Search

Predictive control has gained increasing attention for its ability to reduce energy consumption and improve occupant comfort in buildings. The plug loads prediction is a key component for the predictive building controls, as plug loads is a major source of internal heat gains in buildings. This study proposed a novel method to apply the Long-Short-Term-Memory (LSTM) Network, a special form of Recurrent Neural Network, to predict plug loads. The occupant count and the time have been confirmed to drive the plug load profile and thus selected as the features for the plug load prediction. The LSTM network was trained and tested with ground truth occupant count data collected from a real office building in Berkeley, California. Results from the LSTM network markedly improve the prediction accuracy compared with traditional linear regression methods and the classical Artificial Neural Network. 95% of 1-h predictions from LSTM network are within ±1 kW of the actual plug loads, given the average plug loads during the office hour is 8.6 kW. The CV(RMSE) of the predicted plug load is 11% for the next hour, and 20% for the next 8 h. Lastly, we compared four prediction approaches with the office building we monitored: LSTM vs. ARIMA, with occupant counts vs. without occupant counts. It was found, the prediction error of the LSTM approach is around 4% less than the ARIMA approach. Using occupant counts as an exogenous input could further reduce the prediction error by 5%–6%. The findings of this paper could shed light on the plug load prediction for building control optimizations such as model-predictive control. • Accurate plug loads prediction is key to Model Predictive Control in buildings. • LSTM (Long Short Tem Memory) network is used to predict plug loads using occupant count data. • The prediction accuracy is 89% for the next hour, and 80% for the next 8 h. • LSTM is computational demanding but 4% more accurate than ARIMA. • Using occupant counts could reduce plug load prediction error by 5%–6%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Internal heat gain prediction is important in energy efficient building operation. • Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) Networks, was applied to predict building internal load. • Compared with ASHRAE fixed schedules, LSTMs could reduce prediction errors by 40%. • MELs was found to be the most important feature for internal heat gain prediction. • The findings facilitate accurate load prediction for building predictive control. Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) is a major energy consumer in buildings. The predictive control has demonstrated a potential to reduce HVAC energy use. To facilitate predictive HVAC control, internal heat gains prediction is required. In this study, we applied Long Short-Term Memory Networks, a special form of deep neural network, to predict miscellaneous electric loads, lighting loads, occupant counts and internal heat gains in two United States office buildings. Compared with the predetermined schedules used in American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) standard 90.1, the Long Short-Term Memory Networks method could reduce the prediction errors of internal heat gains from 12% to 8% in Building A, and from 26% to 16% in Building B. It was also found that for internal heat gains prediction, miscellaneous electric loads is a more important feature than occupant counts for two reasons. First, miscellaneous electric loads is the best proxy variable for internal heat gains, as it is the major component of and has the highest correlation coefficient with the internal heat gains. Second, miscellaneous electric loads contain valuable information to predict occupant count, while occupant count could not help improve miscellaneous electric loads prediction. These findings could help researchers and practitioners select the most relevant features to more accurately predict internal heat gains for the implementation of predictive HVAC control in buildings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Building load prediction informs chiller plant and thermal storage optimization. • We used and compared 9 machine learning algorithms and 3 heuristic prediction methods. • XGBoost and LSTM are found to be the best shallow and deep learning algorithm. • LSTM is better for short term prediction, while XGBoost for long term prediction. • It is better to train the model with uncertain rather than accurate weather data. Building thermal load prediction informs the optimization of cooling plant and thermal energy storage. Physics-based prediction models of building thermal load are constrained by the model and input complexity. In this study, we developed 12 data-driven models (7 shallow learning, 2 deep learning, and 3 heuristic methods) to predict building thermal load and compared shallow machine learning and deep learning. The 12 prediction models were compared with the measured cooling demand. It was found XGBoost (Extreme Gradient Boost) and LSTM (Long Short Term Memory) provided the most accurate load prediction in the shallow and deep learning category, and both outperformed the best baseline model, which uses the previous day's data for prediction. Then, we discussed how the prediction horizon and input uncertainty would influence the load prediction accuracy. Major conclusions are twofold: first, LSTM performs well in short-term prediction (1 h ahead) but not in long term prediction (24 h ahead), because the sequential information becomes less relevant and accordingly not so useful when the prediction horizon is long. Second, the presence of weather forecast uncertainty deteriorates XGBoost's accuracy and favors LSTM, because the sequential information makes the model more robust to input uncertainty. Training the model with the uncertain rather than accurate weather data could enhance the model's robustness. Our findings have two implications for practice. First, LSTM is recommended for short-term load prediction given that weather forecast uncertainty is unavoidable. Second, XGBoost is recommended for long term prediction, and the model should be trained with the presence of input uncertainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]