IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v15y2022i10p3534-d813662.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bayesian Workflow and Hidden Markov Energy-Signature Model for Measurement and Verification

Author

Listed:
  • Simon Rouchier

    (CNRS, LOCIE, Université Savoie Mont Blanc, 73000 Chambéry, France)

Abstract

A Bayesian data analysis workflow offers great advantages to the process of measurement and verification, including the estimation of savings uncertainty regardless of the chosen numerical model. However, it is still rarely used in practice, perhaps because practitioners are less familiar with the required tools. The present work documents a Bayesian methodology for the assessment of energy savings at the scale of a whole facility, following an energy-conservation measure. The first model, an energy signature commonly used in practice, demonstrates the steps of the Bayesian workflow and illustrates its advantages. The posterior distributions obtained by training this first model are used as prior distributions for a second, more complex model. This so-called “hidden Markov energy signature” model combines the energy signature with a hidden Markov model at an hourly resolution, and allows detection of occupancy. It has a large number of parameters and would likely not be identifiable without the Bayesian workflow. The results illustrate the advantages of the Bayesian methodology for measurement and verification: a probabilistic description of all variables, including predictions of energy use and savings; the applicability to any model structure; the ability to include prior knowledge to facilitate training complex models. Savings are estimated by the new hidden Markov energy-signature model with a much lower uncertainty than with a lower-resolution model. The highlights of the paper are twofold: it serves as a tutorial on Bayesian inference for measurement and verification; it also proposes a new flexible model structure for hourly prediction of energy use and occupancy detection.

Suggested Citation

  • Simon Rouchier, 2022. "Bayesian Workflow and Hidden Markov Energy-Signature Model for Measurement and Verification," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-19, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:10:p:3534-:d:813662
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/10/3534/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/10/3534/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jacques Maritz & Foster Lubbe & Louis Lagrange, 2018. "A Practical Guide to Gaussian Process Regression for Energy Measurement and Verification within the Bayesian Framework," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-12, April.
    2. Granderson, Jessica & Touzani, Samir & Custodio, Claudine & Sohn, Michael D. & Jump, David & Fernandes, Samuel, 2016. "Accuracy of automated measurement and verification (M&V) techniques for energy savings in commercial buildings," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 296-308.
    3. Christoffer Rasmussen & Peder Bacher & Davide Calì & Henrik Aalborg Nielsen & Henrik Madsen, 2020. "Method for Scalable and Automatised Thermal Building Performance Documentation and Screening," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-23, July.
    4. Marc C. Kennedy & Anthony O'Hagan, 2001. "Bayesian calibration of computer models," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 63(3), pages 425-464.
    5. Walter, Travis & Price, Phillip N. & Sohn, Michael D., 2014. "Uncertainty estimation improves energy measurement and verification procedures," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 230-236.
    6. Herman Carstens & Xiaohua Xia & Sarma Yadavalli, 2018. "Bayesian Energy Measurement and Verification Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-20, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carstens, Herman & Xia, Xiaohua & Yadavalli, Sarma, 2017. "Low-cost energy meter calibration method for measurement and verification," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 563-575.
    2. Grillone, Benedetto & Danov, Stoyan & Sumper, Andreas & Cipriano, Jordi & Mor, Gerard, 2020. "A review of deterministic and data-driven methods to quantify energy efficiency savings and to predict retrofitting scenarios in buildings," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    3. Ke, Ming-Tsun & Yeh, Chia-Hung & Su, Cheng-Jie, 2017. "Cloud computing platform for real-time measurement and verification of energy performance," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 497-507.
    4. Jun Yuan & Haowei Wang & Szu Hui Ng & Victor Nian, 2020. "Ship Emission Mitigation Strategies Choice Under Uncertainty," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, May.
    5. Herman Carstens & Xiaohua Xia & Sarma Yadavalli, 2018. "Bayesian Energy Measurement and Verification Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-20, February.
    6. Jeong, Cheoljoon & Byon, Eunshin, 2024. "Calibration of building energy computer models via bias-corrected iteratively reweighted least squares method," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 360(C).
    7. Hou, D. & Hassan, I.G. & Wang, L., 2021. "Review on building energy model calibration by Bayesian inference," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    8. Jacques Maritz & Foster Lubbe & Louis Lagrange, 2018. "A Practical Guide to Gaussian Process Regression for Energy Measurement and Verification within the Bayesian Framework," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-12, April.
    9. Foster Lubbe & Jacques Maritz & Thomas Harms, 2020. "Evaluating the Potential of Gaussian Process Regression for Solar Radiation Forecasting: A Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-18, October.
    10. Benedetto Grillone & Gerard Mor & Stoyan Danov & Jordi Cipriano & Florencia Lazzari & Andreas Sumper, 2021. "Baseline Energy Use Modeling and Characterization in Tertiary Buildings Using an Interpretable Bayesian Linear Regression Methodology," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-30, September.
    11. Carstens, Herman & Xia, Xiaohua & Yadavalli, Sarma, 2018. "Measurement uncertainty in energy monitoring: Present state of the art," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 2791-2805.
    12. Fu, Hongxiang & Baltazar, Juan-Carlos & Claridge, David E., 2021. "Review of developments in whole-building statistical energy consumption models for commercial buildings," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    13. Vanslette, Kevin & Tohme, Tony & Youcef-Toumi, Kamal, 2020. "A general model validation and testing tool," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    14. Matthias Katzfuss & Joseph Guinness & Wenlong Gong & Daniel Zilber, 2020. "Vecchia Approximations of Gaussian-Process Predictions," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 25(3), pages 383-414, September.
    15. Jakub Bijak & Jason D. Hilton & Eric Silverman & Viet Dung Cao, 2013. "Reforging the Wedding Ring," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 29(27), pages 729-766.
    16. Hao Wu & Michael Browne, 2015. "Random Model Discrepancy: Interpretations and Technicalities (A Rejoinder)," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(3), pages 619-624, September.
    17. Fu, Chun & Miller, Clayton, 2022. "Using Google Trends as a proxy for occupant behavior to predict building energy consumption," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 310(C).
    18. Villez, Kris & Del Giudice, Dario & Neumann, Marc B. & Rieckermann, Jörg, 2020. "Accounting for erroneous model structures in biokinetic process models," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    19. Xiaoyu Xiong & Benjamin D. Youngman & Theodoros Economou, 2021. "Data fusion with Gaussian processes for estimation of environmental hazard events," Environmetrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(3), May.
    20. Petropoulos, G. & Wooster, M.J. & Carlson, T.N. & Kennedy, M.C. & Scholze, M., 2009. "A global Bayesian sensitivity analysis of the 1d SimSphere soil–vegetation–atmospheric transfer (SVAT) model using Gaussian model emulation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(19), pages 2427-2440.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:10:p:3534-:d:813662. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.