| Literature DB >> 30360459 |
Junqi Wang1, Norman Chung Fai Tse2, Tin Yan Poon3, John Yau Chung Chan4.
Abstract
The operating efficiency of heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system is critical for building energy performance. Demand-based control is an efficient HVAC operating strategy, which can provide an appropriate level of HVAC services based on the recognition of actual cooling "demand." The cooling demand primarily relies on the accurate detection of occupancy. The current researches of demand-based HVAC control tend to detect the occupant count using cameras or other sensors, which often impose high computation and costs with limited real-life applications. Instead of detecting the occupant count, this paper proposes to detect the occupancy density. The occupancy density (estimated by image foreground moving pixels) together with the indoor and outdoor information (acquired from existing sensors) are used as inputs to an artificial neural network model for cooling demand estimation. Experiments have been implemented in a university design studio. Results show that, by adding the occupancy density, the cooling demand estimation error is greatly reduced by 67.4% and the R value is improved from 0.75 to 0.96. The proposed approach also features low-cost, computationally efficient, privacy-friendly and easily implementable. It shows good application potentials and can be readily incorporated into existing building management systems for improving energy efficiency.Entities:
Keywords: HVAC; background subtraction; cooling demand estimation; occupancy density; vision-based occupancy detection
Year: 2018 PMID: 30360459 PMCID: PMC6263512 DOI: 10.3390/s18113591
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Characteristics of different occupancy detection technologies.
| Sensing Technology | Type of Sensing | Advantages | Disadvantages | Cost | Commonly Installed? (Yes/No) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| temperature or relative humidity sensors | indirect |
Opportunities to associate with thermal comfort; |
Low accuracy; Low occupancy resolution (often a value of mixing air); Slow response due to the air mixing; | No | Yes |
| CO2 | indirect |
Associate with indoor air quality; |
Easily lead to erroneous measurements due to the diversity in activity level of occupants and envelop infiltrations; Low occupancy resolution (often a value of mixing air); Slow response due to the process of air mixing; Low accuracy and necessity of sensor calibration; | No | Yes |
| Infrared | direct |
High accuracy; Opportunities to associate with thermal comfort; |
Unable to detect stationary occupants; Thermal cameras can be expensive; Not commonly installed; | Low (PIR); High (thermal cameras) | No |
| Wi-Fi or BLE | direct |
High accuracy; High covering range; |
Require devices to be carried and turning on Wi-Fi or Bluetooth; Signal stability affected by physical obstacles; Occupants outside the physical partition of the room/zone may be miss-counted; | No (Wi-Fi); | Yes (Wi-Fi); |
| RFID | direct |
High accuracy; Low cost; |
May require tags to be carried (inconvenience on daily activities); Human health concerns of electromagnetic waves; Devices are usually battery-powered and not sustainable for long-term use; | Medium | No |
| Sound | direct |
Moderate accuracy; Opportunities to associate with social behaviors; |
Accuracy is easily affected by noise [ Require multiple sensors; | Low | No |
| Vision-based detection | direct |
High accuracy; High occupancy resolution (i.e., able to obtain occupants’ count or location); |
Detection area is limited by camera angle and object occlusion; Privacy or ethical issues; Influence of illumination; May require expensive cameras (e.g., 3D or depth cameras [ | No/Low (surveillance cameras); High (advanced cameras) | Yes (surveillance camera); |
Figure 1Block diagram of the proposed load estimation scheme.
General relationship between metabolic rate and density of foreground moving pixels.
| Activity | Metabolic Rate—Male Adult ( | Density of Foreground Moving Pixels |
|---|---|---|
| Sleeping | 40 | Very low |
| Standing, relaxed | 70 | Low |
| Office work (reading writing, typing) | 55–65 | Low |
| Walking (0.9 m/s) | 120 | Moderate |
| Walking (1.8 m/s) | 220 | High |
Figure 2Images before and after processing (using adaptive GMM) [47].
Information summary of the university design studio.
| Test room Area: 45 m2 | Maximum Number of Occupants: 30 Persons | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equipment: One Projector and One PC | Lighting: Eight Luminaries | ||||
| Chiller Water Temperature | Measured Supply Water Temperature | 8.1–10.2 °C | Normal operation schedule | 07:00–23:00 (Weekdays) | |
| Measured Return Water Temperature | 14.5–17.5 °C | 07:00–18:00 (Saturdays) | |||
Figure 3Test room: (a) 3D visualization; (b) cooling system schematic; (c) design studios layout plan.
Summary of data collected.
| Source | BMS | Online Weather System | Camera |
|---|---|---|---|
| Information | CO2 × 2, Return and supply air temperature | Temperature & Relative humidity | Real-time Streaming Video |
| No. of information | 4 | 2 | 1 |
| Connection Type | Internet | Internet | USB |
| Sensor accuracy | Temperature sensor: Sensirion STS30, ±0.2 °C at a temperature range of 0 °C to 65 °C; | N/A | N/A |
Figure 4The webcam (left) and Raspberry Pi (right).
Figure 5Screenshots of the test room.
Selected experimental days and weather statistics (in the year of 2016).
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Date | 29 | 1–4, 7–10, 14–18, 28–31 | 18–22, 25–29 | 2 |
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
| |
| Temperature (°C) | 30 | 10 | 21.24 | 4.34 |
| Humidity (%) | 100 | 25 | 79.39 | 13.99 |
Figure 6Histogram of the outdoor temperature.
Figure 7Walking (1.8 m/s)—sample images.
Figure 8Walking (1.2 m/s)—sample images.
Figure 9Walking (0.9 m/s)—sample images.
Figure 10Walking about—sample images.
Figure 11Standing relaxed—sample image.
Figure 12Reading and/or writing—sample images.
Figure 13Sleeping—sample images.
Values of the tested DFMP with Metabolic Heat Generation Rate.
| Activity Type | Metabolic Heat Generation Rate (w/m2) | DFMP (%) |
|---|---|---|
| walking—1.8 m/s | 220 | 3.12 |
| walking—1.2 m/s | 150 | 2.83 |
| walking—0.9 m/s | 115 | 2.47 |
| walking about | 100 | 1.83 |
| standing relaxed | 70 | 1.24 |
| reading & writing | 55 | 0.1 |
| sleeping | 40 | 0.028 |
Figure 14Metabolic Heat Generation Rate vs. DFMP.
Figure 15Occupancy Schedule.
Figure 16Measured and estimated cooling demand (a) with vision-based occupancy information; (b) without vision-based occupancy information (darker area represents more data points).
Figure 17Instantaneous load in one day.