MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320918422 · doi:10.3390/buildings13020520

Sensor Incipient Fault Impacts on Building Energy Performance: A Case Study on a Multi-Zone Commercial Building

2023· article· en· W4320918422 on OpenAlexaff
Yanfei Li, Piljae Im, Seungjae Lee, Yeonjin Bae, Yeobeom Yoon, Sangkeun Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueBuildings · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsASHRAE 90.1HVACVariable air volumeBaseline (sea)Energy consumptionEfficient energy useAutomotive engineeringEnvironmental scienceFault (geology)Energy (signal processing)EngineeringReliability engineeringSimulationReal-time computingComputer scienceAir conditioningMeteorologyStatisticsElectrical engineeringMathematicsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Existing studies show sensor faults/error could double building energy consumption and carbon emissions compared with the baseline. Those studies assume that the sensor error is fixed or constant. However, sensor faults are incipient in real conditions and there were extremely limited studies investigating the incipient sensor fault impacts systematically. This study filled in this research gap by studying time-developing sensor fault impacts to rule-based controls on a 10-zone office building. The control sequences for variable air volume boxes (VAV) with an air handling unit (AHU) system were selected based on ASHRAE Guideline 36-2018: High-Performance Sequences of Operation for HVAC Systems. Large-scale simulations on cloud were conducted (3600 cases) through stochastic approach. Results show (1) The site energy differences could go −3.3% lower or 18.1% higher, compared with baseline. (2) The heating energy differences could go −66.5% lower or 314.4% higher, compared with baseline. (3) The cooling energy differences could go −11.5% lower or 65.0% higher, compared with baseline. (4) The fan energy differences could go 0.15% lower or 6.9% higher, compared with baseline.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBuildingsSame topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207