Machine Learning-Based Prognostics for Central Heating and Cooling Plant Equipment Health Monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fault detection, diagnostics, and prognostics (FDD&P) ensure the operation efficiency and safety of engineering systems. In the building domain, they can help significantly reduce energy consumption and improve occupant comfort. Specifically, prognostics are becoming increasingly important as a pro-active fault prevention strategy through continuously monitoring the health of energy systems. In this article, we develop a machine learning-based method for building systems. The proposed method can help develop predictive models from historical operation and maintenance data. After the detailed description of the proposed machine learning-based prognostic method, a case study involving prognostics on central heating and cooling plant (CHCP) equipment is provided. To this end, a year's worth of sensor and actuator data from four boilers and five chillers of a CHCP in Ottawa, Canada are collected. The plant operators are interviewed to understand how they handle failure events, and their logbooks are reviewed to extract the date and time of the recorded failure events. The sensor and actuator data up to two weeks prior to each of these failure events are used to develop regression tree models that predict time to failure (TTF). The results indicate that about half of the modeled failure events could be accurately predicted by looking at the data available in the distributed control system. Finally, the future work is outlined.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".