基于庞大算例变量提取的办公建筑能耗预测方法及应用
Energy Consumption Prediction Method of Office Building Based on the Variables Extraction From a Large-scale Simulation Database and a Case Study
-
摘要: 模拟法应用专业软件, 可准确计算动态能耗, 但输入参数烦琐且建筑几何模型确定后往往无法更改; 数据挖掘法计算速度快, 适用条件多样, 但是需要长时间历史数据进行训练, 效果受样本数据限制. 针对以上问题, 提出一种基于庞大算例变量提取的办公建筑能耗预测模型, 利用EnergyPlus建立批量典型建筑模型, 调整建筑参数生成百万条数据作为训练数据集; 采用LightGBM算法, 筛选影响负荷的特征因素, 构建负荷预测模型; 结合EnergyPlus中空调设备能耗计算模型, 应用python编译实现能耗预测, 并在北京某办公建筑中进行应用和验证. 结果表明, 筛选的24维特征变量, 可保证模型预测准确度在90%以上, 逐日能耗的预测平均相对误差为8.27%. 应用标准年气象参数计算全年建筑能耗, 逐月平均相对误差为10.37%, 建筑实际能耗指标为35.20 kW·h/(m2·a), 预测能耗指标为36.25 kW·h/(m2·a), 相对误差为2.98%.Abstract: Using professional software, the simulation method can accurately calculate the dynamic energy consumption, however, the input parameters are cumbersome and often cannot be changed after the building geometric model is determined. Data mining method is fast and can be applied in various conditions, however, it needs long-time historical training data and is greatly affected by data quality. Based on the above characteristics, an energy consumption prediction model of office buildings was proposed based on the variables extraction from large simulation examples in this paper. EnergyPlus was used to build bulk models of typical office buildings and adjust input parameters to generate a database of millions of data. LightGBM algorithm was used to screen the characteristic factors affecting the load and construct the load forecasting model. Results show that the selected 24 dimensional characteristic variables can ensure that the prediction accuracy of the model is more than 90%. Combined with the energy consumption calculation model of air-conditioning equipment in EnergyPlus, the energy consumption prediction was achieved by python compilation. An office building in Beijing was selected as a research case. The average relative error of daily energy consumption of the measurement period was 8.27%. Then, typical annual weather data was used to calculate annual building energy consumption and a monthly average relative error of 10.37% was obtained. The predicted energy use intensity was 36.25 kW·h/(m2·a), while the real value was 35.20 kW·h/(m2·a), with a relative error of 2.98%.