Applied Energy 228 (2018) 1740–1753

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Novel dynamic forecasting model for building cooling loads combining an T

artificial neural network and an ensemble approach
⁎
Lan Wang , Eric W.M. Lee, Richard K.K. Yuen
Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

H I GH L IG H T S

• Developing building cooling forecasting model for energy saving of HVAC system.
• Forecasting step-ahead building cooling load by time series prediction.
• Forecasting step-ahead building cooling load by Fourier’s law-based analysis.
• Improving performance of building cooling load forecasting by ensemble technique.

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Short-term load prediction, which forecasts a building’s thermal load with a lead time ranging from seconds to a
Dynamic load forecasting few days, is essential for not only monitoring and controlling the system operation, but also on-line scheduling.
Building cooling loads Dynamic cooling load forecasting, which belongs to short-term load prediction, is both meaningful for mon-
Artificial neural network itoring the system or fuzzy on-line scheduling and crucial for solving the time-lag problem to meet the heating,
Ensemble approach
ventilation and air-conditioning system’s time-varying cooling loads. Numerous studies have been carried out to
develop dynamic load-forecasting models, and great achievements have been made. However, limitations in
their applicability persist because most previous models are calendar- and time-based data-driven models that
may fail when unexpected issues occur or special schedules are adopted. What’s more, the inputs that were
selected passively from the source data pools at hand rather than via active exploration may be insufficient and
impair the accuracy of forecasting models. This paper proposes a novel dynamic forecasting model for building
cooling loads that combines an artificial neural network with an ensemble approach. Based on physical prin-
ciples other than the available data source, the inputs are explored actively and are independent from both
calendar and time indicators, which make the forecasting model being capable of dealing with irregular occa-
sions and unexpected schedules with high accuracy. A benchmark is proposed that uses the current load Q (t ) as a
forecasted cooling load Q (t + i ) and gives the minimum accuracy requirement for a dynamic forecasting model.
The benchmark not only can be used to evaluate dynamic forecasting models that are validated by various case
studies, but also ensures that the proposed forecasting model can be applied immediately to heating, ventilation
and air-conditioning systems to tackle the time-lag problem.

1. Introduction control of the heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) system.

Short-term load prediction, which forecasts a building’s thermal
load with a lead time ranging from seconds to a few days (168 h, or
7 days) [1], has been discussed since the 1970s [2]. It is essential for not
only monitoring and controlling the system operation, but also on-line
scheduling. Dynamic load forecasting belongs to short-term load pre-
diction, with a short lead time within 1 h, which usually corresponds to
the regular time interval (15, 30 or 60 min) adopted in the optimisation
Dynamic load forecasting with a lead time of a single time interval is
not only meaningful for monitoring the system or fuzzy on-line sche-
duling, but also crucial for solving the time-lag problem to meet the
HVAC system’s time-varying cooling loads.
Specifically, in the optimisation control of the HVAC system, which
has been studied for decades, the current load is used as the input to
derive the system’s optimised control variables, that is, the current load
is used as the average load for the coming timestep [3] (see Fig. 1). This

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: lawang9-c@my.cityu.edu.hk (L. Wang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.07.085
Received 3 May 2018; Received in revised form 2 July 2018; Accepted 14 July 2018
0306-2619/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Wang et al. Applied Energy 228 (2018) 1740–1753

Nomenclature Hin The air humidity of a zone

RH the relative humidity of air (%)
Twb the wet bulb temperature (°C) hair , in the enthalpy of air being supplied to a cooling tower (J/
Tdb the dry bulb temperature (°C) kg)
Tch, s the temperature of chilled water being supplied from a hair , out the enthalpy of air flowing through a cooling tower (J/kg)
chiller to a zone (°C) Q (t ) the building cooling load at time t (KW)
Tch, r the temperature of chilled water being returned from a  (t )
Q the forecasted building cooling load at time t (KW)
zone to a chiller (°C) ṁ ch the mass flow rate of the chilled water (kg/s)
Tcw, s the temperature of condenser water being supplied from a ṁ cw the mass flow rate of the condenser water (kg/s)
cooling tower to a chiller (°C) ṁ air the mass flow rate of the air (kg/s)
Tcw, r the temperature of condenser water being returned from a R the thermal resistance of materials (°C/W)
chiller to a cooling tower(°C) p the number of occupants
Tin the dry bulb air temperature of a zone (°C) N the number of hidden neurons
Tinsurf the interior surface temperature of building envelops (°C) Ninp the number of inputs
Toutsurf the exterior surface temperature of building envelops (°C) Noutp the number of outputs
T∞ the ambient dry bulb temperature of the air (°C) Ns the number of training samples
H∞ the ambient air humidity

Fig. 1. Diagram of model-based optimisation control. (All figures of this paper are produced by the authors.)

is hardly true in reality since time delay due to the slow response of the
air-side of the HVAC system cannot be avoided. The step-wise opti-
mised setting based on the current load would make the HVAC system
fail to achieve maximum coefficient of performance (COP) in the
coming timestep. This is the so-called time-lag problem as demon-
strated in Fig. 2, which also impairs the energy efficiency of an HVAC
system. For HVAC systems that work for years, tremendous energy
would be saved if this time-lag problem can be solved. To solve this
problem, a dynamic cooling load forecast for the next time interval is
necessary.
Numerous studies have examined this topic, and great achievements
have been made, but limitations to their applicability persist because
most studies are calendar- and time-based forecasting, which limits the
forecasting model to a building schedule and makes it unsuitable when
unexpected incidents occur. In addition, the inputs selected from the
source data pools at hand may be insufficient. The use of inputs filtered
from the source data pools would be reasonable only if the source data
pools included all necessary factors. If the source data pools failed to
include necessary inputs, the filtered inputs would be even more in-
sufficient. The insufficiency of inputs may harm the forecasting model’s
performance. In addition, no uniform benchmark can compare all kinds
of forecasting models that are validated by different case studies.
Therefore, the potential remains to improve the performance of fore-
casting models, and a reasonable benchmark should be proposed.
This paper proposes a novel dynamic forecasting model for building
cooling loads that combines an artificial neural network (ANN) with an
ensemble approach. Based on physical principles other than the avail-
able data source, the inputs are explored actively to be trained by the

Fig. 2. Illustration of time-lag problem in meeting an HVAC system’s time-varying cooling load.

