4.7 Article

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

期刊

ENERGY AND BUILDINGS
卷 194, 期 -, 页码 123-139

出版社

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

关键词

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

资金

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据