Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 18 references

Spatio-Temporal Life Cycle Analysis of Electrolytic H2 Production in Australia under Time-Varying CO2 Management Schemes

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A scenario analysis of Australian electrolytic hydrogen production shows that scheduling electrolyzers to low-carbon hours reduces lifecycle emissions, but strict tax-credit thresholds leave Tasmania as the only feasible state.

desk verdict Solid Australian case study, but the validation is circular and the 'minimization' claim is too strong. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.00175 v1 pith:J5BXZL4H submitted 2025-08-29 eess.SY cs.SY

Niraj Gohil , Alexander Franke , Nawshad Haque , Amro M. Farid This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords hydrogenproductionreal-timedataelectricitycycledatabaseenergy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Hydrogen made by electrolysis uses electricity to split water. The climate impact of that hydrogen depends on how clean the electricity is at the moment it is used, and that changes every hour. This paper studies when an electrolyzer in Australia should run to keep emissions and costs low. The authors use 2023 hourly data from Electricity Maps for grid carbon intensity and from AEMO for electricity prices across five states. They compare three operating plans: run at full power all the time, run according to a stepped rule that reduces output when the grid gets dirtier, and run only when the grid is clean enough to qualify for hydrogen tax credits (below 0.6 kg CO2 per kg H2). The results show that the second plan cuts emissions everywhere, and the third plan, which is the strictest, produces hydrogen only in Tasmania, because the other states rarely have clean enough electricity. The paper presents this analysis inside a systems-engineering formalism called hetero-functional graph theory, with Petri nets and incidence matrices. But the year-long numbers come directly from the external Electricity Maps and AEMO data, with the formalism demonstrated on an 18-hour case. The authors say their model reproduces Electricity Maps carbon intensity closely, but that check is a consistency test rather than an independent validation, because the model's coefficients were derived from the same dataset. Overall, the paper is a useful scenario study, but its claims to 'minimize' emissions and cost are stronger than the hand-built rules support.
Extended reading notes

Core claim

The load-bearing assertion is in Sec III-D: 'The study demonstrates that the Engineering System Net, developed from the SysML architecture Fig. 3 and incidence matrix III-C, correctly calculates the temporal fluctuations of actual grid emissions,' and in the Abstract: 'dynamic, real-time operation, coupled with financial incentives, provides a promising method to enhance the sustainability and economic viability of hydrogen production.' If correct, the HFGT-LCA model reproduces observed hourly carbon intensity, and green-aligned scheduling cuts lifecycle emissions per kg of hydrogen in Australian states.

Load-bearing premise

The model's incidence-matrix weights in Sec III-C are derived from the same Electricity Maps hourly generation data used as the validation benchmark in Sec III-D, so the 'close alignment' in Fig 7 is a self-consistency check, not independent verification. The year-long scenario results then assume that this same Electricity Maps carbon-intensity time series is the correct ground truth for lifecycle emissions in each of the five states, and that the hand-selected production thresholds (14.5, 17, 19 kg CO2eq/kg H2 in Scenario 2; 0.6 kg CO2/kg H2 in Scenario 3) are realistic operating and policy rules.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper develops a spatio-temporal life cycle assessment model for grid-connected electrolytic hydrogen production in five Australian states. The model is built on Model-Based Systems Engineering and Hetero-functional Graph Theory, represented as a Petri net/incidence matrix, with hourly electricity generation mix and carbon intensity from Electricity Maps and hourly prices from AEMO. Three operational scenarios are compared over 2023: constant 20 kg/h production; production throttled by hourly grid carbon intensity thresholds; and production restricted to a strict tax-credit-eligibility threshold of 0.6 kg CO2/kg H2. The central claim is that time-varying, grid-aware scheduling reduces lifecycle emissions and costs, and that the HFGT model 'correctly calculates the temporal fluctuations of actual grid emissions' based on an 18-hour comparison with Electricity Maps.

