4.6 Article

A new hybrid model to foretell thermal power efficiency from energy performance certificates at residential dwellings applying a Gaussian process regression

期刊

NEURAL COMPUTING & APPLICATIONS
卷 33, 期 12, 页码 6627-6640

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00521-020-05427-z

关键词

Energy performance certificate (EPC); Gaussian process regression (GPR); Differential evolution (DE); Residential buildings

资金

  1. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) [PGC2018-098459-B-I00, FC-GRUPIN-IDI/2018/000221]
  2. [FUO-118-19]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The research used the Gaussian process regression method to establish a predictive model for early detection of thermal power efficiency in buildings, based on data collected from different dwellings. The model successfully predicted the thermal power efficiency and demonstrated the effectiveness of the innovative approach.
An energy performance certificate (EPC) provides information on the energy performance of an energy system. The objective of this research aimed at obtaining a predictive model for early detection of thermal power efficiency (TPE) for energy conversion and preservation in buildings. This article expounds a sound and solid nonparametric Bayesian technique known as Gaussian process regression (GPR) approach, based on a set of data collected from different dwellings in an oceanic climate. Firstly, this model introduces the relevance of each predictive variable on energy performance in residential buildings. The second result refers to the statement that we can predict successfully the TPE by using this model. A coefficient of determination equal to 0.9687 was thus established in order to predict the TPE from the observed data, using the GPR approach in combination with the differential evolution (DE) optimiser. The concordance between experimental observed data and the predicted data from the best-proposed novel hybrid DE/GPR-relied model demonstrated here the adequate efficiency of this innovative approach.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据