| Literature DB >> 30150573 |
Ignacio Rodríguez-Rodríguez1, Aurora González Vidal2, Alfonso P Ramallo González3, Miguel Ángel Zamora4.
Abstract
Human behavior is one of the most challenging aspects in the understanding of building physics. The need to evaluate it requires controlled environments and facilities in which researchers can test their methods. In this paper, we present the commissioning of the Controlled and Automatized Testing Facility for Human Behavior (CASITA). This is a controlled space emulation of an office or flat, with more than 20 environmental sensors, 5 electrical meters, and 10 actuators. Our contribution shown in this paper is the development of an infrastructure-Artificial Intelligence (AI) model pair that is perfectly integrated for the study of a variety of human energy use aspects. This facility will help to perform studies about human behavior in a controlled space. To verify this, we have tested this emulation for 60 days, in which equipment was turned on and off, the settings of the conditioning system were modified remotely, and lighting operation was similar to that in real behaviors. This period of commissioning generated 74.4 GB of raw data including high-frequency measurements. This work has shown that CASITA performs beyond expectations and that sensors and actuators could enable research on a variety of disciplines related to building physics and human behavior. Also, we have tested the PROPHET software, which was previously used in other disciplines and found that it could be an excellent complement to CASITA for experiments that require the prediction of several pertinent variables in a given study. Our contribution has also been to proof that this package is an ideal "soft" addition to the infrastructure. A case study forecasting energy consumption has been performed, concluding that the facility and the software PROPHET have a great potential for research and an outstanding accuracy.Entities:
Keywords: buildings; energy; modelling
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30150573 PMCID: PMC6164369 DOI: 10.3390/s18092829
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Infographic of a possible setup of the Controlled and Automatized Testing Facility for Human Behavior (CASITA) and distribution of all devices (sensors, actuators and controllers).
Figure 2Hardware and communication architecture in CASITA.
Figure 3Wiring of data loggers, Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA), and other devices in the main wiring cabinet of CASITA.
Description of the sensors and actuators available in CASITA.
| Features | Sensor Deployments Allow Measurement of a Wide Set of Data |
|---|---|
| Weather data | Temperature and humidity. |
| Weather forecast | Up to 4 days. |
| Indoor conditions | In four different locations, temperature and humidity. |
| Occupancy and activity | A control access system in the test lab entrance and volumetric detectors in each room let predict in an accurate way the tracking of human presence. |
| Energy consumption: | For this purpose, and to monitor each component separately, non-intrusive load monitoring techniques have been considered [ |
| Electrical devices | Computers and other appliance are monitored. |
| Lighting | Differentiating each room. |
| Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) | Each air-conditioned machine is quantified but is much bigger than the previous consumptions, which makes it energetically undesirable. |
|
|
|
| Access | Test lab can be completely locked, rendering it impossible to enter. |
| Control of the energy supplies | The plugs can be disabled completely. |
| Control of the HVAC machines | It is possible to force a shutdown or a start. The temperature set point and fan velocity mode can be chosen. |
| Ventilation grilles | Each air supply duct ends in a motorized ventilation grille (one per room), which can be opened or closed depending on the nature of its use in the area. |
Figure 4Representation of temperature and power for seven days of data in CASITA.
Figure 5(a) Error mean between weather forecast (temperature) and outdoor temperature. (b) Error mean between weather forecast (humidity) and outdoor humidity.
Figure 6Root-mean-square error (RMSE) achieved after having into account the error mean evolution.
Figure 7Cross correlation between influential variables in energy consumption. Done with a native routine in R: corrplot.
Figure 8Schema of Model 1 and Model 2.
Figure 9Twenty-four hour predictions performed with the fitter model (blue line) and the true values (black dots) with Model 1.
Figure 10Twenty-four hour predictions performed with the fitter model (blue line) and the true values (black dots) with Model 2.
Figure 11Energy consumption-real measures vs prediction (Model 1/Model 2).
Figure 12Mean absolute error (Model 1/Model 2).
Evolution of RMSE values over 24 h.
| Hour | RMSE Model 1 | RMSE Model 2 | Improvement | Hour | RMSE Model 1 | RMSE Model 2 | Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | 192.93 | 176.80 | 8.36% | 13 | 378.35 | 384.33 | −1.58% |
| 02 | 200.24 | 182.96 | 8.63% | 14 | 381.95 | 381.93 | 0.00% |
| 03 | 210.39 | 191.86 | 8.81% | 15 | 358.22 | 358.05 | 0.05% |
| 04 | 222.05 | 202.28 | 8.90% | 16 | 358.66 | 352.96 | 1.59% |
| 05 | 231.73 | 212.67 | 8.23% | 17 | 349.19 | 342.75 | 1.84% |
| 06 | 243.96 | 222.99 | 8.59% | 18 | 356.19 | 344.36 | 3.32% |
| 07 | 251.60 | 230.77 | 8.28% | 19 | 249.11 | 247.70 | 0.57% |
| 08 | 262.76 | 239.10 | 9.00% | 20 | 258.60 | 255.62 | 1.15% |
| 09 | 275.33 | 250.72 | 8.94% | 21 | 269.52 | 265.63 | 1.44% |
| 10 | 427.56 | 432.00 | −1.04% | 22 | 160.57 | 149.72 | 6.75% |
| 11 | 381.20 | 377.35 | 1.01% | 23 | 172.48 | 159.43 | 7.57% |
| 12 | 376.05 | 374.41 | 0.43% | 24 | 181.99 | 167.22 | 8.12% |