1741
L. Wang et al.
proposed data-driven model. The inputs, which are independent from
either calendar or time, make the forecasting model capable of dealing
with unexpected schedules with higher accuracy. The benchmark,
which requires the forecasted cooling load to be more accurate than
simply taking the current cooling load as the target, is the minimum
accuracy requirement for a forecasting model. Exceeding the bench-
mark guarantees that the proposed forecasting model can be applied
immediately to HVAC systems to tackle the time-lag problem.
In Section 2, the previous practices in short-term load forecasting
are reviewed. The dynamic load-forecasting model proposed in this
paper is introduced in Section 3. A case study then validates the pro-
posed dynamic load-forecasting model in Section 4, and conclusions are
drawn in Section 5.
2. Review of short-term load forecasting
To the authors’ knowledge, the study of short-term load prediction
can be traced to around the 1970s, and in the early literature the load
mainly refers to a building’s electric load, including not only the HVAC
system but also lighting and equipment. It is difficult to rely on a
physics-based model to forecast the load because it is usually unrealistic
to obtain sufficient necessary detailed information. Therefore, several
kinds of data-driven methods that require much less information than
physics-based methods have been discussed in studies.
The previous studies can be reviewed from two aspects: the tech-
niques used to deal with data and the parameters selected as the inputs
for the data-driven models. These two aspects are reviewed in Sections
2.1 and 2.2, respectively.
2.1. Evolution of modelling techniques
Modelling techniques have changed from statistical methods to ar-
tificial intelligence (AI) methods. Before the emergence of the AI
method, around 1966 to 1990, statistical approaches were the most
popular techniques in the short-term load-forecasting model [1,4,5].
The AI method’s application in short-term load-forecasting models
began with its development in the 1990 s. The transition from statistical
methods to AI methods occurred around 1991 to 2001, and with the
booming of advanced AI techniques, a variety of AI methods and hy-
brids of various AI methods have been widely used ever since [6–8].
Multiple regression methods, exponential smoothing and stochastic
time series are popular statistical approaches that have been applied in
short-term load forecasting. Multiple linear regression was used to
forecast the daily peak load (i.e. the hourly integrated load at 2 PM)
[9,10]. General exponential smoothing was used for hourly load fore-
casting with a lead time of 1–24 h [2]. The long-term average was
combined with exponential smoothing to conduct hourly load fore-
casting for the following day [11]. The stochastic models were adopted
for hourly power system load forecasting with lead times from 1 to 24 h
[12], and the stochastic time series analysis was applied to predict the
daily peak load 1 day ahead [13].
The statistical approaches, which call for an explicit mathematical
model to give the relationship between the output and inputs, were
applied with elaborate analysis of the source data. As such, studies that
use statistical approaches have tended to divide the total load into
various components by their nature. For example, the total load was
divided into a basic load and a weather-sensitive load [9–11]. Besides, a
weekly cycle component was appended sometime [12].
During the transition period from statistical methods to AI methods,
ANNs, fuzzy neural networks, combined ANNs with regression, com-
bined ANNs with fuzzy expert system and other techniques were
adopted. A three-layer ANN with historical loads and historical and
forecasted dry bulb temperatures was used to predict the daily peak
load, total load and hourly load [14]. A fuzzy neural approach was
adopted to predict the following day’s load curve [15], and a fuzzy
neural network was applied to forecast the hourly load curve using
1742
Applied Energy 228 (2018) 1740–1753
[16]. A general regression neural network was applied for hourly load
forecasting 1 day in advance [17]. An ANN and a fuzzy expert system
were combined to perform hourly load forecasting 1 day in advance
[18]. A nonlinear autoregressive neural network model was developed
to forecast the hourly electric load 1 day in advance [19]. Two linear
regression predictors were combined with an ANN using a Bayesian
method to forecast the next day’s load at a given hour [20]. An auto-
regressive-moving average with an exogenous terms model was com-
bined with fuzzy logic to predict the hourly load 1 day in advance [21].
AI methods have become increasingly popular in short-term load
forecasting with the boom of a variety of advanced AI techniques.
Although ANNs remain popular, all kinds of other techniques were
widely used, such as combination of rough set theory with an ANN and
data fusion, clustering algorithm, support vector regression, support
vector machine and deep learning.
The support vector machine was adopted to predict the mean
monthly load by determining the mean monthly dry bulb temperature,
the relative humidity and global solar radiation [22]. An ANN was
applied to forecast the hourly electric demands of a chiller with a lead
time of one time step and 1 day, respectively [23–25]. An ANN was
combined with a data-fusion technique to predict the hourly load [26].
A clustering-based method was combined with a multi-layer perceptron
to perform short-term load forecasting [27]. The support vector re-
gression was applied to predict the hourly electrical load of residential
buildings months in advance [28]. Two types of support vector re-
gression technique were united to forecast the half-hourly and daily
energy consumption of buildings [29]. A support vector machine and
the deep learning technique were adopted to predict cooling load
profiles 24 h in advance [30]. The enriched AI technique spawned
various forecasting models, to select appropriate models based on
building characteristics, Cui et al. [31] proposed a meta-learning based
framework that effectively recommended most appropriate load fore-
casting model for each unique building.
In summary, the evolution of modelling techniques used for short-
term load forecasting has progressed from statistical techniques to AI
techniques. The AI techniques, which adapt themselves by learning
from the data samples, release the forecasting model from elaborate
data pre-analysis. With the application of AI techniques, the load profile
can be disposed as a whole rather than being disassembled as different
components as before, and the forecasting method is more concise.
2.2. Selection of model inputs
Except for the building properties, which usually remain stable over
time, the relevant factors that affect a building’s cooling load are the
weather conditions, occupancy and operating equipment in the
building. Due to the difficulty in collecting occupancy information, time
indicators – time of day, day of the week, day type (holiday or not) – are
usually chosen as inputs to represent occupancy scenarios. In addition,
the historical load is a popular input because it indicates the trend of
the load profile in a mathematical way. Consequently, three types of
input – weather conditions, time indicators and historical loads – have
been widely chosen in existing studies to include the effects of the re-
levant factors. Many combinations of these three types of inputs have
been widely discussed.
For example, only weather data – the external hourly temperature of
1 day before –was adopted as input to forecast the hourly load 1 day
ahead [17]. Only historical loads were taken as input to forecast hourly
loads with a lead time from 1 to 24 h [13,25,32]. Historical loads and
weather data (ambient dry bulb temperature) were combined as input
to forecast the daily peak load, daily total load and hourly load [14].
