MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2923581746 · doi:10.1016/j.est.2019.03.006

Optimization of a hybrid community district heating system integrated with thermal energy storage system

2019· article· en· W2923581746 on OpenAlexafffund
Behrang Talebi, Fariborz Haghighat, Paul Tuohy, Parham A. Mirzaei

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Energy Storage · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIntegrated Energy Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersConcordia University
KeywordsThermal energy storageCogenerationEnergy consumptionGreenhouse gasProcess engineeringHeating systemComputer scienceTask (project management)Environmental scienceEngineeringSystems engineeringElectricity generationMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence from a various research suggests that buildings hold a vital role in climate change by significantly contributing to the global energy consumption and the emission of greenhouse gases. Considering the trend of higher energy consumption in the building sector, it is important to influence this sector by decreasing its energy demand. District generation and cogeneration systems integrated with the energy storage system have been suggested as a potential solution to achieve such planned goals. Unlike the older generation of the DHS, where the focus of the design was on minimizing the system heat loss, in 4th generation DHS, achieving higher system efficiency is made possible by picking the optimal equipment size as well as adopting the appropriate control strategy. Designers have adopted different design methods for selecting the equipment size, however, finding the optimal size is a challenging task. This paper reports the development of a simplified methodology (dynamic optimization) for a hybrid community-district heating system (H-CDHS) integrated with a thermal energy storage system by coupling the simulation and optimization tools together. Two, existing and newly built communities, have been considered and the results of the optimization on the equipment size of both communities have been studied. The results for the newly built community is later compared with the one obtained from the conventional equipment size methods whereas static optimization methods and potential size reduction with the conventional method has been obtained.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.168 · 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
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

Citations24
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Energy StorageSame topicIntegrated Energy Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207