Osman, A E (2006) Life cycle optimization model for integrated cogeneration and energy systems applications in buildings. PhD thesis, University of Pittsburgh, USA.
Abstract
Energy use in commercial buildings constitutes a major proportion of the energy consumption and anthropogenic emissions in the USA. Cogeneration systems offer an opportunity to meet a building's electrical and thermal demands from a single energy source. To answer the question of what is the most beneficial and cost effective energy source(s) that can be used to meet the energy demands of the building, optimizations techniques have been implemented in some studies to find the optimum energy system based on reducing cost and maximizing revenues. Due to the significant environmental impacts that can result from meeting the energy demands in buildings, building design should incorporate environmental criteria in the decision making criteria. The objective of this research is to develop a framework and model to optimize a building's operation by integrating congregation systems and utility systems in order to meet the electrical, heating, and cooling demand by considering the potential life cycle environmental impact that might result from meeting those demands as well as the economical implications. Two LCA Optimization models have been developed within a framework that uses hourly building energy data, life cycle assessment (LCA), and mixed-integer linear programming (MILP). The objective functions that are used in the formulation of the problems include: (1) Minimizing life cycle primary energy consumption, (2) Minimizing global warming potential, (3) Minimizing tropospheric ozone precursor potential, (4) Minimizing acidification potential, (5) Minimizing NOx, SO 2 and CO2, and (6) Minimizing life cycle costs, considering a study period of ten years and the lifetime of equipment. The two LCA optimization models can be used for: (a) long term planning and operational analysis in buildings by analyzing the hourly energy use of a building during a day and (b) design and quick analysis of building operation based on periodic analysis of energy use of a building in a year. A Pareto-optimal frontier is also derived, which defines the minimum cost required to achieve any level of environmental emission or primary energy usage value or inversely the minimum environmental indicator and primary energy usage value that can be achieved and the cost required to achieve that value.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Ries, R |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | energy consumption; cooling; equipment; revenues; building design; decision making; life cycle; programming; energy use; linear programming; optimization; commercial building; environmental impact; life cycle cost |
| Index terms: | energy use, energy system, energy consumption, life cycle, linear programming, energy demand, building design, building operation, consumption, environmental impact, programming, commercial building, energy source, decision-making, revenue, life cycle cost, global warming, life cycle assessment, primary energy |
| Subjects: | algorithms, research methods, management, decision analysis, construction type, value management, climate science, programming, consumer economics, environmental impact, economic analysis, architectural design, energy systems |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Construction Technology, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Risk Management, Sustainability, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here