Historical loads and the type of day were united to forecast the hourly
load with a lead time from 1 to 24 h [2,16]. Weather data and the type
of day were taken as input to forecast the daily peak load and hourly
loads, respectively, 24 h in advance [9,33]. The historical hourly load,
weather data and type of day were combined as inputs in several
L. Wang et al.
studies [11,12,15,18,19,21,23,24,34].
Through the evolution of modelling techniques, the types of inputs
remained nearly the same, whilst the number of inputs increased as the
modelling techniques developed. In early studies, the three types of
inputs were considered by a limited number of indicators for each type.
For example, only the dry bulb temperature was included to represent
the weather conditions, a limited number of historical loads were in-
cluded and only weekdays were considered [2,10,11]. In later studies,
more indicators were included for each type of input. The wet bulb
temperature, relative humidity, global solar radiation and wind speed
were considered as indicators of weather conditions in addition to the
dry bulb temperature [22,35,36]. More historical loads were referred,
and all kinds of day types, such as weekdays, weekends and holidays,
were considered [33,35]. A variety of data manipulation of inputs
emerged, such as Fan et al. [30] performed feature extraction to derive
inputs data for the forecasting model. And it was found that significant
improvement in prediction performance can be achieved when using
feature extracted by unsupervised deep learning models. The con-
venience of AI methods in dealing with large amounts of inputs makes it
feasible to include as many factors as possible, so that the performance
of the forecasting model can be improved.
2.3. Summary of the improvement potential for previous studies
As stated in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, much work has been done on
short-term load forecasting, and great achievements have been made.
However, limitations exist, and improvements can be made in the fol-
lowing aspects.
First, nearly all forecasting models must consider time indicators,
namely, the day type, that are in fact the effect of occupancy.
Interpreting the occupancy by referring to time indicators limits the
applicability of a forecasting model. A forecasting model that relies
heavily upon time indicators would fail to deal with irregular occasions
such as special ceremonies when people gather or unexpected breaks
during which people are dismissed. Applying occupancy rather than
time indicators as input, the forecasting model would be applicable
regardless of the type of day.
Second, the selection of inputs can be improved with a more es-
sential theoretical basis. The inputs are usually selected based on the
data pools at hand by experience or by correlation analysis. In this case,
if the data pool at hand fails to contain each of the necessary inputs,
then the inputs filtered by experience or by correlation analysis will be
even more insufficient. Instead of filtering inputs passively from an
available data pool, an active exploration for inputs on an essential
theoretical basis can make the selection of inputs more sufficient, and
the important relevant inputs will not be neglected. The precision of the
forecasting model will not be impaired by insufficient or inappropriate
selection of inputs.
Third, it is difficult to compare various forecasting models because
no benchmark evaluates models under various circumstances [6]. A
benchmark that can evaluate models in various circumstances can be
determined by aiming at a specified application proposed in this paper.
3. Proposed dynamic load-forecasting model
The dynamic load-forecasting model proposed in this paper is first
used to forecast the coming load from two perspectives, which are
based on the radiant time series (RTS) method and Fourier’s law, re-
spectively. Then, it combines the forecast loads with the ensemble ap-
proach to arrive at the final result.
In Section 3.1, the theoretical basis for selection of inputs is in-
troduced, namely, the RTS method and Fourier’s law. The diagram of
the entire forecasting model is illustrated in Section 3.2. A benchmark
as well as a comparison model for evaluation of the forecasting model
are introduced in Section 3.3.
1743
Applied Energy 228 (2018) 1740–1753
3.1. Theoretical basis for input selection
Both perspectives for input selection are based on the physical
principle of heat transfer, but they stress different aspects. The inputs
selected based on the RTS method stressed the radiative portion of heat
gain, which is absorbed by the thermal mass in the zone and then re-
leased into the space. This process creates a time lag and a dampening
effect. The inputs selected based on Fourier’s law address the entire
picture of heat gain, especially the convective part that contributes to
building cooling loads.
3.1.1. Radiant time series method
The heat balance (HB) method and the radiant time series (RTS)
method are the only two load calculation methods that the American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE) defined in their Fundamentals Handbook ever since the
2001 edition till the latest 2017 edition. The HB method is an effective
calculation method that ensures all energy flows in each zone are ba-
lanced, and the solution of a set of energy balance equations for the
zone air and the interior and exterior surfaces of the envelopes are
solved [37].
The RTS method, which is a simplified method derived from the HB
method to compute building cooling loads [38], has effectively replaced
all other simplified (non-heat-balance) methods, such as the transfer
function method (TFM), the cooling load temperature difference/
cooling load factor (CLTD/CLF) method, and the total equivalent tem-
perature difference/time averaging (TETD/TA) method. Rigorously, yet
dose not require iterative calculations, the RTS method addresses two
time-delay effects inherent in building heat transfer processes, namely
the delay of conductive heat gain through opaque massive exterior
surfaces (walls, roofs, or floors) and the delay of radiative heat gain
conversion to cooling loads [39]. The total heat gain is divided into
radiant, conductive and convective portions, which are then converted
by coefficients into cooling loads. The convective portion is assumed to
instantly become the cooling load. However, the radiative portion is
absorbed first by the thermal mass and then released by convection to
become the cooling load. A time lag and a dampening effect exist in this
process that can be calculated using the time series method as shown in
Eq. (1) [38].
Qθ = r0 qθ + r1 qθ − δ + r2 qθ − 2δ + r3 qθ − 3δ + …+r23 qθ − 23δ (1)
where
Qθ = cooling load (Q ) for the hour (θ),
qθ = heat gain for the hour (θ),
qθ − nδ = heat gain n hours ago and
r0, r1, etc. =radiant time factors.
The relationship between the historical heat gain and the current or
future cooling loads can be not only calculated explicitly by the time
series method but also modelled implicitly with an ANN.
3.1.2. Fourier’s law–based analysis
Another perspective to determine the effect factors of building
cooling loads is taken from Fourier’s law by tracking factors that con-
tribute to a building’s cooling load. The Fourier’s Law, also known as
the law of heat conduction, states that the time rate of heat transfer
through a material is proportional to the negative gradient in the
temperature and to the area, which can be written specifically for a
building block as Eq. (2). From the equation, it can be seen that the rate
of heat transfer, which contributes to the building cooling load, is
driven by temperature differences and the material thermal resistances.
The temperature is a variable that can be easily measured. So, if only
the factors that affect the thermal resistance can be found, then the
inputs that are found out to forecast the cooling load would be
L. Wang et al. Applied Energy 228 (2018) 1740–1753