Significance. If the validation were independent, the paper would provide a useful, reproducible framework for time-resolved LCA and a quantitative illustration of how scheduling and tax-credit rules affect hydrogen footprint and cost. The authors should be credited for using open datasets and for making the scenario arithmetic transparent. However, the reported validation is a self-consistency test against the same dataset used to build the model, and the policy conclusions depend on untested threshold choices. The value of the paper currently lies more in the scenario demonstration than in the claimed methodological validation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III-C and III-D] The validation in Sec. III-D is circular. Sec. III-C states that the incidence-matrix weights and the emission-factor row were 'derived using hourly electricity generation data from Electricity Maps' and emission factors from IPCC/GREET. Sec. III-D then compares the resulting hourly carbon-intensity reconstruction to Electricity Maps' reported carbon intensity over an 18-hour window. Because the same generation-mix data and emission factors are used on both sides, the close agreement in Fig. 7 is a self-consistency check, not independent verification. The claim that the model 'correctly calculates the temporal fluctuations of actual grid emissions' is therefore not supported. Independent validation against directly measured or held-out hourly emission data is needed, or the claim should be reduced to a consistency demonstration.
  2. [Sec. IV-C and IV-D] The year-long scenario results treat the Electricity Maps carbon-intensity time series as assumed ground truth without independent verification or uncertainty analysis. All reported emissions reductions, per-kg ratios, and cross-state comparisons inherit any bias in this dataset. In addition, the production thresholds (14.5/17/19 kg CO2/kg H2 in Scenario 2, and 0.6 kg CO2/kg H2 in Scenario 3) are introduced without empirical or policy justification; Scenario 3's threshold is so strict that only Tasmania produces, which is a direct consequence of that choice. A sensitivity analysis over thresholds and a justification of the policy basis are required before the conclusions about tax incentives can be considered robust.
  3. [Sec. II-C and III-C] The steady-state result ∆E = BA^{-1}∆Y in Eq. (8) requires the product block A to be square and invertible. This is asserted in the text, but the displayed 20×13 incidence matrix in Sec. III-C is not accompanied by any partition that makes A square. As presented, the matrix has 20 rows and 13 columns, and the paper does not identify which rows correspond to Y versus E. The HFGT derivation is therefore incomplete, and the transition to the scenario calculations is not explicit. Please provide the exact partition or, if the scenario calculations do not actually use Eq. (8), state that explicitly.
  4. [Abstract and Sec. IV] The abstract claims the model 'dynamically adjusts hydrogen output to minimize both emissions and production costs,' but the scenarios implement fixed threshold rules, not optimization. There is no trade-off analysis and no co-minimization. The conclusions should be framed as an evaluation of rule-based scheduling, not as an optimization result.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figs. 17 and 18] The captions appear to be swapped: the text says Fig. 17 shows monthly emissions and Fig. 18 shows per-unit cost, while the captions state the opposite.
  2. [Sec. IV] Units are inconsistent: 'kg CO2/kg H2' vs 'kg CO2eq/kg H2' appear interchangeably, and figure captions use 'kg CO2eq per kg of hydrogen Production.' Please standardize.
  3. [Sec. V] The conclusion lists New South Wales among states with substantial renewable contributions and reduced emissions, but Figs. 13 and 23 show NSW with among the highest emissions and carbon/hydrogen ratios. This should be corrected.
  4. [References] Reference [12] is cited as 'Niraj et al. (2025)' but is listed under Gohil et al.; reference [6] is unpublished. Please verify citations and provide published versions where available.
  5. [Secs. III-C and IV-C] Typos and naming inconsistencies: 'shwon' in Sec. IV-C; 'Electricity Mapping' vs 'Electricity Maps' throughout; and the process list in Eq. (9) contains 'Generate Electricity from Freshwater' while the operand and capability lists refer to 'Hydro Power.' Clarify the correspondence.
  6. [Sec. III-C] The statement that aggregating all resources of a type into a single instance is 'without loss of generality' is not accurate for a spatio-temporal analysis when plants of the same type have different performance or emissions. This should be stated as an assumption and limitation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Validation in Sec III-D is circular: the HFGT incidence-matrix weights are derived from the same Electricity Maps hourly data used as the comparison benchmark, so Fig. 7 only demonstrates self-consistency.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III-C (incidence matrix derivation, Fig. 6) and Section III-D (Validation of HFGT Life Cycle Analysis, Fig. 7)]
    "The values in the Petri Net incidence matrix were derived using hourly electricity generation data from Electricity Maps... These inputs were used to reconstruct the hourly carbon intensity using the formulation described in Section III-C. Specifically, each generation source was multiplied by its respective emission factor, and the weighted average carbon intensity was computed on an hourly basis. The reconstructed results obtained through the HFGT-Petri Net framework closely align with those reported by Electricity Maps [1]."

