250 likes | 369 Views
Evolutionary Tuning of Building Model Parameters. Aaron Garrett Jacksonville State University. Conclusion. Evolutionary approach reduces electrical… monthly SAE by almost 20% (250 kWh) hourly SAE by over 10% (700 kWh) hourly RMSE by over 7%. Evolution is a search algorithm.
E N D
Evolutionary Tuning of Building Model Parameters Aaron Garrett Jacksonville State University
Conclusion Evolutionary approach reduces electrical… • monthly SAE by almost 20% (250 kWh) • hourly SAE by over 10% (700 kWh) • hourly RMSE by over 7%
Evolution is a search algorithm • Type of beam search • Less vulnerable to local optima • Optimizes based on environment
Evolutionary computation • Simulates evolution by natural selection • Genetic algorithms • Evolution strategies • Genetic programs • Particle swarm optimization • Ant colony optimization • Problem domain information is invaluable
An evolutionary approach • Individual: Building parameters • Fitness: Error between E+ output and sensor data
What is an individual? • Defined by 108 real-valued parameters • Material • Thickness • Conductivity • Density • Specific Heat • Thermal Absorptance • Solar Absorptance • Visible Absorptance • WindowMaterial:SimpleGlazingSystem • U-Factor • Solar Heat • ZoneInfiltration:FlowCoefficient • Shadow Calculation Frequency
What is the fitness? Individual Model Error Fitness Actual Building Data
How do they evolve? Mom Sister Dad Brother
How are offspring produced? • Average each component • Add Gaussian noise
EC parameters • Population size 16 • Tournament selection (tournament size 4) • Generational replacement with weak elitism (1 elite) • Gaussian mutation (mutation rate 10% of variable range) • Heuristic crossover
Building model search space • 108 dimensions • Effectively infinite because continuous-valued • Limit here is 1024 simulations per search • Approximately what could be done in a weekend on single-core processor • 1024 is incredibly small number of samples
How do we get more for less? • EnergyPlus is slow • Full-year schedule • 8 – 10 minutes per simulation • Use abbreviated 4-day schedule instead • Jan 1, Apr 1, Aug 1, Nov 1 • 15 – 30 seconds per simulation
Will that even work? • 4 independent random trials • 1024 simulations per trial • Samples taken from high to low error r = 0.96 r = 0.94 Monthly Electrical Usage Hourly Electrical Usage
The less expensive approach Individual Model Error Fitness Actual Building Data
About that actual data… • 2% of the 15-minute measurements failed • Monthly electrical usage • Just ignore missing data (treat as 0) • Hourly electrical usage • Any hour containing a single failure was counted as a failure (8%) • Failures were not counted in error measure
Evolve using 4-day schedule • 8 independent trials • 1024 simulations per trial 15% 13% 9% 8% 6% 7% 26% 35% 60% Monthly SAE Hourly SAE Hourly RMSE
And the full year schedule? • Only run on hourly usage • 8 independent trials • 1024 simulations per trial 9% 11% 8% 12% 6% 7% 7% 10% Hourly SAE Hourly RMSE
Combining the two… Evolve Evolve
Serial evolution • 8 independent trials • 1024 simulations per trial • 768 simulations for abbreviated; 256 simulations for full 11% 11% 12% 9% 7% 7% 10% 8% Hourly SAE Hourly RMSE
Combining a different way… On-deck Circle
Parallel evolution • 8 independent trials • 256 simulations for full year schedule • 768 simulations for abbreviated schedule 11% 10% 9% 10% 7% 7% 8% 9% Hourly SAE Hourly RMSE
Conclusion Evolutionary approach reduces electrical… • monthly SAE by almost 20% (250 kWh) • hourly SAE by over 10% (700 kWh) • hourly RMSE by over 7%
What’s next? • Incorporate machine learning as fast island • Include temperature errors in fitness • How should this be combined with electrical usage error? • Should the be optimized separately with EMO approach?