Refine
Year of publication
- 2015 (126) (remove)
Institute
- Fachbereich Medizintechnik und Technomathematik (43)
- INB - Institut für Nano- und Biotechnologien (31)
- Fachbereich Wirtschaftswissenschaften (23)
- Fachbereich Chemie und Biotechnologie (20)
- IfB - Institut für Bioengineering (11)
- Fachbereich Energietechnik (9)
- Fachbereich Maschinenbau und Mechatronik (9)
- Fachbereich Elektrotechnik und Informationstechnik (8)
- Fachbereich Luft- und Raumfahrttechnik (6)
- Fachbereich Architektur (4)
Document Type
- Article (126) (remove)
Keywords
- Booster Station (1)
- Discrete Optimization (1)
- Gamma distribution (1)
- Goodness-of-fit test (1)
- Independence test (1)
- Parametric bootstrap (1)
- Pump System (1)
- Technical Operations Research (TOR) (1)
- Vapnik–Čhervonenkis class (1)
- availability (1)
Production of Y-86 and other radiometals for research purposes using a solution target system
(2015)
Booster stations can fulfill a varying pressure demand with high energy-efficiency, because individual pumps can be deactivated at smaller loads. Although this is a seemingly simple approach, it is not easy to decide precisely when to activate or deactivate pumps. Contemporary activation controls derive the switching points from the current volume flow through the system. However, it is not measured directly for various reasons. Instead, the controller estimates the flow based on other system properties. This causes further uncertainty for the switching decision. In this paper, we present a method to find a robust, yet energy-efficient activation strategy.
The conference center darmstadtium in Darmstadt is a prominent example of energy efficient buildings. Its heating system consists of different source and consumer circuits connected by a Zortström reservoir. Our goal was to reduce the energy costs of the system as much as possible. Therefore, we analyzed its supply circuits. The first step towards optimization is a complete examination of the system: 1) Compilation of an object list for the system, 2) collection of the characteristic curves of the components, and 3) measurement of the load profiles of the heat and volume-flow demand. Instead of modifying the system manually and testing the solution by simulation, the second step was the creation of a global optimization program. The objective was to minimize the total energy costs for one year. We compare two different topologies and show opportunities for significant savings.
Cheap does not imply cost-effective -- this is rule number one of zeitgeisty system design. The initial investment accounts only for a small portion of the lifecycle costs of a technical system. In fluid systems, about ninety percent of the total costs are caused by other factors like power consumption and maintenance. With modern optimization methods, it is already possible to plan an optimal technical system considering multiple objectives. In this paper, we focus on an often neglected contribution to the lifecycle costs: downtime costs due to spontaneous failures. Consequently, availability becomes an issue.
We introduce a new way to measure the forecast effort that analysts devote to their earnings forecasts by measuring the analyst's general effort for all covered firms. While the commonly applied effort measure is based on analyst behaviour for one firm, our measure considers analyst behaviour for all covered firms. Our general effort measure captures additional information about analyst effort and thus can identify accurate forecasts. We emphasise the importance of investigating analyst behaviour in a larger context and argue that analysts who generally devote substantial forecast effort are also likely to devote substantial effort to a specific firm, even if this effort might not be captured by a firm-specific measure. Empirical results reveal that analysts who devote higher general forecast effort issue more accurate forecasts. Additional investigations show that analysts' career prospects improve with higher general forecast effort. Our measure improves on existing methods as it has higher explanatory power regarding differences in forecast accuracy than the commonly applied effort measure. Additionally, it can address research questions that cannot be examined with a firm-specific measure. It provides a simple but comprehensive way to identify accurate analysts.