    The validation is not independent: the incidence-matrix weights (transition energy contributions and the gCO2eq/kWh row) are populated from Electricity Maps hourly generation data, and the 'benchmark' is Electricity Maps' reported carbon intensity computed from that same generation-mix/emission-factor data. The HFGT reconstruction is therefore a weighted average of the same inputs that Electricity Maps already averages, so Fig. 7's close alignment is a consistency check, not evidence that the Engineering System Net 'correctly calculates the temporal fluctuations of actual grid emissions.' No out-of-sample data is used; the claim reduces to 'the model reproduces its calibration input.'

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is: (1) instantiate MBSE/HFGT from prior work; (2) populate the incidence matrix from Electricity Maps hourly generation data and IPCC/GREET emission factors; (3) simulate hourly carbon intensity; (4) validate by comparing against Electricity Maps reported carbon intensity. Since steps (2) and (4) use the same data source, step (4) is a self-consistency check rather than independent verification. The claim in Sec III-D that the Engineering System Net 'correctly calculates the temporal fluctuations of actual grid emissions' is therefore forced by construction: the model output is a weighted recomputation of the very data it is compared to. The year-long scenario analysis in Sec IV is not itself circular—it applies the same Electricity Maps carbon-intensity time series as assumed ground truth, combines it with AEMO prices and hand-selected policy thresholds, and performs the LCA arithmetic—but it inherits the validation weakness and any systematic bias in the Electricity Maps data. The self-citation to [12] for the HFGT-LCA method is not by itself load-bearing circularity here, because the method is prior work and the present contribution is the application; the circularity is specifically in the validation design. Score 6 reflects that the central validation claim reduces to a fit against its own input, while other scenario comparisons retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on several hand-set parameters (electrolyzer efficiency, production rate, thresholds, operating cost) and on the external Electricity Maps/AEMO data. No new physical entities are introduced. The key structural axioms concern the validity of a fixed incidence matrix and the invertibility of A, plus the policy threshold that determines which states qualify.

free parameters (5)
  • Electrolyzer specific energy consumption = 52.5 kWh/kg H2
    Fixed PEM electrolyzer efficiency used in all scenarios to convert electricity consumption into H2 output and emissions; taken as an input assumption without sensitivity analysis.
  • Baseline production rate = 20 kg H2/hour
    Chosen maximum capacity for all scenarios; not derived from data or optimization.
  • Variable-production rule thresholds (Scenario 2) = 14.50, 17.00, 19.00 kg CO2eq/kg H2 for outputs 20, 8, 0 kg/h
    Hand-selected discrete mapping from carbon intensity to production rate; no optimization or sensitivity analysis provided.
  • Operational cost = AUD 1.96/kg H2
    Additional fixed operational cost per kg H2; stated without source or sensitivity.
  • Petri net incidence matrix weights and emission factors = Derived from Electricity Maps 2023 data (e.g., 820, 490, 650 gCO2eq/kWh; conversion weights such as -4.6/30.3 for coal)
    The M matrix entries in Sec III-C are computed from hourly generation data and assigned emission factors; these are the calibrated parameters that make the HFGT model reproduce Electricity Maps carbon intensity, so they are fitted to the validation target.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The hetero-functional incidence matrix M, with weights derived from a single aggregate 24-hour period, is valid for the entire 2023 year and across five Australian states.
    Invoked in Sec III-C and Sec IV-A; the matrix is presented as constant, but grid mixes change seasonally and spatially.
  • ad hoc to paper A (the product-environment partition of M) is square and invertible.
    Stated in Sec II (Eq. 7-8) to enable the steady-state LCA result Delta E = B A^-1 Delta Y; no justification is given for the number of outputs equaling the number of processes.
  • ad hoc to paper Resources of a given type can be aggregated into a single instance 'without loss of generality'.
    Stated in Sec III-C; aggregation erases spatial and temporal heterogeneity, which is central to a spatio-temporal LCA.
  • domain assumption The 0.6 kg CO2eq/kg H2 threshold defines eligibility for hydrogen tax credits in the Australian context.
    Sec IV-D invokes Section 45V of the U.S. IRA and proposes Australian equivalents; the specific value drives the result that only Tasmania produces hydrogen.
  • domain assumption Electricity Maps carbon intensity and AEMO spot prices are accurate and representative for lifecycle emissions and production costs.
    All scenario emissions and costs are computed from these external time series (Sec IV-A), and the HFGT validation in Sec III-D is against the same Electricity Maps source.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spatio-Temporal Life Cycle Analysis of Electrolytic H2 Production in Australia under Time-Varying CO2 Management Schemes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J5BXZL4H

