4.7 Article

Bayesian calibration of building energy models with large datasets

Journal

ENERGY AND BUILDINGS
Volume 154, Issue -, Pages 343-355

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.08.069

Keywords

Building simulation; Bayesian calibration; Uncertainty analysis; Hamiltonian Monte Carlo; No-U-Turn Sampler

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Bayesian calibration as proposed by Kennedy and O'Hagan [22] has been increasingly applied to building energy models due to its ability to account for the discrepancy between observed values and model predictions. However, its application has been limited to calibration using monthly aggregated data because it is computationally inefficient when the dataset is large. This study focuses on improvements to the current implementation of Bayesian calibration to building energy simulation. This is achieved by: (1) using information theory to select a representative subset of the entire dataset for the calibration, and (2) using a more effective Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm, the No-U-Turn Sampler (NUTS), which is an extension of Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (HMC) to explore the posterior distribution. The calibrated model was assessed by evaluating both accuracy and convergence. Application of the proposed method is demonstrated using two cases studies: (1) a TRNSYS model of a water-cooled chiller in a mixed-use building in Singapore, and (2) an EnergyPlus model of the cooling system of an office building in Pennsylvania, U.S.A. In both case studies, convergence was achieved for all parameters of the posterior distribution, with Gelman-Rubin statistics (R) over cap within 1 +/- 0.1. The coefficient of variation of the root mean squared error (CVRMSE) and normalized mean biased error (NMBE) were also within the thresholds set by ASHRAE Guideline 14 [1]. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available