Risk Assessment of Green Intelligent Building Based on Artificial Intelligence.

Green smart building is the development direction of future architecture. It is of great significance to carry out risk assessment. Fire risk is the key content of building risk, so this paper takes fire risk as the research object, with the help of artificial intelligence technology, to carry out the risk assessment research of green smart buildings. With the rapid development of the economy, urban fire risk factors are increasing, and the fire situation is becoming more and more serious. Building fire risk assessment is an important measure to effectively prevent and control urban building fires. This paper uses Internet of Things data to carry out fire risk assessment and realize Internet of Things data mining. Collect a large number of expert samples to build training samples, train the green intelligent building monomer fire risk assessment and prediction model based on deep neural network, constantly adjust the model parameters to optimize the model, and finally verify and modify the model.

1. Introduction

In order to make people's lives in the city more scientific and efficient, and the living environment better, we need to vigorously develop green smart buildings [1-3]. Green smart buildings can protect the environment, reduce carbon emissions, and improve people's lives efficiency, which greatly facilitates people's lives [4-6]. Big data and ICT can better serve people's lives. A real green smart building should focus on residents, strive to improve the quality of life of residents, and ensure the sustainability of products [5, 6]. The continuous development of green smart buildings can reduce global carbon emissions, reduce pollution to the natural environment, and create a good green and warm living environment for people.

In social life, fires threaten public safety, people's lives, and national property. Frequent urban fires will cause certain negative effects on society and affect social stability and people's happiness. In the past two years, the fire safety situation in China has remained generally stable, but the fire statistics are still not optimistic. Fire risk is one of the key risks faced by green smart buildings, and it is also a very representative risk [7-12]. Therefore, it is of great significance to carry out a dynamic fire risk assessment for green smart buildings.

Building fire risk assessment is an effective method to prevent building fire. Building fire risk assessment refers to the use of urban building fire information to identify the key factors in the process of fire occurrence and development, so as to determine the risk of building fire and predict the probability and consequences of fire. From the current situation of urban fire and the current situation of fire safety management in China, the research on fire risk assessment of individual buildings is helpful to explore the governance deficiencies of fire safety work of urban buildings, find out the fire situation of high-risk buildings in urban fires, and provide basic fire risk data to guide the prevention and control of urban building fires.

2. Dynamic Risk Assessment Model for Green Intelligent Building

2.1. Training Samples of Deep Neural Network

Neural network learning [13-17] is divided into supervised (with a teacher) learning and unsupervised (without a teacher) learning. In this paper, the neural network model is trained by a supervised learning method characterized by the training sample's expected output (one-to-one correspondence with the input) [18-21].

The composition of the training samples in this paper: the input samples are the hypothetical building fire risk index evaluation values, and the output samples are the experts' risk assessment results for all hypothetical target buildings. To obtain the above training samples, the key is to conduct surveys and statistics on how experts evaluate building fire risks. The training samples are constructed in two parts. First, a weight set of 31 indicators is constructed based on expert statistics. The evaluation result of each building is then calculated as the expected output based on the assumed building index evaluation value.

2.1.1. Constructing the Indicator Weight Set

The preparatory work for constructing training samples needs to count the indicator weight sets of each expert. At present, the most widely used building fire risk assessment method is the semiquantitative analysis method, which uses the analytic hierarchy process to give weights to the indicators. The basic step of AHP is to organize the various indicators of complex problems into corresponding levels [22-29]. All subindicators in each class of indicators are compared with other indicators one-by-one, and the importance of each pair of indicators is weighed. A specific scale method is assigned to construct a judgment matrix. Finally, the relative weights of the corresponding indicators are calculated according to the judgment matrix. The specific steps for constructing the indicator weight set are:

(1) Create an Indicator Weight Questionnaire Based on AHP. Based on the index system constructed in chapter three, a questionnaire is created following the idea of the analytic hierarchy process. In addition, fire engineers who have long worked in the field of fire protection and experts engaged in fire protection research in universities, and fire research institutes are invited to fill in the questionnaire. This paper's indicator system (Figure 1) has two levels: A1–A4, and the second-level: B1–B9, B10–B20, B21–B27, and B28–B31, which are equivalent to five classes.

Figure 1

Indicator system.

Therefore, in the end, each expert needs to score five judgment matrices according to the corresponding scaling method. Regarding the selection of the scaling method, the following principles are adopted according to the order of the judgment matrix: The 1–9 scale method is used for the fourth order and below, and the 0.618 scale method is more suitable for the fifth order and above [25, 26]. The results of 39 experts in the field of fire protection were finally collected like this.

(2) Sort Out the Judgment Matrix from the Survey Results. According to the results of the 39 experts in the above questionnaire, download and organize them and fill them in the table. Each expert forms five judgment matrices. The matrix sizes are 4th order (A1–A4), 9th order (B1–B9), 11th order (B10–B20), 7th order (B21–B27), and 4th order (B28–B31). As shown in Table 1 it is the judgment matrix of the second-level indicators B21–B27 of No. 1 expert, numbered Z1–A3.

Table 1

Judgment matrix example table of B21–B27.

Z1-A3	B21	B22	B23	B24	B25	B26	B27
B21	1	0.2349	0.3809	0.3809	0.3809	0.2809	0.6169
B22	4.2386	1	1.6193	1.6193	1.6193	2.6193	1.6193
B23	2.6157	0.6159	1	1	1	1.6159	1
B24	2.6167	0.6169	1	1	1	2.6169	1.6169
B25	2.6191	0.6193	1	1	1	2.6193	1.6193
B26	2.6157	0.6159	0.6159	0.3799	0.3799	1	1
B27	1.6170	0.6169	1	0.6169	0.6169	1	1

(3) Calculate the Weighting Coefficients of Each Expert for 31 Indicators to Form the Indicator Weight Set. The characteristic root method is relatively simple to calculate relative weights. Input the above judgment matrix into MATLAB, and use the eig function to perform matrix calculation. The maximum characteristic value is obtained to prepare for subsequent inspection of consistency, and the corresponding eigenvector represents the relative weight of each indicator. Still taking the A3 (B21–B27) part of expert No. 1 as an example, the input of the judgment matrix made by the expert to A3 is variable Z1 after executing the command in MATLAB, the obtained D1 is the eigenvalue of the matrix, V1 is the eigenvector of the matrix, and w1 is the seven weights of B21–B27 after the normalization of the data in the first column of V1.

(4) Screening Qualified Expert Weight Set. According to the duration of filling in the questionnaire and the consistency test, the qualified expert weights were selected from 39 questionnaires. The questionnaires whose filling time were less than 200 seconds and failed to meet the consistency test standard were excluded.

The calculation steps of the consistency check [25-29] are as follows:

Calculate the consistency indicator C.I.

In the formula, C.I. is the consistency indicator; λmax is the maximum characteristic value of the judgment matrix; n is the order of the judgment matrix; C.I. is the random consistency ratio; R.I is the average random consistency indicator, and the value can be found in Table 2.

Table 2

Average random consistency indicator value table.

Matrix order	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
R.I.	0	0	0.52	0.89	1.12	1.26	1.36	1.41	1.46

When the judgments are completely consistent, C.R. = 0, generally only C.R.<0.1 is required, and the judgment matrix's consistency is considered qualified.

After summary calculation, 11 valid questionnaires were obtained, and finally, 11 sets of indicator weights with good consistency test results were obtained.

2.1.2. Constructing Training Samples

According to the constructed 11 sets of index weight sets, the fire risk score of the training sample is calculated as the expected output, and the building fire risk score is shown in the following formula:

In the formula, Y is the building fire risk score (expected output); W is the weight coefficient of the indicator i; and X is the assumed building indicator evaluation value.

In practical application, indicators are divided into static and dynamic indicators, so the source of the evaluation value of indicators should be discussed separately. However, in the model training stage, to make the model come into contact with different sample data during the learning process and then be able to carry out evaluation work in different situations, when constructing training samples, and use random numbers within 100 for the index evaluation value X to perform the evaluation. The unified assumption avoids the situation of one-sided samples and insufficient sample collection when training with actual data.

Based on the set of indicator weights, it is assumed that each expert is assigned 100 different sets of building samples for evaluation, and a list of 1100 rows and 32 columns is obtained, which can be used as a training sample. The 1100th row is the number of groups of training samples, the first 31 columns are the evaluation values of the building sample indicators corresponding to the 31 indicators x1-x31, and the 32nd column is the score y of the building fire risk assessment. The expected output is calculated by the weighted sum of the weight set and the evaluation value.

2.2. Construction of a Dynamic Assessment Model

2.2.1. Environment for Building Network Models

This article builds a deep neural network model based on python and TensorFlow. Install TensorFlow 2.0 in Windows10 system, CPU version, and Python3.7 language environment. TensorFlow is a deep learning framework built into python and installed through pip extension libraries such as NumPy and Pandas.

In TensorFlow, Keras is a fast and flexible high-level neural network interface (API). It has two basic elements: layer and model. The role of the layer is to encapsulate the calculation process and variables required for calculation. The fully connected layer (tf.keras.layers.Dense) is one of Keras's most essential and commonly used layers. The model is responsible for arranging and connecting various layers to encapsulate them into a running order that can obtain output from input data through interlayer operations. Use tf.keras.datasets to get training samples and tf.keras.model and tf.keras.layers to build the model.

2.2.2. Model Training Process

The network model is trained according to the neural network principle [18, 21]. First, the training data is imported into the model, processed by the multilayer hidden layer activation function, and transmitted to the output layer. Then the predicted value output by the model is compared with the expected output, and the loss function is calculated. In this paper, the mean square error function loss =  “mse” is selected, and the derivative of the loss function with respect to the model variables is passed into the optimizer. The optimizer = “Adam” optimizer is used to update the parameters of the network to reduce the calculated value of the loss function. The model learns repeatedly, adjusts various parameters, and finally obtains the network architecture that achieves the best output error and completes the training. The algorithm for training a deep neural network model using training samples is divided into four stages, and the following steps are iterated:

In the first stage, import and partition the training sample dataset. Based on the training sample dataset obtained in the previous section, the training sample dataset is divided into three parts: training set, test set, and validation set. The allocation ratio is that 80% of the data is used for training the model, and 10% is used as the validation set. To optimize the model, the model's generalization ability is improved through parameter modification and feedback, and the remaining 10% test the model performance and evaluates the network performance. In this paper, the 1100 sets of training data are divided into 880 training sets, 110 sets of test sets, and 110 sets of validation sets, all separated from the same training sample file and having the same data distribution.

In the second stage, the network is trained with the training set data of the training samples.

In the third stage, use the validation set of the training samples to simulate the constructed neural network and observe the decrease in the loss of the simulation results on the validation set by constantly changing the hyperparameters of the model to avoid overfitting and underfitting until finding out the most appropriate network model architecture.

In the fourth stage, the network performance is tested and evaluated using the test set of training samples, and the model is saved.

2.2.3. Network Model Architecture and Hyperparameter Determination

Unlike the neurons' weights obtained through training operations, hyperparameters are parameter values set before starting learning. Setting appropriate values for hyperparameters can improve the performance of the model. Hyperparameters mainly include the learning rate, the size of the data participating in the training, the type of activation function, the number of layers of the neural network, the number of neurons in each hidden layer, and the number of learning rounds.

It is difficult for a specific network model to determine the optimal hyperparameter combination according to a fixed standard. For example, if the number of layers and neurons is too many, it will increase the training time of the network and may also cause overfitting of the training data. If it is too small, the modeling will be insufficient. Through trial and error, training with different architectures, comparing performance in various situations, and constantly narrowing the range of parameter settings to find a set of network parameters that perform best.

(1) The Scale of Data to Participate in Training. Generally speaking, the richer the training data, the better the results. For this article, the amount of training data depends on the number of effective experts. Based on the data of 11 experts obtained in the previous section, this paper initially uses 1100 sets of training data as the data scale for training the model.

(2) Activation Function. As a basic modeling unit of the deep neural network, the hidden layer node uses the activation function to calculate the input to increase the nonlinear modeling ability of the network model. Relevant research results show that compared with the Sigmoid or Tanh activation functions commonly used in traditional neural networks, the ReLu activation function in deep learning can achieve faster training speed and better performance. Moreover, the ReLU activation function has been verified to be very effective in many deep learning applications and has gradually become the mainstream in deep networks. Therefore, this paper selects activation = “relu.”

(3) The Number of Layers of the Neural Network. Compared with increasing the number of hidden neurons, adding layers will greatly improve the fitting ability of the network. Use the number of layers as a variable to perform the model loss function drop test. Other parameters remain unchanged (temporarily take the number of neurons in each layer 10, the number of training times 500), first set a hidden layer to participate in the test, and then increase it in turn to observe the decline of the curve situation.

The neural network model is constructed as when the number of hidden layers is 1–3, the decreasing curve of the loss function obviously changes. With the increase in the number of layers, it shows a faster and better fitting degree. When the number of layers is 4–6, the decreasing curve of the loss function no longer appears significant change; therefore, the number of hidden layers is determined to be 4.

(4) The Number of Neurons in Each Layer. The number of neuron nodes in the input and output layers corresponds to the input of the training sample and the expected output, that is, 31 index evaluation values and 1 fire risk evaluation result. The number of neurons in the hidden layer needs to be determined by testing, and it is best to choose between the range of the number of nodes in the input layer and the output layer according to experience.

One method is to set the number of neurons to 75% of the nodes in the previous layer. If the neural network builds 4 hidden layers, use 31 (input layer)-23-17-13-10-1 (output layer) as the number of neurons combined. Another way is to use an empirical formula to calculate an estimate of the optimal number of neurons in the hidden layer:where m is the number of hidden layer nodes; n is the number of input layer nodes; l is the number of output layer nodes; and α is a constant between 1 and 10.

Use formula (3) to calculate the optimal number of hidden layer neurons between 5 and 16, and test in this numerical range.

The test determines the number of neurons, and other parameters remain unchanged (the number of hidden layers is 4 and the number of trains is 500), and the decline of the curve is observed. When the curve of the training set keeps decreasing, but the curve of the validation set first decreases, intersects with the curve of the training set, and rises, it means that the model is overfitting. It is shown that an excellent fitting effect is obtained during training, but there will be a significant deviation in practical application. To solve the problem of overfitting, the number of hidden layers can be reduced, or the number of neurons in each layer can be reduced to simplify the model. In the first method, the combination of the number of neurons 31-23-17-13-10–1 has overfitting, the reason may be that the training samples in this paper are small, and the overly complex parameter structure may have incompatibility problems. Therefore, the loss function decline curve performs better when 5–8 neurons are selected as hidden layer neurons. Finally, the most reasonable number of hidden layer neurons is determined to be 5.

(5) Learning Rate. The optimizer = “Adam” optimizer provided in TensorFlow controls the learning rate. The default learning rate of the Adam optimizer is lr = 0.001. When the default parameters are used, the curve during training may sometimes become unstable. Therefore, appropriate parameters can be selected to adapt to the model calculation by reducing the learning rate. This article sets lr = 0.0001.

(6) The Number of Rounds of Learning (Epoch). After the network structure is determined, the number of training iterations of the model is finally determined. The more training times, the smaller the error of the results obtained, but overfitting may occur with the increase of training times and the longer the time. Therefore, it is necessary to find the optimal number of training times after the error drop has stabilized in a range and before overfitting. The training times also depend on the computing resources, generally 1000 times. As shown in Figure 2, there are 4 hidden layers, and the loss curve of the network model with 5 neurons in each layer is trained 1000 times. It can be seen from the figure that overfitting occurs when the training is close to 600 times. Therefore, for the data scale of this paper, 500 times are selected as the number of learning rounds.

Figure 2

Model learning epochs test.

To sum up, as a whole, select the hyperparameter training model shown in Table 3.

Table 3

Hyperparameter settings.

Data scale	1100 groups of training samples
Activation function	Re LU
Number of hidden layers	4
The number of neurons in each layer	31-5-5-5-5–1
Learning rate	0.0001
Number of epochs to learn	500

2.2.4. Test and Evaluation of the Model

After selecting the best hyperparameters according to the descending curve of the loss function [17-19], the performance evaluation index R2_score, which measures the accuracy of the regression model, is used to test the model's accuracy. The maximum accuracy given by R2 is 100%, and the R2 score using the above evaluation model is R2_score = 0.91, which is ideal. The neural network constructed above is simulated, and the error drop curve of the test is shown in Figure 3. Through the selection and optimization of neural network hyperparameters, the loss value (val_loss) on the validation set shows a downward trend with time, indicating that an ideal network model architecture has been obtained after adjustment.

Figure 3

Loss changes during training.

The regression results using the neural network model test set are shown in Figure 4. It can be seen that the predicted value and the actual value (expected output) are basically on the same straight line, indicating that the model has been effectively trained and has good regression results.

Figure 4

Network model fitting results.

3. Case Study

Compared with traditional fire risk assessment, it consumes a lot of workforces and material resources, and the results are time-sensitive. The neural network has the characteristics of self-organization and self-learning, fast real-time calculation, and processing of a large amount of information, so it is more suitable for solving the problem of urban building fire risk assessment based on IoT big data. Its modeling process is very convenient and simple, avoiding the difficulty of traditional evaluation model selection and construction. It is suitable for big data platform applications. Based on python, the above model is solidified and packaged into an interface. The front-end interface inputs data through this interface calls the solidified model and IoT data and then returns the result to the calling end.

Through the investigation of a certain area, it is understood that its building fire assessment method is lagging behind and cannot meet the needs of fire risk prevention and control at this stage. On the basis that the Internet of Things coverage meets the conditions, the front-end platform and the built-in assessment model are used to assess the fire risk of the building dynamically. First, determining the data sources of building static indicators and dynamic indicators, use computer software and hardware, network communication, and other equipment to collect data information, including building address, completion time, building height, building structure, fire resistance rating, fire protection facilities, adjacent conditions, water supply capacity, and fire brigade response time. Then, the static index data is input into the front-end interface. A part of the dynamic index data is connected to the building fire protection IoT data and quantified and normalized. Finally, the model is called for evaluation, the evaluation results are displayed, the risk classification is carried out, and the evaluation report is generated. Table 4 shows the urban building fire risk classification.

Table 4

Urban building fire risk classification.

Risk level	Name	Risk range	Suggest
I level	Low	[85, 100]	No action is required for the time being
II level	Middle	[70, 85)	No action is required for the time being, but monitoring needs to be strengthened
III level	High	[60, 70)	The fire hazard of a building or an indicator needs to be checked and targeted for prevention
IV level	Extremely high	[0, 60)	The fire hazard of a building or an indicator needs to be controlled immediately

The dynamic evaluation results have practical guiding significance for urban fire management. With the real-time update of IoT data, the input data of the evaluation model is updated every half an hour (or less), and the evaluation results change accordingly. It is beneficial to deal with fire incidents in areas with sudden fire risk, rationally arrange the regional layout of urban fire protection resources, and carry out targeted fire rectification according to fire risk conditions.

Neural network model application effect test is as follows: The fire risk assessment results of ten groups of buildings are compared with the real values to test the performance of the network model. Since the concept of fire risk assessment is composed of possibility and probability, mainly controlled by human factors, it is not easy to define the choice of true value. On the one hand, in the stage of testing model performance, the real value should reflect a more objective and generally recognized evaluation principle as much as possible. On the other hand, the comparison with the real value should be able to more intuitively reflect the degree of fit of the neural network model training and the accuracy of the model evaluation results. Therefore, the average of the weights of 11 experts is taken as the true value compared with the model evaluation results.

As shown in Figure 5, the evaluation and real values have similar fitting abilities. Still, most of the results are not completely consistent. It shows that the fire risk assessment model based on the Internet of Things and the deep neural network has the same assessment ability as the real value and is different from the calculation result of the average weight of experts.

Figure 5

Model evaluation value and true value.

As shown in Figure 6, in traditional risk assessment, there is a large gap between the assessment scores of individual experts and the real value, while the scores predicted by the computer through the neural network model are all within the normal range, and there are no extreme values. Therefore, using this network model can also avoid the failure of individual expert evaluation caused by subjective differences in educational backgrounds and practical experiences.

Figure 6

Model evaluation value and 11 experts' evaluation value.

4. Conclusions

The development of green smart buildings requires risk assessment, especially fire risk. There is a complex nonlinear relationship between the evaluation value of the building fire risk index and the result of the fire risk assessment. This paper is based on artificial intelligence methods, starting from the construction of training samples; the objective law between the input and output values is found to the greatest extent so that the model can evaluate the building fire risk according to the building index evaluation value. This chapter tests the selection of the hyperparameters of the model. Finally, it selects a data size of 1100 sets of training samples, an activation function of ReLU, a number of hidden layers of 4, and the number of neurons in each layer of 31-5-5- 5-5–1. The best combination of hyperparameters with a learning rate of 0.0001 and a number of epochs of 500. After verification and simulation, the R2_score = 0.91 of the model achieved good regression results. The loss function showed a downward trend with the increase in training times, and there was no overfitting or underfitting. The application effect of the evaluation model is verified, and the results show that the relative error between the model's predicted value and the actual value is basically within 6%, proving that the neural network model can predict and evaluate the fire risk of individual buildings. The proposed assessment model based on artificial intelligence technology can conduct a real-time and effective fire risk assessment, simplifying the assessment process. It solves the problems that required a lot of manual intervention and data lag in the past.