@misc{pith2026250900175,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spatio-Temporal Life Cycle Analysis of Electrolytic H2 Production in Australia under Time-Varying CO2 Management Schemes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J5BXZL4H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.00175}
}
read the original abstract

The transition to sustainable energy is critical for addressing global climate change. Hydrogen production, particularly via electrolysis, has emerged as a key solution, offering the potential for low-carbon energy across various sectors. This paper presents a novel approach to enhancing hydrogen production by aligning it with periods of low-carbon intensity on the electricity grid. Leveraging real-time data from the Electricity Mapping database and real-time electricity cost data from the AEMO database, the model dynamically adjusts hydrogen output to minimize both emissions and production costs. Furthermore, the integration of hydrogen tax credits significantly enhances cost-effectiveness, offering a viable pathway for widespread adoption. A comprehensive Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) framework is employed to assess the environmental impacts, emphasizing the need for real-time data incorporation to more accurately reflect hydrogen production's carbon footprint. The study concludes that dynamic, real-time operation, coupled with financial incentives, provides a promising method to enhance the sustainability and economic viability of hydrogen production.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.00175 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A block definition diagram illustrating the Oil to Vehicle Motion System model, including its parts and data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An activity diagram with swimlanes illustrating the refining of oil, the production of gasoline, the generation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A SysML Block Definition Diagram of the System Form of the Engineering System Meta-Architecture [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (20 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A block definition diagram illustrating the Hydrogen Life Cycle System, presenting key processes involved in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Activity diagram illustrating the hydrogen life cycle system, capturing the flow of energy and materials from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Engineering System Net (Petri Net) representation of the hydrogen production life cycle via grid electricity in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of hourly carbon intensity values obtained using the proposed Petri Net-based HFGT life cycle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Hourly time series of life cycle carbon intensity of electricity production in Australia in 2023. [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Probability density function of life cycle carbon intensity (LCA CO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Hourly time series of electricity prices in Australia in 2023 [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Probability density function of electricity prices for a.) New South Wales (orange), b.) Queensland (red), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Monthly Maximum Hydrogen Production Capacity (2023), assuming continuous operation of the elec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Baseline Scenario - 20 kg H2/hr for all hours in 2023 for a.) New South Wales (orange), b.) Queensland (red), c.) South Australia (purple), d.) Tasmania (blue), e.) Victoria (green) in 2023. Monthly time series of life cycle carbon emissions in metric tons [PITH_FULL…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Baseline Scenario - 20 kg H2/hr for all hours in 2023 for a.) New South Wales (orange), b.) Queensland (red), c.) South Australia (purple), d.) Tasmania (blue), e.) Victoria (green) in 2023. Monthly time series of per unit H2 cost in $/kg. C. Variable Production Scena…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Production Rule for Variable Production Scenario 1: Depending on the life cycle carbon intensity of a given [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Variable Production Scenario 1 in 2023 for: a) New South Wales (orange), b) Queensland (red), c) South [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Variable Production Scenario 1 in 2023 for a.) New South Wales (orange), b.) Queensland (red), c.) South [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Variable Production Scenario 1 in 2023 for a.) New South Wales (orange), b.) Queensland (red), c.) South [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Smart Production Scenario 2 Relative Monthly H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Smart Production Scenario 2 Relative Monthly H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Smart Production Scenario 2 Relative Monthly H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Monthly Breakdown of Hydrogen Production, Carbon Output, Costs, and Tax Credit Earnings for Tasmania [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Comparison of yearly analysis across five Australian states (TAS, SA, VIC, NSW, QLD) under three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_23.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Datasets — electricity maps,

    Electricity Maps, “Datasets — electricity maps,” urlhttps://portal.electricitymaps.com/datasets, January 2025, version date: January 27, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://portal. electricitymaps.com/datasets

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Data dashboard — national electricity market (nem),

    Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), “Data dashboard — national electricity market (nem),” urlhttps://www.aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem, 2025, accessed August 26, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/ ...

