Superstructure-free synthesis and optimization of distributed industrial energy supply systems

Toolbox for super-structured and super-structure free multi-disciplinary building spatial design optimisation

“…The difference between super-structured versus superstructure free approaches is a recurrent theme in specific fields of optimisation [2]. In this paper, for the super-structured approach, a supercube representation has been proposed, in which a fixed number of cells can be switched on and off to generate different building spatial designs, while constraints ensure practical designs, e.g.…”

“…However, the development of these local modification operators requires domain knowledge. Voll et al [2] suggest a more general framework that uses generic replacement rules in evolutionary algorithms. A similar strategy is followed in [24], where it is exemplified for the optimisation of decision diagrams.…”

“…Free representations are formulated differently, for instance by describing initialisation procedures and variation operators that form the design search space. The difference between super-structure versus super-structure free approaches is a recurrent theme in specific fields of optimisation [2], whereas this topic has hardly been addressed for building design.…”

“…a complex dynamic data structure might be too difficult to handle by most types of optimisation methods. In this paper, terminology will be used as found for optimal process synthesis in chemical engineering, where super-structure representations are distinguished from super-structure free representations [2]. In a super-structure, the design search space has a fixed number of design variables, meaning all design alternatives are pre-encoded, which makes for a static data structure.…”

Comparable analysis methodology of CCHP based on distributed energy system

“…However, the energy grade of the waste heat is quite different from that of the natural gas consumption according to the second law of thermodynamics. (3) The typical values of traditional COPs of electricity-driven vapor compression chillers, gas-fired absorption chillers, double-effect steam-driven absorption chillers, and singleeffect hot-water-driven absorption chillers are 3-5, 1.4, 1.4, and 0.7, respectively [17,18,24,25]. However, the energy costs (e.g., electricity, natural gas, steam and hot water) of the cooling methods are varied in energy grade.…”