MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3106711840 · doi:10.3390/en13236203

A Methodology for Long-Term Model Predictive Control of Hybrid Geothermal Systems: The Shadow-Cost Formulation

2020· article· en· W3106711840 on OpenAlexaff
Iago Cupeiro Figueroa, Massimo Cimmino, Lieve Helsen

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Control Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalPolytechnique Montréal
FundersH2020 EnergyHorizon 2020 Framework Programme
KeywordsModel predictive controlTerm (time)Shadow (psychology)Geothermal gradientTime horizonDiscretizationHorizonShadow priceHeating systemFunction (biology)Computer scienceControl theory (sociology)Mathematical optimizationControl (management)EngineeringMathematicsGeologyMechanical engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Model Predictive Control (MPC) predictive’s nature makes it attractive for controlling high-capacity structures such as thermally activated building systems (TABS). Using weather predictions in the order of days, the system is able to react in advance to changes in the building heating and cooling needs. However, this prediction horizon window may be sub-optimal when hybrid geothermal systems are used, since the ground dynamics are in the order of months and even years. This paper proposes a methodology that includes a shadow-cost in the objective function to take into account the long-term effects that appear in the borefield. The shadow-cost is computed for a given long-term horizon that is discretized over time using predictions of the building heating and cooling needs. The methodology is applied to a case with only heating and active regeneration of the ground thermal balance. Results show that the formulation with the shadow cost is able to optimally use the active regeneration, reducing the overall operational costs at the expenses of an increased computational time. The effects of the shadow cost long-term horizon and the predictions accuracy are also investigated.

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)0.001
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 score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations19
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicAdvanced Control Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207