reasonably sufficient. The Fourier’s law-based analysis provides a per- temperature, the humidity, the number of occupants and the outside
spective for tracking the effective factors of building cooling loads. surface temperature of the walls should be considered as inputs to
As shown in Fig. 3, taking a building block with concrete envelopes forecast a building’s cooling load. The building properties that remain
with thickness X and area A as an example, the building cooling load the same over a period are excluded.
can be roughly traced back to four portions as follows. Heat gain from the ambient environment when shaded,
T∞−Tin
(1) The heat transferred from the ambient air to the indoor air, as- Qe = R1 R2 R 4 R5
+ R3 + (2)
suming that the building block is shaded from sunlight. The heat R1 + R2 R 4 + R5
flow is first transferred from the ambient air to the outside surface
where R1 is affected by the ambient humidity [39],
of the walls via radiation and convection, from the outside surface
to the inside surface of the walls via conduction, and finally to the R1 = f (H∞) (3)
indoor air via radiation and convection (see Eq. (2)). The radiant
heat resistance of the ambient air is affected by the humidity and Heat gain from the fresh air,
can be described as a function of the humidity (see Eq. (3)). Qs, f = Cp ṁ air (T∞−Tin ) (4)
(2) The heat gain from fresh air. Fresh air is necessary for the occu-
pants’ health and contributes to the cooling load via sensible and Ql, f = ṁ air (H∞−Hin ) Lc (5)
latent heat gain. The sensible heat gain from fresh air can be cal-
culated with Eq. (4), and the latent heat gain can be calculated with ṁ air = f (p) (6)
Eq. (5). The necessary mass flow rate of fresh air is closely related to
where p is the number of occupants.
the number of occupants (see Eq. (6)).
Latent heat gain from occupants,
(3) Latent heat gain from the occupants. The occupants’ main con-
tribution to the cooling load is via sweat evaporation and is roughly Qp = f (p) (7)
a function of the occupants’ number for a building with normally
one type of activity (see Eq. (7)). Heat gain from solar radiation,
(4) The heat gain from solar radiation, which is reflected mainly by the Qsol = f (Toutsurf ) (8)
outside surface temperature of the walls (see Eq. (8)).
where Toutsurf is the outside surface temperature of the walls.
To sum up the factors that affect the building cooling load men- Summary of effect factors of building cooling loads,
tioned above, a function can be written as Eq. (9). The ambient dry bulb
Q = f (building properties, p , T∞, H∞, Toutsurf ) (9)

