4.7 Article

Comparative study of posteriori decision-making methods when designing building integrated energy systems with multi-objectives

Journal

ENERGY AND BUILDINGS
Volume 194, Issue -, Pages 123-139

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.04.023

Keywords

Building energy system; Integrated energy system; Multi-objective optimization; Pareto frontier; Decision making

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51876181]
  2. Science and Technology Planning Projects of Fujian Province, China [2018H0036]
  3. China Scholarship Council [201806310046]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

By multi-objective optimization of designing integrated energy systems for buildings, the Pareto frontier can be obtained consisting of a series of optimal compromise solutions. Since all solutions on Pareto frontiers are non-dominated, it is challenging to identify one best of the best solution, which requires posteriori multi-criteria decision-making. However, most existing research only presented the obtained Pareto frontiers, while neglected the decision-making. Therefore, this paper compares four posteriori decision-making approaches in recent publications by solving one identical problem to emphasize the importance of decision-making. An illustrative Pareto frontier is generated by two multi-objective optimization approaches, i.e., eps (epsilon)-constraint and Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA-II). Four categories of multi-criteria decision-making methods, i.e., Shannon entropy, Eulerian distance, fuzzy membership function and evidential reasoning, are further implemented. The decision-making results are different when various approaches are applied. The underlying reasons are analyzed including two key factors, i.e. selection of objectives and shape of Pareto frontier, which provides suggestions of using decision-making approaches in future multi-objective optimization research on building energy systems. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available