6
The CF for the case studies. The yellow dots show the operating points corresponding to fuzzy rules. (a) Fluorescent dimming.
15
(b) LED dimming. (c) LED switched.
 1,500 1,500 1,500
Shading Shut Shading Shut Shading Shut
Shading Half Shading Half Shading Half
Shading Open Shading Open Shading Open
Economy Mode Economy Mode Economy Mode
1,000 Comfort Mode 1,000 Comfort Mode 1,000 Comfort Mode

Power (W)
Power (W)

Power (W)
500 500 500

0 0 0
0 6 12 18 24 0 6 12 18 24 0 6 12 18 24
Time (h) Time (h) Time (h)
(a) (b) (c)
7
The economy, comfort, shut, half, and open shading load profiles for (a) dimmed fluorescent lamps, (b) dimmed LED lamps,
and (c) switched LED lamps.

values were obtained by the LED system with dimming with fuzzy logic but with a different approach [14]. Con-
lamps. The proposed model demonstrated that the econo- versely, the methodology that we used was based on a CF
my mode yielded values close to the positive standard. calculation that allowed us to extrapolate fuzzy rules neces-
Notably, the programmed comfort mode yielded values sary to program the control system in a simple and fast way.
comparable to the economy mode as well, demonstrating The CF showed how the electric power absorption is
that comfort can be reached with no energy increase if the affected by the SI and the shading grade. As shown, an
control system is suitably programmed. hourly electric load profile in the economy mode is simi-
lar to the minimum profile in a noncontrolled or manu-
Discussion ally controlled mode, i.e., with shut shading. This means
The use of a natural resource, such as solar energy, is an that when the economy mode is programmed based on
important tool for reducing energy consumption and the CF, it can minimize the electric load profile (return-
IEEE In dustry A p plication s M ag az in e • M ar |Apr 2016 • www.ieee.or g/ia s

improving psychophysical wellness. Indeed, daylight can ing the minimum electric load at any given time) and
strongly reduce the electric demand for artificial lighting equal the electric power absorbed to allow daylight in,
and improve occupant comfort. On the other hand, in the providing that it does not cause glare. On the other
summer, the use of large transparent surfaces increases the hand, as noted, an hourly electric load profile in the com-
cooling-energy demand, as overall consumption and as fort mode follows the same pathway, demonstrating that
peak load. To face this problem, a dynamic and adaptive comfort and energy saving do not conflict, i.e., pursuing
shading control was programmed and tested. visual comfort against over-illumination implies saving
Our goal was to develop a user-friendly, cheap, and easy- energy against excessive cooling electric load and vice
to-build model to optimize the sun’s energy. A review of the versa, since solar radiation accounts for both solar heat
literature on the matter showed only a few examples of mul- gain and daylight illuminance.
ticriteria control systems with the ability to optimize solar The daily energy consumption in the summer, at vari-
energy. To the best of our knowledge, only one paper deals ous shading profiles, shows that the economy mode, as
programmed in this exam-
ple, yielded the values close
to the positive standard, so
Economy Mode Comfort Mode Shading Shut
the dynamic control proved
Shading Half Open Shading Open to be effective. The pro-
8,000 grammed comfort mode
Daily Energy (Wh/d)