Fig. 3. Heat transfer analysis by Fourier’s law.

1744
L. Wang et al. Applied Energy 228 (2018) 1740–1753

3.2. Dynamic load-forecasting model combining artificial neural network
with ensemble approach
The theoretical basis illustrated in Section 3.1 provides the selection
of inputs related to building cooling loads from two perspectives, based
on which two forecasting models – Models A and B – can be derived.
The relationship between the inputs and cooling loads can be estab-
lished by an ANN, which is a dynamic inverse model that learns from
examples and can approximate the behaviour of highly nonlinear sys-
tems [40]. ANNs have been widely used in short-term load forecasting
[8] and have a better architecture to evaluate, estimate and predict a
set of large data than statistical methods [7]. ANN with one hidden
layer is adopted in this study, since the output of an ANN model with
single hidden layer is in fact a superposition of numerous weighted
sigmoid functions which has been proven to be a universal function
approximator [41].
The input variables for Model A are historical cooling loads at time
t, t−i, t−2i, t−3i, etc., namely Q (t ), Q (t −i), Q (t −2i), Q (t −3i), etc. (KW),
based on the analysis of Section 3.1.1 (see Fig. 4). The input variables of
Model B are the ambient dry bulb temperature (°C), the relative hu-
midity (%), the number of occupants and the outside surface tem-
perature of the walls (°C). The dampening effect of the building’s
thermal mass and the accumulation of heat gain from the air and the
occupants over time make it necessary to consider the historical value
of each input at time t, t−i, t−2i, t−3i, etc. (see Fig. 5). When time t is
the current time, the output is a forecast of the load for a coming time
interval Q (t + i) (KW).
The number of hidden neurons in each simulation is determined by
a rule-of-thumb developed by Ward System [42] described as follows.
Ninp + Noutp
N= + Ns
2 (10)
where N is the number of neurons; Ninp and Noutp are the number of
input and output parameters, respectively; and Ns is the number of
training samples.
Models A and B emphasise different aspects of the cooling load
composition and are developed independently based on diverse the-
ories. The combination of Models A and B by the ensemble approach is
supposed to give more accurate forecasts. The ensemble approach is an
idea that by the combination of different predictors, it is possible to
improve the overall prediction accuracy [43]. This idea has been used
to improve the performance of prediction models successfully in several
researches [44–46]. The technique of the ensemble approach used in
this paper is the bagging approach [47], which averages the inputs to
give outputs.
Concretely, Models A and B are trained by the relevant historical
data, which cover the latest weather and occupancy scenarios. The
building properties are assumed to be in the same state for a period, at
least a few months. After Models A and B are trained, they can be used
for forecasting. With relevant inputs, cooling loads are forecast by
Models A and B, and the final forecasted cooling load can be obtained
using the ensemble approach (see Fig. 6).
current building cooling load and wet bulb temperature as constraints
[50].
Because the current load is used as the average load of the coming
time interval in real controls, the accuracy of the forecasted load of the
coming time interval should be more accurate than that obtained by
taking the current load as a forecast. Consequently, the benchmark of
forecasting with the lead time of a single time interval i would be the
same as taking the current cooling load Q (t ) as a forecast of the next
time interval Q (t + i ) . The benchmark is applied in Section 4 to eval-
uate the performance of the proposed dynamic forecasting model.
3.3.2. A comparison model
Besides the benchmark, a model for performance comparison,
which is a popular dynamic load forecasting models, is built up to
further evaluate the performance of the proposed load forecasting
model. With 4 previous time step inputs, including cooling loads (KW),
the ambient dry bulb temperature (°C), solar horizontal radiation (W/
m2) and room temperature setpoint(°C), a 3-layer ANN model has been
developed to perform a one time step ahead building cooling load (KW)
forecasting [51]. The transfer function is hyperbolic tangent function in
the hidden neurons and a linear function is used in the output neuron.
The training function is the Levenberg-Marquardt back- propagation
algorithm.
4. Case study
A building, whose parameters were derived from a real 90-floor
commercial skyscraper, was developed using the transient system si-
mulation tool (TRNSYS). The simulation was verified by comparing the
simulated building cooling loads with the measured loads. The simu-
lation overcame the limitations of measured data by providing suffi-
cient information such as the envelopes’ outside surface temperature
and by avoiding unreasonable building cooling loads due to improper
manipulations of the HVAC system by the occupants. Based on the si-
mulated data, the proposed dynamic load-forecasting model was suc-
cessfully validated.
4.1. Building description
The sample building of this study is a mega grade A office building,
which is located at the hub centre of Hong Kong. Multi-national fi-
nancial companies coming from all over the world are working in this

