A Methodology for the Enhancement of the Energy Flexibility and Contingency Response of a Building through Predictive Control of Passive and Active Storage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optimal management of thermal energy storage in a building is essential to provide predictable energy flexibility to a smart grid. Active technologies such as Electric Thermal Storage (ETS) can assist in building heating load management and can complement the building’s passive thermal storage capacity. The presented paper outlines a methodology that utilizes the concept of Building Energy Flexibility Index (BEFI) and shows that implementing Model Predictive Control (MPC) with dedicated thermal storage can provide predictable energy flexibility to the grid during critical times. When the utility notifies the customer 12 h before a Demand Response (DR) event, a BEFI up to 65 kW (100% reduction) can be achieved. A dynamic rate structure as the objective function is shown to be successful in reducing the peak demand, while a greater reduction in energy consumption in a 24-hour period is seen with a rate structure with a demand charge. Contingency reserve participation was also studied and strategies included reducing the zone temperature setpoint by 2∘C for 3 h or using the stored thermal energy by discharging the device for 3 h. Favourable results were found for both options, where a BEFI of up to 47 kW (96%) is achieved. The proposed methodology for modeling and evaluation of control strategies is suitable for other similar convectively conditioned buildings equipped with active and passive storage.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".