also yielded values compara-

6,000 ble to the economy mode,
suggesting that comfort and
4,000
energy are in synergy, as
2,000 noted through the electric
load profile comparison.
0 Furthermore, dimmed
Fluorescent Dimming LED Dimming LED Switching lamps yielded a smoother
8 profile than switched lamps.
The economy, comfort, shut, half, and open shading daily energy demands for dimmed Daylight harvesting and
16
fluorescent lamps, dimmed LED lamps, and switched LED lamps. lighting control provided
significant contributions to energy savings, the former
of which is especially true for an office room, which is
typically occupied during daylight hours. In addition,
with a little extra energy, the daylight is shaded to pre-
vent visual discomfort.
Furthermore, with regard to the existing literature, a
significant energy saving and a comfortable performance
can be achieved with a simple and robust approach, such
as a fuzzy-logic approach, which can be implemented
based on a few simple linguistic rules without the need of
a complex optimization system.
Conclusions
This article presents three case studies of an SOR
equipped with an automated and dynamic shading,
lighting, and HVAC control system, based on a fuzzy
controller. The proposed system envisages three types
of sensing devices (an occupancy sensor, an SI sensor,
and light meters), a choice of two types of ballast
(either dimming or switching ballasts), suitable actua-
tors for the blind system and for the HVAC system
(the latter usually being already available in most
office rooms), and an elementary fuzzy-capable logic
unit. The configured control model makes a comfort-
mode energy performance similar to that of an econo-
my mode, thus demonstrating that the use of solar
energy and BASs benefits energy saving as well as
comfort. In conclusion, the proposed model is a valu-
able tool for optimizing comfort features while
decreasing the energy demand. Based on our research,
we suggest an ecodesign for residential and commer-
cial buildings for the control systems that allows to
accomplish the goals of the NZEBs.
References
[1] M. V. Nielsen, S. Svendsen, and L. B. Jensen, “Quantifying the poten-
tial of automated dynamic solar shading in office buildings through
integrated simulations of energy and daylight,” Solar Energy, vol. 85,
no. 5, pp. 757–768, May 2011.
[2] Energy Performance of Buildings—Impact of Building Automation, Control,
and Building Management, European Technical Standard EN 15232,
Brussels: CEN, 2012.
[3] W. Kastner, G. Neugschwandtner, S. Soucek, and H. M. Newmann,
“Communication systems for building automation and control,” Proc.
IEEE, vol. 93, no. 6, pp. 1178–1203, June 2005.
[4] R. M. Bayòn, F. M. Martìn, L. R. Ortega, B. F. Vina, A. R. Alvarez,
and A. M. L. Rodrìguez, “A methodology based on an expert fuzzy sys-
tem for the selection of the architecture, technology and characteristics
of a domotics system,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Renewable Energies Power Quali-
ty, Vigo, Spain, Apr. 9–12, 2003, paper 381.
[5] S. M. Zanoli and D. Barchiesi, “Thermal and lighting control system
with energy saving and users comfort features,” in Proc. 20th Mediterra-
nean Conf. Control Automation, 2012, pp. 1322–1327.
[6] C. E. Ochoa and I. G. Capeluto, “Advice tool for early design stages of
intelligent façades based on energy and visual comfort approach,” Ener-
gy Buildings, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 480–488, May 2009.
[7] A. Cziker, M. Chindris, and A. Miron, “Implementation of fuzzy-logic
in daylighting control,” in Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Intelligent Engineering
Systems, 2007, pp. 195–200.
[8] A. Cziker, M. Chindris, and A. Miron, “Fuzzy controller for a shaded
daylighting system,” in Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Optimization Electrical Elec-
tronic Equipment, 2008, pp. 203–208.
[9] M. G. Ippolito, E. Riva Sanseverino, and G. Zizzo, “Impact of building
automation control systems and technical building management sys-
tems on the energy performance class of residential buildings: An Ital-
ian case study,” Energy Buildings, vol. 69, pp. 33–40, Feb. 2014.
[10] L. C. Tagliabue, M. Buzzetti, and B. Arosio, “Energy saving through