3.3. Benchmark and a comparison model for evaluation of the dynamic

load-forecasting model

3.3.1. Benchmark
The current load combining with the current weather information
are usually taken as constraints to derive the optimum HVAC system
settings to minimize the electrical energy consumption [48].
Current wet bulb temperature and building cooling load are taken as
constraints in optimising the condenser water loop of HVAC system [3].
An energy optimization methodology was proposed to derive the op-
timized operation decisions for chiller plants at regular intervals based
on the building thermal load and the weather condition [49]. A varying
searching bounds optimization control method was proposed by taking Fig. 4. Architecture of the ANN for Model A.

1745
L. Wang et al.
Fig. 5. Architecture of the ANN for Model B.
building with 24 h services including air conditioning, power supply,
security access and so on. It was simulated in TRNSYS with a standard
floor area of 1800 m2, and the 90 floors were divided into nine zones of
10 floors each. A window belt (1.5 m high) was embedded in the fa-
cades in all four directions for each floor (see Fig. 7). Table 1 shows the
construction and thermal properties.
The time frame is chosen as from 6550 h to 7300 h (from Oct. 1,
2009 to Oct. 31, 2009 approximately) since the performance data of the
sample building are only available during that time. The data collected
including measured hourly building cooling loads, the meteorological
data and occupancy level. The hourly monitored meteorological data
includes the ambient dry bulb temperature and the relative humidity.
The building’s occupancy level, which was managed according to the
Code of Practice for Fire Safety in Buildings [52] of Hong Kong, was
measured by the electricity energy consumption of the escalators [53].
Apart from the building cooling loads, the monitored ambient dry bulb
temperature, relative humidity and occupancy level are plotted in
Fig. 8. The monitored data were all applied in the TRNSYS simulation,
and solar radiation was read from the TMY2 meteorology file of Hong
Kong provided by TRNSYS 16.
4.2. TRNSYS simulation verification
The TRNSYS program, developed continuously by the Solar Energy
Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin since 1975, is a flexible si-
mulation tool that can simulate the transient performance of thermal
Fig. 6. Diagram of dynamic load forecasting method.
1746
Applied Energy 228 (2018) 1740–1753
energy systems [54,55]. The Type 56 Multi-zone Building model, which
solves coupled differential equations using matrix inversion techniques,
provides a more efficient way to calculate the interaction between two
or more zones. The building envelopes were modelled according to the
ASHRAE transfer function approach [54], which has been verified as a
reliable method to calculate a building’s cooling load [39].
Several popular simulation codes for modelling buildings’ thermal
behaviour and cooling loads, including EnergyPlus, DOE-2.1E,
TRNAYS-TUD and ESP-r were compared, and discovered that TRNSYS
simulation gives results with satisfying accuracy [56]. The building
cooling loads of domestic and public buildings have been modelled with
TRNSYS in a variety of studies [57–61].
The building cooling load simulated by TRNSYS was compared with
measured data to verify the simulation. Fig. 9 compares the building
cooling load profiles. The variation trend and the magnitude of time-
varying loads were both captured by TRNSYS simulation. The profiles
were well matched from around 6650 to 6775 h, from around 7507 to
7107 h and from around 7200 to 7275 h. The discrepancies occurred
mainly during peak load hours, which can also be observed from the
scatter plot of Fig. 10 for its heteroscedastic nature, and it was possibly
due to improper manipulation of the HVAC system by the building’s
occupants.
The coefficient of determination was taken to evaluate the accuracy
of simulation, as shown in Eqs. (11) and (12).
The coefficient of determination:
∑ (yi −y )̂ 2
R2 = 1−
∑ (yi −y )2 (11)
where yi is the measured value, y ̂ is the modelled output,
n
1
and y =
n
∑ yi
i=1 (12)
The indoor temperature can be ensured to be extremely constant in
TRNSYS simulation, which is hardly possible in a real building due to
the delayed responses of the HVAC system or the manipulations of
occupants. Therefore, discrepancies between simulated and measured
data cannot be avoided. Compared with the measured data which can
be noisy since the delayed response of the HVAC system or the im-
proper manipulations of occupants, etc. the simulated data is more
qualified by excluding the noise that may not be explained by physical
terms. Combining the observation that (a) the mainly curving trends of
the measured cooling load profile have been tracked well by the si-
mulated data; (b) the simulation model explains 87% of all the varia-
bility of the measured data (R2 is 0.87, see Fig. 10); (c) average de-
viation of simulation is 9.7 KW (see Fig. 11), which is less than 0.2% of
the measured data mean, we may conclude the data that simulated by
TRNSYS could reasonably represent the sample building. The hourly
cooling loads that were calculated from TRNSYS are taken as the real
L. Wang et al. Applied Energy 228 (2018) 1740–1753

Fig. 7. Geometry and construction detail for sample building.

