| Literature DB >> 35271075 |
Bukhoree Sahoh1,2, Mallika Kliangkhlao3, Nichnan Kittiphattanabawon1.
Abstract
Controlling thermal comfort in the indoor environment demands research because it is fundamental to indicating occupants' health, wellbeing, and performance in working productivity. A suitable thermal comfort must monitor and balance complex factors from heating, ventilation, air-conditioning systems (HVAC Systems) and outdoor and indoor environments based on advanced technology. It needs engineers and technicians to observe relevant factors on a physical site and to detect problems using their experience to fix them early and prevent them from worsening. However, it is a labor-intensive and time-consuming task, while experts are short on diagnosing and producing proactive plans and actions. This research addresses the limitations by proposing a new Internet of Things (IoT)-driven fault detection system for indoor thermal comfort. We focus on the well-known problem caused by an HVAC system that cannot transfer heat from the indoor to outdoor and needs engineers to diagnose such concerns. The IoT device is developed to observe perceptual information from the physical site as a system input. The prior knowledge from existing research and experts is encoded to help systems detect problems in the manner of human-like intelligence. Three standard categories of machine learning (ML) based on geometry, probability, and logical expression are applied to the system for learning HVAC system problems. The results report that the MLs could improve overall performance based on prior knowledge around 10% compared to perceptual information. Well-designed IoT devices with prior knowledge reduced false positives and false negatives in the predictive process that aids the system to reach satisfactory performance.Entities:
Keywords: air-handling unit; building sustainability; consciousness prior; heat transfer; indirect measurement; internet of things; machine learning
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35271075 PMCID: PMC8914663 DOI: 10.3390/s22051925
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Overview architecture of fault detection and diagnosis of thermal comfort.
The low-level information based on RVs for thermal comfort measurement.
| No. | Random Variable | State |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Indoor Temperature (I-Temp) | 0.00–60.00 °C |
| 2. | Indoor Relative Humidity (I-RH) | 0–100% RH |
| 3. | Outdoor Temperature (O-Temp) | 0.00–60.00 °C |
| 4. | Outdoor Humidity (O-RH) | 0–100% RH |
| 5. | Electric Current (Ampere) | 0.00–20.00 A |
| 6. | Timestamping (Date time) | 24 h timestamp (YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS) |
The high-level information based on RVs for thermal comfort measurement.
| No. | Discrete RV | State | Primary Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | HVAC Airflow | Good, Bad, Worst | Engineering Intervention |
| 2. | Indoor Feeling | Comfortable, Dry, Uncomfortable, Worst | I-Temp and I-RH |
| 3. | Outdoor Feeling | Comfortable, Dry, Uncomfortable, Worst | O-Temp and O-RH |
| 4. | Time of Day | Morning, Afternoon, Evening, Night | Date Time |
| 5. | In-Out Temp Diff | −20.00–20.00 °C | I-Temp and O-Temp |
| 6. | In-Out Humi Diff | 1.00–60.00% RH | I-RH and O-RH |
| 7. | Thermostat Diff | 1.00–10.00 °C | Thermostat and I-Temp |
The sensor models and their functions in interdisciplinary fields.
| No. | Field | Physical Sensor Model | Factor | Range | Error Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Indoor Environment | DHT22 AM2302 | Temperature | −40–80 °C | ±0.2 °C |
| Relative Humidity | 0–100% RH | ±1.0% RH | |||
| 2. | HVAC system | SCT-013 | Ampere | 0–100 A | ≤0.2 A |
| 3. | Outdoor Environment | AM2315 I2C Single Bus | Temperature | −40–125 °C | ±0.3 °C |
| Relative Humidity | 0–100% RH | ±2.0% RH |
Figure 2Schematic of the data acquisition setup as designed for this work: (a) diagram of electronic components and mechanical connectivity of device; (b) a printed circuit board (PCB) for the device electrical current flow; (c) prototype of sensor related devices.
Figure 3Installation of IoT-based measurement for thermal comfort in indoor environment.
Summary of good airflow condition.
| Summary/Factor | I-Temp | I-RH | O-Temp | O-RH | Ampere |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Minimum | 24.80 | 41.20 | 30.10 | 70.20 | 0.14 |
| 1st Quartile | 25.40 | 44.50 | 31.20 | 77.00 | 0.18 |
| Median | 25.50 | 46.40 | 31.80 | 79.20 | 6.94 |
| 3rd Quartile | 25.70 | 47.80 | 32.10 | 81.80 | 7.71 |
| Maximum | 26.00 | 51.60 | 34.60 | 91.80 | 10.12 |
| Mean | 25.45 | 46.24 | 31.62 | 80.18 | 5.32 |
| Standard Deviation | 0.26 | 2.07 | 0.64 | 5.20 | 3.35 |
Summary of bad airflow condition.
| Summary/Factor | I-Temp | I-RH | O-Temp | O-RH | Ampere |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Minimum | 22.20 | 33.20 | 29.70 | 63.40 | 0.05 |
| 1st Quartile | 22.60 | 37.10 | 30.90 | 71.40 | 6.47 |
| Median | 23.00 | 41.10 | 31.60 | 81.40 | 7.02 |
| 3rd Quartile | 23.30 | 44.20 | 31.90 | 85.40 | 7.60 |
| Maximum | 23.90 | 54.00 | 35.00 | 96.20 | 9.93 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary of worst airflow condition.
| Summary/Factor | I-Temp | I-RH | O-Temp | O-RH | Ampere |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Minimum | 23.00 | 31.10 | 27.20 | 65.30 | 0.01 |
| 1st Quartile | 23.90 | 34.10 | 31.10 | 73.00 | 6.56 |
| Median | 26.50 | 40.10 | 31.80 | 76.40 | 7.10 |
| 3rd Quartile | 28.40 | 40.60 | 32.30 | 83.70 | 7.61 |
| Maximum | 28.80 | 48.50 | 36.50 | 99.10 | 8.65 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 4Thermal comfort correlations based on indoor environment, outdoor environment, and HVAC system: (a) good condition; (b) bad condition; (c) worst condition.
The results of two-way ANOVA based on ampere-fixed observation.
| Source | Degrees of Freedom | F Statistic | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 3 | 2810.49 | <0.0001 |
|
| 4 | 65.46 | <0.0001 × 10−55 |
|
| 6 | 39.83 | <0.0001 × 10−48 |
|
| 1 | 1574.81 | <0.0001 |
|
| 1 | 54.79 | <0.0001 × 10−13 |
|
| 1 | 1094.35 | <0.0001 × 10−230 |
| 4 | 62.69 | <0.0001 × 10−52 | |
| Residual Variance | 13177.0 |
Figure 5The differences of ampere means and errors conditioned on TimeOfDay and Target.
The comparative effectiveness of Target based on partial hyperparameter tuning.
| Model | SVM | KNN | ANN | DT | NB | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Class | PS | RC | F1 | PS | RC | F1 | PS | RC | F1 | PS | RC | F1 | PS | RC | F1 |
| Power Off | 0.96 | 0.92 | 0.94 | 0.96 | 0.94 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.91 | 0.93 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.97 | 0.92 | 0.94 |
| Bad | 0.77 | 0.63 | 0.69 | 0.76 | 0.73 | 0.75 | 0.64 | 0.75 | 0.69 | 0.72 | 0.70 | 0.71 | 0.74 | 0.52 | 0.61 |
| Good | 0.77 | 0.93 | 0.84 | 0.85 | 0.91 | 0.88 | 0.78 | 0.77 | 0.78 | 0.85 | 0.86 | 0.85 | 0.70 | 0.93 | 0.80 |
| Worst | 0.86 | 0.60 | 0.71 | 0.86 | 0.79 | 0.82 | 0.83 | 0.67 | 0.74 | 0.78 | 0.82 | 0.80 | 0.91 | 0.44 | 0.60 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The comparative effectiveness of Target based on complete hyperparameter tuning.
| Model | SVM | KNN | ANN | DT | NB | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Class | PS | RC | F1 | PS | RC | F1 | PS | RC | F1 | PS | RC | F1 | PS | RC | F1 |
| Power Off | 0.97 | 1.00 | 0.99 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.96 | 1.00 | 0.98 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.98 | 0.99 |
| Bad | 0.83 | 0.67 | 0.74 | 0.77 | 0.76 | 0.77 | 0.87 | 0.68 | 0.76 | 0.86 | 0.86 | 0.86 | 0.66 | 0.59 | 0.62 |
| Good | 0.85 | 0.95 | 0.90 | 0.87 | 0.90 | 0.88 | 0.86 | 0.94 | 0.90 | 0.92 | 0.91 | 0.92 | 0.77 | 0.88 | 0.82 |
| Worst | 0.89 | 0.69 | 0.78 | 0.86 | 0.80 | 0.83 | 0.89 | 0.76 | 0.82 | 0.90 | 0.94 | 0.92 | 0.73 | 0.52 | 0.61 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 6Comparison of the machine learning models between partial and complete hyperparameter tunings based on precision, recall, and f-measure: (a) comparison of the macro avg of SVM models; (b) comparison of the macro avg of KNN models; (c) comparison of the macro avg of ANN models; (d) comparison of the macro avg of DT models; (e) comparison of the macro avg of NB models.