MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2772851490 · doi:10.1109/tii.2017.2781256

Power Peak Shaving With Data Transmission Delays for Thermal Management in Smart Buildings

2017· article· en· W2772851490 on OpenAlexaff
Yu Zhang, Jianguo Yao, Guchuan Zhu, Bin Wen

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Energy Management
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersShanghai Aerospace Science and Technology Innovation FoundationShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityScience and Technology Commission of Shanghai MunicipalityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsThermal management of electronic devices and systemsPeaking power plantTransmission (telecommunications)Load managementComputer scienceSmart powerPower (physics)Automotive engineeringElectrical engineeringEngineeringReliability engineeringRenewable energyMechanical engineeringDistributed generation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a scheme aimed at mitigating the influence of random data transmission delays in networked thermal appliance control systems in smart buildings. The impact of this type of delays is first analyzed, and it is proposed to utilize loose timing synchronization and add blank gaps between the consecutive appliance operations to avoid the possible violation of the given power budget. A cooperative control of thermal appliance operation is developed using a networked model predictive control-based controller to deal with delays. It is also shown that the schedulability of such a control scheme can be assessed online. The performance of the proposed control scheme is assessed by a simulation study based on the thermal dynamics of an eight-room office building. The obtained results show that the proposed solution can achieve an efficient power peaks shaving in the presence of random network delays.

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 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score0.944

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Industrial InformaticsSame topicSmart Grid Energy ManagementFrench-language works237,207