办公建筑的物理建模自动校准方法比较研究  

Comparative Study on Automatic Calibration Methods for Office Building’s Physical Model

作　　者：丁仁荣 方海洲 谭洪卫[1,2,3] DING Renrong;FANG Haizhou;TAN Hongwei(School of Mechanical Engineering,Tongji University;Research Center of Green Building and New Energy,Tongji University;UNEPTongji Institute of Environment for Sustainable Development,Tongji University)

机构地区：[1]同济大学机械与能源工程学院,上海200092 [2]同济大学绿色建筑及新能源研究中心 [3]联合国环境规划署同济大学环境与可持续发展学院

出　　处：《建筑热能通风空调》2021年第12期7-12,共6页Building Energy & Environment

基　　金：国家重点研发计划项目(2017YFC0704200)。

摘　　要：可靠的模型校准方法对于建筑节能设计、运行优化、故障诊断起着关键性的作用。针对当下各种校准方法的精度、结果可解释性、时间成本等对比研究不够深入。本文基于办公建筑分别进行了手动校准、优化算法的频率法校准(以下简称频率法)和贝叶斯准则的贝叶斯校准(以下简称贝叶斯法)三种方法的实践以及对比分析。结果表明,手动校准的精度最低为21.3%,频率法和贝叶斯法精度相当,分别为9.7%、9.3%均在10%以内,但频率法的校准时间最短为3个小时,贝叶斯法校准时间最长计算机校准时间为6天。Reliable model calibration methods play a key role in building retrofit design, operation optimization and fault diagnosis. The comparative study on accuracy, interpretability of results and time cost of current calibration methods is not in-depth enough. Based on office building, this paper carries out the practical and comparative analysis of manual calibration, frequency calibration of optimization algorithm(Frequency method) and Bayesian calibration of Bayesian criterion(Bayesian method). The results show that the minimum accuracy of manual calibration is 21.3%, the accuracy of frequency method and Bayesian method is similar, which are 9.7% and 9.3% respectively within 10%.However, the calibration time cost of frequency method is 3 hours, while the largest calibration time cost of Bayesian method which is 6 days.

关 键 词：Energy Plus能耗模型 手动校准 敏感性分析 频率校准 贝叶斯校准 

分 类 号：TU111.195[建筑科学—建筑理论]