Advertisement

An Agent-Based Extensible Climate Control System for Sustainable Greenhouse Production

  • Jan Corfixen Sørensen
  • Bo Nørregaard Jørgensen
  • Mark Klein
  • Yves Demazeau
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7047)

Abstract

The slow adoption pace of new control strategies for sustainable greenhouse climate control by industrial growers, is mainly due to the complexity of identifying and resolving potentially conflicting climate control requirements. In this paper, we present a multi-agent-based climate control system that allows new control strategies to be adopted without any need to identify or resolve conflicts beforehand. This is achieved by representing the climate control requirements as separate agents. Identifying and solving conflicts then becomes a negotiation problem among agents sharing the same controlled environment. Negotiation is done using a novel multi-objective negotiation protocol that uses a generic algorithm to find an optimized solution within the search space. The multi-agent-based control system has been empirically evaluated in an ornamental floriculture research facility in Denmark. The evaluation showed that it is realistic to implement the climate control requirements as individual agents, thereby opening greenhouse climate control systems for integration of independently produced control strategies.

Keywords

Feature interaction Negotiation Resource contention 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aaslyng, J., Lund, J., Ehler, N., Rosenqvist, E.: IntelliGrow: a greenhouse component-based climate control system. Environmental Modelling & Software 18(7), 657–666 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Markvart, J., Kalita, S., Jørgensen, B.N., Aaslyng, J.M., Ottosen, C.O.: IntelliGrow 2.0 - a greenhouse component-based climate control system. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on High Technology for Greenhouse System Management (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Körner, O., Challa, H.: Temperature integration and process-based humidity control in chrysanthemum. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 43, 1–21 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Körner, O., Andreassen, A.U., Aaslyng, J.M.: Simulating dynamic control of supplementary lighting. Acta Horticulturae 711, 151–156 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Körner, O., Aaslyng, J.M., Andreassen, A.U., Holst, N.: Microclimate prediction for dynamic greenhouse climate control. HortScience 42(2), 272–279 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Armstrong, N., Robin, L., Bashar, N.: Feature Interaction as a Context Sharing Problem. In: Feature Interactions in Software and Communication Systems X (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bisbal, J., Cheng, B.H.C.: Resource-based approach to feature interaction in adaptive software. In: WOSS 2004: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGSOFT Workshop on Self-Managed Systems, pp. 23–27. ACM, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Metzger, A.: Feature interactions in embedded control systems. Computer Networks 45(5), 625–644 (2004)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Calder, M., Kolberg, M., Magill, E.H., Marganiec, S.R.: Feature interaction: a critical review and considered forecast. Comput. Netw. 41(1), 115–141 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kjaer, K.H., Ottosen, C.O.: Growth of Chrysanthemum in Response to Supplemental Light Provided by IrregularLight Breaks during the Night. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 136, 3–9 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Szyperski, C.: Independently Extensible Systems - Software Engineering Potential and Challenges. In: Proceedings of the 19th Australasian Computer Science Conference (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goodrich, M., Stirling, W., Frost, R.: A satisficing approach to intelligent control of nonlinear systems. In: 1996 IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent Control, pp. 248–252. IEEE (September 1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Simon, H.A.: A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 69(1), 99–118 (1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Simon, H.: Optimal problem-solving search: All-or-none solutions. Artificial Intelligence 6(3), 235–247 (1975)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mærsk-Møller, H.M., Jørgensen, B.N.: A Software Product Line for Energy-Efficient Control of Supplementary Lighting in Greenhouses. In: The International Conference on Green Computing (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zambrano, A., Vera, T., Gordillo, S.E.: Solving Aspectual Semantic Conflicts in Resource Aware Systems. In: RAM-SE, pp. 79–88 (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liu, Y., Meier, R.: Resource-Aware Contracts for Addressing Feature Interaction in Dynamic Adaptive Systems. In: 2009 Fifth International Conference on Autonomic and Autonomous Systems. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sørensen, J.C., Jørgensen, B.N.: Counter-proposal: A Multi-Agent Negotiation Protocol for Resolving Resource Contention in Open Control Systems. In: The 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Workshop 1 Agent Communication (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Corfixen Sørensen
    • 1
  • Bo Nørregaard Jørgensen
    • 1
  • Mark Klein
    • 2
  • Yves Demazeau
    • 3
  1. 1.The Maersk Mc-Kinney Moller InstituteUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdense MDenmark
  2. 2.Center for Collective IntelligenceMIT Sloan School of ManagementCambridgeUSA
  3. 3.Laboratoire d’Informatique de Grenoble CNRSGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations