MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022125623 · doi:10.1191/0143624404bt105oa

Two-objective on-line optimization of supervisory control strategy

2004· article· en· W2022125623 on OpenAlexaff
Nabil Nassif, S. Kajl, Robert Sabourin

Bibliographic record

VenueBuilding Services Engineering Research and Technology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHVACSupervisory controlThermal comfortEnergy (signal processing)Component (thermodynamics)EngineeringOptimization problemControl theory (sociology)Automotive engineeringMathematical optimizationSimulationComputer scienceControl engineeringAir conditioningControl (management)Mechanical engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The set points of supervisory control strategy are optimized with respect to energy use and thermal comfort for existing HVAC systems. The set point values of zone temperatures, supply duct static pressure, and supply air temperature are the problem variables, while energy use and thermal comfort are the objective functions. The HVAC system model includes all the individual component models developed and validated against the monitored data of an existing VAV system. It serves to calculate energy use during the optimization process, whereas the actual energy use is determined by using monitoring data and the appropriate validated component models. A comparison, done for one summer week, of actual and optimal energy use shows that the on-line implementation of a genetic algorithm optimization program to determine the optimal set points of supervisory control strategy could save energy by 19.5%, while satisfying the minimum zone airflow rates and the thermal comfort. The results also indicate that the application of the two-objective optimization problem can help control daily energy use or daily building thermal comfort, thus saving more energy than the application of the one-objective optimization problem.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBuilding Services Engineering Research and TechnologySame topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207