Abstract

The potential reduction in energy consumption for space heating in buildings realised by the use of predictive control systems directly depends on the prediction accuracy of the building thermal behaviour model. Hence, model calibration methods that allow improved prediction accuracy for specific buildings have received significant scientific interest. An extension of this work is the potential use of calibrated models to estimate the thermal properties of an existing building, using measurements collected from the actual building, rather than relying on building specifications.Simplified thermal network models, often expressed as grey-box Resistor-Capacitor circuit analogue models, have been successfully applied in the prediction setting. However, the use of such models as soft sensors for the thermal properties of a building requires an assumption of physical interpretation of the estimated parameters. The parameters of these models are estimated under the effects of both epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty, in the model structure and the calibration data. This uncertainty is propagated to the estimated parameters. Depending on the model structure and the dynamic information content in the data, the parameters may not be identifiable, thus resulting in ambiguous point estimates.In this paper, the Profile Likelihood method, typical of a frequentist interpretation of parameter estimation, is used to diagnose parameter identifiability by projecting the likelihood function onto each parameter. If a Bayesian framework is used, treating the parameters as random variables with a probability distribution in the parameter space, projections of the posterior distribution can be studied by using the Profile Posterior method. The latter results in projections that are similar to the marginal distributions obtained by the popular Markov Chain Monte Carlo method. The different approaches are applied and compared for five experimental cases based on observed data. Ambiguity of the estimated parameters is resolved by the application of a prior distribution derived from a priori knowledge, or by appropriate modification of the model structure. The posterior predictive distribution of the model output predictions is shown to be mostly unaffected by the parameter non-identifiability.

Highlights

  • The presence of flat, equipotential regions in the posterior hyper-surface indicates that parameters Rb and Rw are nonidentifiable

  • The corresponding PP2D profile in Fig, 4 shows a linear inter-dependence between the parameters Rb and Rw, which is indicative of a structural problem with the R3C2 model, resulting in non-identifiable parameters because of over-parameterisation

  • Observe that the Maximum Aposteriori Estimate (MAP) estimates of the four thermal parameters are in reasonable agreement for Cases 3, 4 and 5, which indicates that the estimated parameters are consistent irrespective of the data-set used for calibration, at least to some degree considering the datasets where recorded consecutively

Read more

Summary

Background

The reduction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions is perhaps the most important task in modern science. Development of accurate prediction models is essential Another application of interest for building thermal modelling is the classification of building properties related to space heating, for improved evaluation of the energy performance of existing buildings [5]. A popular method for modelling building thermal behaviour is the use of simplified thermal network models expressed as a Resistor-Capacitor analogue [6,7,4,3,8,9] Regardless of their proven efficiency in the prediction setting, the parameters of a thermal network model may not be suitable as soft sensors for monitoring building properties, since this assumes a physical interpretation of the parameters as constants of the physical building [5,10]. For such an assumption to be justified, the verification of parameter identifiability is essential, in order to ensure unambiguous parameter estimation

Previous work
Parameter estimation and analysis
Overview
E Àkj1kÀ1
The stochastic discrete time linear model
Identifiability of parameters
Resolving non-identifiability by application of a prior
Profile likelihood and profile posterior
Comparing MCMC and profiling methods
Experimental setup
C b Rb
Training and test datasets
Experiment cases and setup
Tuning
Marginal and projected posteriors
MAP point estimates with uncertainty
Posterior predictive distribution for the Test dataset
Physical interpretation of estimated parameters
Comparing MCMC and PP methods
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.