the sun: Analysis of visual comfort and energy consumption in office
space,” Energy Procedia, vol. 30, pp. 693–703, 2012.
[11] I. Mitsios, D. Kolokotsa, G. S. Stavrakakis, K. Kalaitzakis, and A.
Pouliezos, “Developing a control algorithm for CEN indoor environ-
mental criteria—Addressing air quality, thermal comfort and light-
ing,” in Proc. 17th Mediterranean Conf. Control Automation, 2009, pp.
976–981.
[12] A. Tzempelikos, A. K. Athienitis, and P. Karava, “Simulation of
façade and envelope design options for a new institutional building,”
Solar Energy, vol. 81, no. 9, pp. 1088–1103, Sept. 2007.
[13] A. Tzempelikos and A. K. Athienitis, “The impact of shading design
and control on building cooling and lighting demand,” Solar Energy,
vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 369–382, Mar. 2007.
[14] E. Sierra, A. Hossian, P. Britos, D. Rodriguez, and R. Garcia-Marti-
nez, “Fuzzy control for improving energy management within indoor
building environments,” in Proc. Electronics, Robotics and Automotive
Mechanics Conf., 2007, pp. 412–416.
[15] J. Pargfrieder and H. P. Jorgl, “An integrated control system for opti-
mizing the energy consumption and user comfort in buildings,” in
Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Computer Aided Control System Design, 2002, pp.
127–132.
[16] E. S. Lee, D. L. DiBartolomeo, and S. E. Selkowitz, “Thermal and
daylighting performance of an automated venetian blind and lighting
system in a full-scale private office,” Energy Buildings, vol. 29, no. 1,
pp. 47–63, Dec. 1998.
[17] E. Vine, E. Lee, R. Clear, D. DiBartolomeo, and S. Selkowitz, “Office
worker response to an automated Venetian blind and electric lighting
system: a pilot study,” Energy Buildings, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 205–218,
Oct. 1998.
[18] R. Johnson, R. Sullivan, S. Selkowitz, S. Nozaki, C. Conner, and D.
Arasteh, “Glazing energy performance and design optimization with
daylighting,” Energy Buildings, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 305–317, 1984.
[19] G. Parise and L. Martirano, “Daylight impact on energy performance
of internal lighting,” in Proc. IEEE Industry Applications Society Annu.
Meeting, 2011, pp. 1–6.
[20] G. Parise and L. Martirano, “Ecodesign of lighting systems,” IEEE
Ind. Appl. Mag., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 14–19, Mar. 2011.
[21] G. Parise and L. Martirano, “Combined electric light and daylight
I E E E I ndu str y Appl ic ations Ma gazin e • M ar|A pr 2016 • www.ieee.org/ias
systems ecodesign,” in Proc. IEEE Industry Applications Society Annu.
Meeting, 2011, pp. 1–5.
[22] I. Bertini, F. Ceravolo, M. De Felice, B. Di Pietra, F. Margiotta, S.
Pizzuti, and G. Puglisi, “Sviluppo dell’ambiente di progettazione
Optimal DESign for Smart Energy—ODESSE,” Agenzia nazionale per
le nuove tecnologie, l’energia e lo sviluppo ecosostenibile, ENEA, Italy,
Report RSE, 188, 2009.
[23] ASHRAE Handbook. ASHRAE Inc., Atlanta, GA, 1989.
[24] L. Martirano, “Lighting systems to save energy in educational class-
rooms,” in Proc. 10th Int. Conf. Environment Electrical Engineering, 2011,
pp. 1–5.
[25] L. Martirano, “A smart lighting control to save energy,” in Proc. IEEE
6th Int. Conf. Intelligent Data Acquisition Advanced Computing Systems,
2011, pp. 132–138.
[26] G. Parise and L. Martirano, “Impact of building automation, controls
and building management on energy performance of lighting systems,”
in Proc. Conf. Rec. IEEE Industrial Commercial Power Systems Technical
Conf., 2009, pp. 1–5.
[27] L. Martirano, M. Manganelli and D. Sbordone, “Design of a
fuzzy-based control system for energy saving and users comfort,” in
Proc. 14th Int. Conf. Environment Electrical Engineering, 2014,
pp. 142–147.
[28] A. Katbab, “Fuzzy-logic and controller design-a review,” in Proc. IEEE
Southeastcon ‘95. Visualize Future, Mar. 26–29, 1995, pp. 443–449.
Luigi Martirano, Giuseppe Parise (parise@ieee.org), Luigi
Parise, and Matteo Manganelli are with the Sapienza Universi-
ty of Rome, Italy. Martirano is a Senior Member of the IEEE.
Giuseppe Parise is a Life Fellow of the IEEE. Luigi Parise and
Manganelli are Members of the IEEE. This article first appeared
as “Simulation and Sensitivity Analysis of a Fuzzy-Based
Building Automation Control System” at the 2014 IEEE IAS
Annual Meeting. 17