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Life cycle assessment of hydrogen production via electrolysis–a review,

    R. Bhandari, C. A. Trudewind, and P . Zapp, “Life cycle assessment of hydrogen production via electrolysis–a review,” Journal of cleaner production, vol. 85, pp. 151–163, 2014

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Hydrogen production from water electrolysis: Current status and future trends,

    A. Ursua, L. M. Gandia, and P . Sanchis, “Hydrogen production from water electrolysis: Current status and future trends,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 100, no. 2, pp. 410–426, 2012

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    A comprehensive life cycle impact evaluation of hydrogen production processes for cleaner applications,

    A. Y. Goren, I. Dincer, and A. Khalvati, “A comprehensive life cycle impact evaluation of hydrogen production processes for cleaner applications,” Energy, vol. 326, p. 136182, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0360544225018249

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Life cycle assessment of hydrogen generation technologies in the presence of time-varying electric power carbon intensities,

    A. Franke and A. M. Farid, “Life cycle assessment of hydrogen generation technologies in the presence of time-varying electric power carbon intensities,” 2024, presented at the ASEM International Annual Conference, 2024. Unpublished manuscript

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Life-cycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from hydrogen delivery: A cost-guided analysis,

    E. D. Frank, A. Elgowainy, K. Reddi, and A. Bafana, “Life-cycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from hydrogen delivery: A cost-guided analysis,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy , vol. 46, no. 43, pp. 22 670–22 683, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319921014270

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Direct and Indirect Hydrogen Storage: Dynamics and Interactions in the Transition to a Renewable Energy Based System for Europe

    Z. Xie and G. B. Andresen, “Direct and indirect hydrogen storage: Dynamics and interactions in the transition to a renewable energy based system for europe,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.15072

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

Show all 18 references
  1. [9]

    World energy transitions outlook: 1.5°c pathway,

    International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), “World energy transitions outlook: 1.5°c pathway,” International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Abu Dhabi, Tech. Rep., 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/ 2021/March/IRENA Wor...

    2021

  2. [10]

    2022 u.s. energy & employment report (useer),

    U.S. Department of Energy, “2022 u.s. energy & employment report (useer),” U.S. Department of Energy, Tech. Rep., 2022, accessed: 2025-08-26. [Online]. Available: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-06/USEER%202022%20State%20Report 0.pdf

    2022

  3. [11]

    Hydrogen production tax incentive: Consultation paper,

    Department of the Treasury, “Hydrogen production tax incentive: Consultation paper,” Australian Government Treasury, Canberra, Australia, Tech. Rep., 2024. [Online]. Available: https://treasury.gov.au/consultation/c2024-541265

    2024

  4. [12]

    Enhancing spatio-temporal resolution of process-based life cycle analysis with model-based systems engineering & hetero-functional graph theory,

    N. Gohil, N. Haque, A. Elgowainy, and A. M. Farid, “Enhancing spatio-temporal resolution of process-based life cycle analysis with model-based systems engineering & hetero-functional graph theory,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.00230

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    W. C. Schoonenberg, I. S. Khayal, and A. M. Farid, A Hetero-functional Graph Theory for Modeling Interdependent Smart City Infrastructure . Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2019. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99301-0

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), 2015

    SE Handbook Working Group, Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities . International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), 2015

    2015

  7. [15]

    Hoyle, ISO 9000 pocket guide

    D. Hoyle, ISO 9000 pocket guide . Oxford ; Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1998. [Online]. Available: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ els033/99163006.html

    1998

  8. [16]

    A Tensor-Based Formulation of Hetero-functional Graph Theory,

    A. M. Farid, D. Thompson, and W. C. Schoonenberg, “A Tensor-Based Formulation of Hetero-functional Graph Theory,” Nature Scientific Reports, vol. 12, no. 18805, pp. 1–22, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19333-y

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    An engineering systems introduction to axiomatic design,

    A. M. Farid, “An engineering systems introduction to axiomatic design,” in Axiomatic Design in Large Systems: Complex Products, Buildings & Manufacturing Systems , A. M. Farid and N. P . Suh, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2016, ch. 1, pp. 1–47. [Online]. Available: http:/...

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    Hetero-functional Network Minimum Cost Flow Optimization,

    W. C. Schoonenberg and A. M. Farid, “Hetero-functional Network Minimum Cost Flow Optimization,” Sustainable Energy Grids and Networks, vol. 31, no. 100749, pp. 1–18, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.segan.2022.100749

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.