Table 1 and B, and the latter one third of the data were used to test the per-
Construction layers and thermal properties of the envelope. formance of the dynamic forecasting model. Previous inputs of nine
Construction U-value (W/ g-Value
time steps and three time steps for Models A and B, respectively, were
m2 K) adopted after a series of trials.
An early-stop validation approach showed no significant improve-
Wall/Roof 200 mm concrete 0.580 – ment in the validation error over a predefined number of epochs after
50 mm insulation layer
Window 6 mm glass and 16 mm air and 6 mm 1.26 0.397
the minimum level was reached. The intermediate state of the model
glass with the minimum validation error was selected as the trained model.
One thousand epochs were adopted in this case study (refer to Fig. 12).
As shown in Fig. 13a, the building loads forecasted by Models A and
load of the sample building in the case study. B were distributed around the real load profile with diverse patterns.
During the peak load period, the results of Model A (dashed line with
4.3. Results and discussion hollow squares) tend to be higher than the real load profile (thick solid
line with crosses). Sometimes, the deviations are huge: around 7110,
4.3.1. Results 7146, 7182, 7206 and 7266 h. However, the results of Model B (thin
Overall, 742 valid data samples were derived from the TRNSYS si- solid line with solid triangles) tend to be randomly distributed around
mulation from 6553 to 7294 h. The first two thirds of the data were the real load during the peak load periods. For example, the results of
trained by an ANN with Bayesian regularisation to develop Models A Model B match the real load profile well around 7116, 7137, 7161,

Fig. 8. Weather and occupancy profile applied in TRNSYS simulation.

1747
L. Wang et al.
Fig. 9. Comparison of simulated and measured cooling load profile.
Fig. 10. Scatter plot of simulated cooling loads with measured cooling loads.
Fig. 11. Error distribution of simulated cooling loads.
Fig. 12. Early-stop validation for ANN training.
1748
Applied Energy 228 (2018) 1740–1753
7233, 7157 and 7263 h; underestimates occur around 7140 and 7143 h,
whilst overestimates occur around 7185, 7191, 7212 and 7236 h.
During the trough load period, the results of Model A and Model B
match the real load profile well.
During the period that loads are increasing or decreasing, the results
of Model A match the real load profile well and Model B performs well
when the load increases whilst underestimates happen when load de-
creases, such as around 7146 and 7170 h.
The differences in the forecasting patterns derived from Models A
and B make the combination of the results of the two models mean-
ingful. The final results (thin solid line with solid circle) were drawn
after using an ensemble approach to average the results of Models A
and B. As shown in Fig. 13b, both Model A’s large deviations during the
peak load periods and Model B’s underestimates during the decreased
load periods were alleviated after ensemble. As such, the final results
match the real load profile better than the results of either model alone.
The benchmark (dashed line with half hollow square), which takes the
current load as a forecast, plots a profile that behaves as a shift of the
real load profile. Large deviations could not be avoided by the bench-
mark profile when loads varied dramatically as increasing or de-
creasing. As indicated by the value of R2, the proposed forecasting
model considerably improved the accuracy, as compared with the
benchmark.
The load profile forecasted by the comparison model tend to over-
estimate at both peak and trough load periods, see Fig. 13c. The de-
viation can be huge at some hours, such as around 7113, 7167 and
7239 h. With an R2 of 0.8633, the performance of the comparison
model is inferior to that of the proposed forecasting model.
The errors of the forecasting models were analysed by both error
distribution analysis and scatter plot as shown in Fig. 14. From the error
distribution histograms, it can be seen that the 95% confidence interval
of the error distributions was located in a similar range for Models A
and B. The mean error of the model after ensemble was the average of
the means of Models A and B, yet the deviation (sigma) was smaller
than that of either Model A or B. The 95% confidence interval of the
error distribution of the model after ensemble was only two thirds that
of Models A and B. The mean error of the benchmark was between that
of Models A and B, whilst the deviation was the greatest, and the
benchmark’s 95% confidence interval of error distribution was nearly
double that of the model after ensemble. Both the mean error and the
deviation of the comparison model are larger than those of the model
after ensemble. The 95% confidence interval of error distribution of the
comparison model is around 1.75 times that of model after ensemble.
The scatter plots in Fig. 14 show that, relatively, the deviations are
relatively large at high load period whilst small at low load period for
Model A. For Model B, the deviations occur at both high load period
and low load period. After the ensemble procedure, the deviations are
reduced obviously for all load scenarios. The deviations are averagely
distributed at high load period and low load period besides some
L. Wang et al.
Fig. 13a. Comparison of cooling load profiles.
outliers for the benchmark, and the results of the comparison model
tend to overestimate a lot.
4.3.2. Discussion
As shown in Fig. 13a and summarized in Table 2, the building loads
forecasted by Models A and B were distributed around the real load
profile with diverse patterns because they were based on different
theories and stressed different aspects of the cooling load composition.
Based on the RTS method, Model A stressed the radiant heat gain
portion, which depended completely upon the cooling loads that al-
ready existed from the current time back into the past whilst the future
was excluded. With the adoption of Model A, the cumulative effects of
the cooling loads were well presented, but the inflection points that
were driven mainly by sudden changes in the weather or occupancy
were hardly reflected. Therefore, huge deviations mainly occurred with
the adoption of Model A for forecasting when the real load profile came
to an inflection point on each day, changing from ascending to des-
cending. During the trough load periods, when the real load profile
changed much more moderately, Model A performed better.
Based on Fourier’s law, Model B stressed both the conductive and
convection heat gain portions by considering all relevant environ-
mental factors, indicating the heat gain that affected instant and future
cooling loads. The current and historic sensor-based inputs affected
future cooling loads due to the time they consumed with either the
dampening effect of the building thermal mass or the process of me-
tabolism. Concretely, the outside surface temperature of the envelope
affected the future cooling load due to the time consumed by con-
ductive heat transfer through the envelope’s thermal mass; the ambient
dry bulb temperature and the relative humidity influenced the future
cooling load as fresh air with the time needed to disperse evenly into a
large room. The number of occupants affected the future cooling load
with the time required by human metabolism to contribute latent heat
gain. For the essence of stressing instant and future heat gains by
considering all environmental affecting factors, Model B performed
Fig. 13b. Comparison of cooling load profiles.
1749
Applied Energy 228 (2018) 1740–1753
better than Model A on the inflection points in general, with smaller
deviations. However, during the trough loading periods, when the en-
vironmental factors remained more stable, Model B performed worse
than Model A with a few underestimates.
The diversity of Models A and B made it reasonable to combine
them to form a better forecasting model, which was proved by the re-
sults of the case study. The load profile showed that most of the large
deviations were eased by the model after ensemble. The R2 values of
Models A and B were both around 0.93, indicating similar accuracies of
the two models. The R2 value increased to around 0.96 by combining
the two models, and such a large improvement in accuracy could not
occur if the two models were not complementary. The error deviations
of Models A and B were both around 830 KW, whilst the residual de-
viation of the model after ensemble was reduced to around 630 KW.
The decrease in the residual deviation also indicated the com-
plementary status of Models A and B. Compared with the benchmark as
well as the comparison model, the proposed ensemble model greatly
improved the forecasting accuracy. The residual range of the model
after ensemble was also considerably smaller than that of the bench-
mark and the comparison model.
The forecasting model proposed in this paper differed from previous
studies in input selection. As stated in the Introduction section, inputs
in previous studies were usually selected from available source data
pools. A passive method that contained the implicit premise that the
available data pools included all necessary inputs, if not, the inputs
selected from the data pools would have been even more insufficient.
However, the accessible source of data pools might not be sufficient for
cooling load prediction, as they were usually collected by the bureau
according to the basic requirements of weather sampling. Instead of
passive selection of relevant inputs based on the accessible data pool,
extra inputs were actively explored based on physical modelling.
Without a presumed condition, the inputs explored actively based on
physical modelling are possibly be used to supplement the source data.
Occupancy, rather than the type of day, was chosen to be one input,
L. Wang et al. Applied Energy 228 (2018) 1740–1753

