Eine Plattform für die Wissenschaft: Bauingenieurwesen, Architektur und Urbanistik
Eine Plattform für die Wissenschaft: Bauingenieurwesen, Architektur und Urbanistik
Machine learning vs. hybrid machine learning model for optimal operation of a chiller
This article compares two modeling approaches for optimal operation of a turbo chiller installed in an office building: (1) a machine learning model developed with artificial neural network (ANN) and (2) a hybrid machine learning model developed with the ANN model and available physical knowledge of the chiller. Before developing the ANN model of the chiller, the authors used Gaussian mixture model in order to check the validity of measured data. Then, the hybrid model was developed by combining the ANN model and physics-based regression equations from the EnergyPlus engineering reference. It was found that both the ANN and hybrid ANN model are satisfactory to predict the chiller’s power consumption: mean bias error (MBE) = −2.63%, coefficient of variation of the root mean square error (CVRMSE) = 8.05% by the ANN model; MBE = −3.99%, CVRMSE = 11.98% by the hybrid ANN model. However, the hybrid model requires fewer inputs (four inputs) than the ANN model (eight inputs). The energy savings of both models are similar coefficient of performance (COP) = 4.32 by the optimal operation of the ANN model; COP = 4.44 by the optimal operation of the hybrid ANN model. In addition, the hybrid ANN model can be applied where the ANN model is unable to provide accurate predictions.
Machine learning vs. hybrid machine learning model for optimal operation of a chiller
This article compares two modeling approaches for optimal operation of a turbo chiller installed in an office building: (1) a machine learning model developed with artificial neural network (ANN) and (2) a hybrid machine learning model developed with the ANN model and available physical knowledge of the chiller. Before developing the ANN model of the chiller, the authors used Gaussian mixture model in order to check the validity of measured data. Then, the hybrid model was developed by combining the ANN model and physics-based regression equations from the EnergyPlus engineering reference. It was found that both the ANN and hybrid ANN model are satisfactory to predict the chiller’s power consumption: mean bias error (MBE) = −2.63%, coefficient of variation of the root mean square error (CVRMSE) = 8.05% by the ANN model; MBE = −3.99%, CVRMSE = 11.98% by the hybrid ANN model. However, the hybrid model requires fewer inputs (four inputs) than the ANN model (eight inputs). The energy savings of both models are similar coefficient of performance (COP) = 4.32 by the optimal operation of the ANN model; COP = 4.44 by the optimal operation of the hybrid ANN model. In addition, the hybrid ANN model can be applied where the ANN model is unable to provide accurate predictions.
Machine learning vs. hybrid machine learning model for optimal operation of a chiller
Park, SungHo (Autor:in) / Ahn, Ki Uhn (Autor:in) / Hwang, Seungho (Autor:in) / Choi, Sunkyu (Autor:in) / Park, Cheol Soo (Autor:in)
Science and Technology for the Built Environment ; 25 ; 209-220
07.02.2019
12 pages
Aufsatz (Zeitschrift)
Elektronische Ressource
Englisch
Model-free optimal chiller loading method based on Q-learning
| Taylor & Francis Verlag | 2020
Hybrid Machine Learning Model for Landslides Prediction
| IEEE | 2024
Model-free MIMO control tuning of a chiller process using reinforcement learning
| Taylor & Francis Verlag | 2023