MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimization of HVAC Control System Strategy Using Two-Objective Genetic Algorithm

2005· article· en· W2107642939 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHVAC&R Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHVACDuct (anatomy)Thermal comfortAutomotive engineeringGenetic algorithmEngineeringIndoor air qualityProcess (computing)Efficient energy useBuilding automationAir conditioningControl engineeringSimulationComputer scienceMechanical engineeringEnvironmental engineeringMeteorologyElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intelligent building technology for building operation, called the optimization process, is developed and validated in this paper. The optimization process using a multi-objective genetic algorithm will permit the optimal operation of the building's mechanical systems when installed in parallel with a building's central control system. Using this proposed optimization process, the supervisory control strategy setpoints, such as supply air temperature, supply duct static pressure, chilled water supply temperature, minimum outdoor ventilation, reheat (or zone supply air temperature), and zone air temperatures are optimized with respect to energy use and thermal comfort. HVAC system steady-state models developed and validated against the monitored data of the existing VAV system are used for energy use and thermal comfort calculations. The proposed optimization process is validated on an existing VAV system for two summer months. Many control strategies applied in a multi-zone HVAC system are also tested and evaluated for one summer day.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.275 · 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