References of "Georges, Jean-Philippe"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailDecision support system for blockchain (DLT) platform selection based on ITU recommendations: A systematic literature review approach
Kubler, Sylvain UL; Renard, Matthieu; Ghatpande, Sankalp UL et al

in Expert systems with applications (2023), 211

Blockchain technologies, also known as Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLT), are increasingly being explored in many applications, especially in the presence of (potential) dis-/mis-/un-trust among ... [more ▼]

Blockchain technologies, also known as Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLT), are increasingly being explored in many applications, especially in the presence of (potential) dis-/mis-/un-trust among organizations and individuals. Today, there exists a plethora of DLT platforms on the market, which makes it challenging for system designers to decide what platform they should adopt and implement. Although a few DLT comparison frameworks have been proposed in the literature, they often fail in covering all performance and functional aspects, adding that they too rarely build upon standardized criteria and recommendations. Given this state of affairs, the present paper considers a recent and exhaustive set of assessment criteria recommended by the ITU (International Telecommunication Union). Those criteria (about fifty) are nonetheless mostly defined in a textual form, which may pose interpretation problems during the implementation process. To avoid this, a systematic literature review regarding each ITU criterion is conducted with a twofold objective: (i) to understand to what extent a given criterion is considered/evaluated by the literature; (ii) to come up with ‘formal’ metric definition (i.e., on a mathematical or experimental ground) based, whenever possible, on the current literature. Following this formalization stage, a decision support tool called CREDO-DLT, which stands for “multiCRiteria-basEd ranking Of Distributed Ledger Technology platforms”, is developed using AHP and TOPSIS, which is publicly made available to help decision-maker to select the most suitable DLT platform alternative (i.e., that best suits their needs and requirements). A use case scenario in the context of energy communities is proposed to show the practicality of CREDO-DLT. •Blockchain (DLT) standardization initiatives are reviewed.•To what extent ITU’s DLT assessment criteria are covered in literature is studied.•A mathematical formalizations of the ITU recommendations are proposed.•A decision support tool (CREDO-DLT) is designed for DLT platform selection.•An energy community use case is developed to show the practicality of CREDO-DLT. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 89 (2 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailGreenhouse gas emission reduction in residential buildings: A lightweight model to be deployed on edge devices
Ortiz, Paul; Kubler, Sylvain UL; Rondeau, Éric et al

in Journal of cleaner production (2022), 368

Keywords Greenhouse gas emission; Energy efficiency; Photovoltaics; Battery; Edge computing; Linear programming Electricity produced and used in the residential sector is responsible for approximately 30 ... [more ▼]

Keywords Greenhouse gas emission; Energy efficiency; Photovoltaics; Battery; Edge computing; Linear programming Electricity produced and used in the residential sector is responsible for approximately 30% of the greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE). Insulating houses and integrating renewable energy and storage resources are key for reducing such emissions. However, it is not only a matter of installing renewable energy technologies but also of optimizing the charging/discharging of the storage units. A number of optimization models have been proposed lately to address this problem. However, they are often limited in several respects: (i) they often focus only on electricity bill reduction, placing GHGE reduction on the backburner; (ii) they rarely propose hybrid-energy storage optimization strategies considering thermal and storage heater units; (iii) they are often designed using Linear Programming (LP) or metaheuristic techniques that are computational intensive, hampering their deployment on edge devices; and (iv) they rarely evaluate how the model impacts on the battery lifespan. Given this state-of-affairs, the present article compares two approaches, the first one proposing an innovative sliding grid carbon intensity threshold algorithm developed as part of a European project named RED WoLF, the second one proposing an algorithm designed based on LP. The comparison analysis is carried out based on two distinct real-life scenarios in France and UK. Results show that both algorithms contribute to reduce GHGE compared to a solution without optimization logic (between 10 to 25%), with a slight advantage for the LP algorithm. However, RED WoLF makes it possible to reduce significantly the computational time ([almost equal to]25 min for LP against [almost equal to]1 ms for RED WoLF) and to extend the battery lifespan (4 years for LP against 12 years for RED WoLF). Author Affiliation: (a) Université de Lorraine, CNRS, CRAN, F-54000, France (b) Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust, University of Luxembourg, L-1359 Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg (c) Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Rochester Institute of Technology, 81 Lomb Memorial Drive, Rochester, NY 14623, United States (d) School of Built Environment, Engineering and Computing, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, LS1 3HE, UK * Corresponding author. Article History: Received 12 March 2022; Revised 3 June 2022; Accepted 8 July 2022 (miscellaneous) Handling Editor: Panos Seferlis Byline: Paul Ortiz [paul.ortiz@univ-lorraine.fr] (a,*), Sylvain Kubler [s.kubler@univ-lorraine.fr] (a,b), Éric Rondeau [eric.rondeau@univ-lorraine.fr] (a), Katie McConky [ktmeie@rit.edu] (c), Alexander Alexandrovich Shukhobodskiy [A.Shukhobodskiy@leedsbeckett.ac.uk] (d), Giuseppe Colantuono [G.Colantuono@leedsbeckett.ac.uk] (d), Jean-Philippe Georges [jean-philippe.georges@univ-lorraine.fr] (a) [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 37 (0 UL)