MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4254866677 · doi:10.22215/etd/2015-11191

An Evaluation of Model Predictive Control of Automated Shading to Optimize Passive Solar Gains

2015· dissertation· en· W4254866677 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Nuriat Lawal

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsOverheating (electricity)Model predictive controlThermal comfortEngineeringAutomationController (irrigation)ThermalControl engineeringSimulationComputer scienceControl (management)Control theory (sociology)Artificial intelligenceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Space heating and cooling account for 65% of the total energy consumption in Canada's residential sector.As a result, the design and construction of passive houses is becoming mainstream.However, passive houses are prone to overheating, even sometimes in the winter.Proper operation of window shading devices can provide substantial savings to the space conditioning loads in homes.Model predictive control (MPC) of automated window blinds has proved to be effective at managing solar gains to reduce the heating and cooling loads in buildings.MPC involves predicting a system's response to a control input over a finite period of time in order to determine the best current control decision.This predictive quality of MPC is beneficial in buildings due to their delayed thermal response to solar gains.This thesis details the framework for an MPC application for automated blind control of a single-family home in Ottawa.Building performance simulation (BPS) software was used to predict the interactions between the blind positions and the energy demand in the home.Optimizations were performed to minimize the total energy demand attributed to heating and cooling the home.The performance of the MPC application was simulated over representative weeks of the year, and compared to a reactive, rule-based controller (RBC), which is the standard practice in blind automation.Energy savings of up to 36% were recorded in comparison to the RBC.iii I would first like to acknowledge my supervisor, Dr. Ian Beausoleil-Morrison for his patience, support, and immense knowledge.

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)0.002
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization→French-language works237,207→