EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 689 (2026) E3S Web Conf., 689 (2026) 08001 References
Open Access
Issue
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 689, 2026
14th International Symposium on Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (ISHVAC 2025)
Article Number 08001
Number of page(s) 10
Section HVAC System Modelling, Simulation, and Evaluation
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202668908001
Published online 21 January 2026
  1. Ashgriz N, Mostaghimi J. An introduction to computational fluid dynamics. Fluid Flow Handbook 2002;1:1–49. [Google Scholar]
  2. Cao Q, Liu M, Li X, Lin C-H, Wei D, Ji S, et al. Influencing factors in the simulation of airflow and particle transportation in aircraft cabins by CFD. Building and Environment 2022;207:108413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108413. [Google Scholar]
  3. Pirouz B, Mazzeo D, Palermo SA, Naghib SN, Turco M, Piro P. CFD Investigation of Vehicle’s Ventilation Systems and Analysis of ACH in Typical Airplanes, Cars, and Buses. Sustainability 2021;13:6799. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126799. [Google Scholar]
  4. Steeman HJ, Janssens A, Carmeliet J, De Paepe M. Modelling indoor air and hygrothermal wall interaction in building simulation: Comparison between CFD and a well- mixed zonal model. Building and Environment 2009;44:572–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.05.002. [Google Scholar]
  5. Zhao X, Liu W, Lai D, Chen Q. Optimal design of an indoor environment by the CFD- based adjoint method with area-constrained topology and cluster analysis. Building and Environment 2018;138:171–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.04.033. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Zou Y, Zhao X, Chen Q. Comparison of STAR-CCM+ and ANSYS Fluent for simulating indoor airflows. Build Simul 2018;11:165–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273- 017-0378-8. [Google Scholar]
  7. Kochkov D, Smith JA, Alieva A, Wang Q, Brenner MP, Hoyer S. Machine learning– accelerated computational fluid dynamics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2021;118:e2101784118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2101784118. [Google Scholar]
  8. Michoski C, Milosavljević M, Oliver T, Hatch DR. Solving differential equations using deep neural networks. Neurocomputing 2020;399:193–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2020.02.015. [Google Scholar]
  9. Nguyen T, Toubeau J-F, De Jaeger E, Vallée F. Adequacy assessment using data-driven models to account for aerodynamic losses in offshore wind generation. Electric Power Systems Research 2022;211:108599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2022.108599. [Google Scholar]
  10. Zhou P, Wang H, Dai Y, Xue Y, Huang C. On the fast fluid dynamics and fractional step methods to predict the coupled indoor temperature and velocity fields. Building and Environment 2023;229:109959. [Google Scholar]
  11. Caraccio P, Marseglia G, Lauria A, De Giorgi MG. A novel deep learning approach for flow field prediction around airfoils leveraging computational space representation. Physics of Fluids 2024;36:107120. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0223617. [Google Scholar]
  12. Frank M, Drikakis D, Charissis V. Machine-Learning Methods for Computational Science and Engineering. Computation 2020;8:15. https://doi.org/10.3390/computation8010015. [Google Scholar]
  13. Sekar V, Jiang Q(姜清华), Shu C(舒昌), Khoo BC. Fast flow field prediction over airfoils using deep learning approach. Phys Fluids 2019;31:057103. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5094943. [Google Scholar]
  14. Wu J, Xiao D, Luo M. Deep-learning assisted reduced order model for high-dimensional flow prediction from sparse data. Phys Fluids 2023;35:103115. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0166114. [Google Scholar]
  15. Sutskever I, Vinyals O, Le QV. Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 2014;27. [Google Scholar]
  16. Gao H, Zhuang L, Li C, Han X, Zhang H, Liu J. 4-Prediction of indoor multi-physical fields using dimension reduction graph neural networks. Building and Environment 2025;283:113358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.113358. [Google Scholar]
  17. Luong M-T, Le QV, Sutskever I, Vinyals O, Kaiser L. Multi-task sequence to sequence learning. arXiv Preprint arXiv:151106114 2015. [Google Scholar]
  18. Chung J, Gulcehre C, Cho K, Bengio Y. Empirical Evaluation of Gated Recurrent Neural Networks on Sequence Modeling 2014. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1412.3555. [Google Scholar]
  19. Dey R, Salem FM. Gate-variants of Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) neural networks. 2017 IEEE 60th International Midwest Symposium on Circuits and Systems (MWSCAS), 2017, p. 1597–600. https://doi.org/10.1109/MWSCAS.2017.8053243. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hu Z, Gao Y, Ji S, Mae M, Imaizumi T. Improved multistep ahead photovoltaic power prediction model based on LSTM and self-attention with weather forecast data. Appl Energy 2024;359:122709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.122709. [Google Scholar]
  21. Chicco D, Warrens MJ, Jurman G. The coefficient of determination R-squared is more informative than SMAPE, MAE, MAPE, MSE and RMSE in regression analysis evaluation. Peerj Comput Sci 2021;7:e623. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.623. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.