4.7 Article

Hidden factors and handling strategy for accuracy of virtual in-situ sensor calibration in building energy systems: Sensitivity effect and reviving calibration

Journal

ENERGY AND BUILDINGS
Volume 170, Issue -, Pages 217-228

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.04.017

Keywords

Virtual in-situ sensor calibration; Building sensors; Sensitivity effect; Bayesian MCMC; Global sensitivity analysis; LiBr-H2O refrigeration

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [EPS-10004094]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Virtual in-situ calibration (VIC) can be conducted on a large scale, in-situ, to calibrate multiple working sensors in an operational building's energy system based on Bayesian inference. As well as random errors, the VIC can handle various systematic errors that are not covered by a conventional calibration, and it does not require removing working sensors or adding reference sensors as is done in a conventional calibration. For successful calibration under the various working conditions of a system, it is important to figure out hidden factors and their negative impacts on the accuracy of VIC. Through case studies for a LiBr-H2O refrigeration system, this study reveals two different sensitivity effects and how they affect the accuracy of VIC. Moreover, to handle the sensitivity issues, a new calibration strategy (named reviving calibration) is suggested and then evaluated in this work. This paper (1) shows the VIC problem formulation process, (2) explains how the two sensitivity effects influence the calibration accuracy, and (3) proves how and how much the suggested handling strategy solves the negative effects problem. The two case studies demonstrate the reviving calibration results in average 53% and 4% improvements, respectively, for temperature and mass flow rate sensors compared to the existing VIC method. (C) 2018 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