4.7 Article

A relevant data selection method for energy consumption prediction of low energy building based on support vector machine

期刊

ENERGY AND BUILDINGS
卷 138, 期 -, 页码 240-256

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.11.009

关键词

Building energy consumption; Prediction; Low energy building; Support vector machine; Online and offline learning

资金

  1. Ecole des Mines de Nantes
  2. Eindhoven University of Technology
  3. Veolia Recherche et Innovation (VERI)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Low energy buildings (LEBs) are being considered as a promising solution for the built environment to satisfy high-energy efficiency standards. The technology is based on lowering the overall heat transmission coefficient value (U-value) of the buildings envelope and increasing a heat capacity thus creating a higher thermal inertia. However, LEB introduces a large time constant compared to conventional building due to which it slows the rate of heat transfer between interior of building and outdoor environment and alters the indoor climate regardless of sudden changes in climatic conditions. Therefore, it is challenging to estimate and predict thermal energy demand for such LEBs. This work focuses on artificial intelligence (AI) model to predict energy consumption of LEB. Two kinds of Al modeling approaches: all data and relevant data are considered. The all data uses all available training data and relevant data uses a small representative day dataset and addresses the complexity of building non-linear dynamics by introducing past day climatic impacts behavior. This extraction is based on dynamic time warping pattern recognition methods. The case study consists of a French residential LEB. The numerical results showed that relevant data modeling approach that relies on small representative data selection has higher accuracy (R-2=0.98; RMSE = 3.4) than all data modeling approach (R-2 = 0.93; RMSE = 7.1) to predict heating energy load. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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