Fig. 13c. Comparison of cooling load profiles.

which enriched the forecasting model to handle unexpected schedules. of occupants could be monitored in a variety of ways, such as lift
The use of the type of day to indicate the occupancy scenario had electricity consumption [53], Wi-Fi connections [62] and passive in-
limitations when unexpected incidents occurred and invalidated the frared sensors [28].
usual schedule. With the development of sensor techniques, the number In addition, the envelope’s outside surface temperature was used as

(a1) (a2)

(b1) (b2)

(c1) (c2)
Fig. 14. Forecasting error distributions.

1750
L. Wang et al.
(d1)
(e1)
Fig. 14. (continued)
Table 2
Summary of forecasting performance of Model A and Model B.
Peak load period
Trough load period
Inflection points From ascending to stable or descending
From descending to stable or ascending
an input for the first time. The surface temperature, which reflects the
heat gain from solar radiation and the heat loss due to wind speed, has
been neglected in other studies. Compared with the use of solar ra-
diation and wind speeds as inputs, the surface temperature is more
closely related to the building’s thermal behaviour and can ease com-
putation loads by reducing the number of inputs and can be collected
with sensors.
The framework of the proposed model differed from those in pre-
vious studies. Although ANNs are frequently used in dynamic load
forecasting, the ensemble approach was adopted here for the first time
to combine two complimentary models.
The forecasting model proposed in this paper essentially used an
ANN and the ensemble approach to determine how a building trans-
forms different portions of heat gain – radiation, conduction and con-
vection – to the building cooling load with assumption that the building
thermal properties do not change much with time. By applying the
framework of the proposed model, the qualified training data are ne-
cessary. According to the previous study that evaluated a variety of AI
methods [63], the more qualified training data are accessible, the better
the model performance will be.
The proposed forecasting model achieves accurate and reliable one
step-ahead forecasting for building cooling load, which can be applied
to tackle the time-lag problem of HVAC system control, the HVAC
system optimisation as well as other building management tasks.
Applied Energy 228 (2018) 1740–1753
(d2)
(e2)
Forecasting performance of Model A Forecasting performance of Model B
Mainly overestimates Underestimates & overestimates
Mainly match Mainly match with a few underestimates
Mainly overestimates Mainly match with a few overestimates
Mainly match Mainly match
5. Conclusions
A dynamic load-forecasting model that combines two sub-models –
Models A and B – has been proposed in this paper using an artificial
neural network and an ensemble approach. Based on the radiant time
series method, Model A stresses the historical radiant heat gain portion
of cooling loads; and according to Fourier’s law, Model B emphasises
the instantaneous and future conduction and convection heat gain
portions of cooling loads. By bringing together the complimentary sub-
models, all the heat gain portions that contribute to building cooling
loads are covered in the dynamic load-forecasting model, and it pro-
vides improved accuracy compared with previous popular forecasting
model (the comparison model). It was also demonstrated by the
benchmarking test which represents an ordinary operation in practice.
The proposed Model A and Model B are based on structured analysis
of the widely used theories for cooling load calculation rather than
relying heavily on data manipulation. Based on radiant time series
method, Model A generally provides highly accurate forecasting whilst
overestimates at inflection points; based on Fourier’s Law, Model B
achieves high accuracy generally with underestimates at trough load
period. The forecasting accuracy after the ensemble of Model A and
Model B further improve the forecasting performance than each in-
dividual model with an obvious alleviation of overestimates and un-
derestimates. The theoretical bases–radiant time series method and
Fourier’s law, which have been proved to be effective on calculating
1751
L. Wang et al.
building cooling loads and heat transfer problems, indicate the feasi-
bility of Model A and Model B on forecasting cooling loads for a variety
of buildings, so as the model after ensemble.
By active exploration of model inputs, the number of occupants and
outside surface temperature of the envelope are included as inputs. By
applying the number of occupants rather than a calendar or time-based
input, the Model B breaks the limitation of specific building schedules
and is capable of dealing with irregular occasions and unexpected
schedules. A benchmark was formulated to evaluate the performance of
the proposed forecasting model based on practical operation, and it can
also be used to evaluate other dynamic forecasting models that are
validated by different case studies.
The proposed dynamic load-forecasting model is practically ap-
plicable since it can be applied to tackle the time-lag problem in HVAC
system control. The time-lag problem, which means the cooling load
cannot be reflected by the temperature change instantly due to the time
delay in air mixing, would make the cooling load be either over-met or
un-met by the HVAC system. The problem can be alleviated by in-
tegrating the proposed dynamic load forecasting model into the HVAC
system control. For HVAC systems that work for years, large amount of
energy could possibly be saved. It can also be applied to other building
management operations such as optimization control as well as fault
detection. With a reasonable one time step-ahead load forecasting, the
system setting for chiller plants’ optimization can be developed in ad-
vance to minimize the electrical energy consumption. The deviation
between the forecasted loads with the observed loads can also be used
as an indicator to indicate the anomalies in building operation.
Developing more dynamic load forecasting models to further enhance
the performance by ensemble technique and integrating the proposed
dynamic load-forecasting model into HVAC system control to save en-
ergy would be the future works of this study.
Acknowledgement
This work described in this paper was fully supported by a grant
from the Research Grant Council of the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region, China [Project No. CityU 11257816].
References
[1] Gross G, Galiana F. Short-term load forecasting. Proc IEEE 1987;75(12):1558–73.
[2] Christiaanse W. Short-term load forecasting using general exponential smoothing.
IEEE Trans Power Apparat Syst 1971;PAS-91(5).
[3] Thangavelu S, Myat A, Khambadkone A. Energy optimization methodology of multi-
chiller plant in commercial buildings. Energy 2017;123:64–76.
[4] Mahmoud A, Comerford R, Adams J, Dawson E. Load forecast bibliography. IEEE
Trans Power Apparat Syst 1980;PAS-99(1).
[5] Mohamed A, Naresh S. Short-term load demand modeling and forecasting: a review.
IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 1982;SMC-12(3).
[6] Zhao H, Magoules F. A review on the prediction of building energy consumption.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:3586–92.
[7] Kumar R, Aggarwal R, Sharma J. Energy analysis of a building using artificial neural
network: a review. Energy Build 2013;65:352–8.
[8] Srivastava A, Pandey A, Singh D. Short-term load forecasting methods: s review.
International conference on emerging trends in electrical, electronics and sustain-
able energy systems (ICETEESES-16). 2016.
[9] Heinemann G, Nordman D. The relationship between summer weather and summer
loads – a regression analysis. IEEE Trans Power Apparat Syst 1966;PAS-85(11).
[10] Corpening S, Reppen N, Ringlee R. Experience with weather sensitive load models
for short and long term forecasting. IEEE Trans Power Apparat Syst 1973;PAS-
92(6).
[11] Lijesen D, Rosing J. Adaptive forecasting of hourly loads based on load measure-
ments and weather information. IEEE Trans Power Apparat Syst 1971;PAS-90(4).
[12] Gupta P, Yamada K. Adaptive short-term forecasting of hourly loads using weather
information. IEEE Trans Power Apparat Syst 1972;PAS-91(5).
[13] Goh T, Ong H, Lee Y. A new approach to statistical forecasting of daily peak power
demand. Electr Power Syst Res 1986;10:145–8.
[14] Park D, El-Sharkawi M, Marks R, Atlas L, Damborg M. Electric load forecasting
using an artificial neural network. IEEE Trans Power Syst 1991;6(2).
[15] Srinivasan D, Liew A, Chang C. Forecasting daily load curves using a hybrid fuzzy-
neural approach. IEEE Proc-Generat Transm Distrib 1994;141(6).
[16] Bakirtzis A, Theocharis J, Kiartizis S, Satsios K. Short term load forecasting using
fuzzy neural network. IEEE Trans Power Syst 1995;10(3).
1752
Applied Energy 228 (2018) 1740–1753
[17] Ben-Nakhi A, Mahmoud M. Cooling load prediction for buildings using general
regression neural networks. Energy Convers Manage 2004;45:2127–41.
[18] Kim K, Park J, Hwang K, Kim S. Implementation of hybrid short-term load fore-
casting system using artificial neural networks and fuzzy expert systems. IEEE Trans
Power Syst 1995;10(3).
[19] Chow T, Leung C. Nonlinear autoregressive integrated neural network model for
short-term load forecasting. IEE Proc – Generat Transm Distrib 1996;143(5).
[20] Kiartzis S, Kehagias A, Bakirtzis A, Petridis V. Short term load forecasting using a
Bayesian combination method. Electr Power Energy Syst 1997;19(3):171–7.
[21] Yang H, Huang C. A new short-term load forecasting approach using self-organizing
fuzzy ARMAX models. IEEE Trans Power Syst 1998;13(1).
[22] Dong B, Cao C, Lee S. Applying support vector machines to predict building energy
consumption in tropical region. Energy Build 2005;37:545–53.
[23] Yang J, Rivad H, Zmeureanu R. On-line building energy prediction using adaptive
artificial neural networks. Energy Build 2005;37:1250–9.
[24] Gonzalez P, Zamarreno J. Prediction of hourly energy consumption in buildings
based on a feedback artificial neural network. Energy Build 2005;37:595–601.
[25] Wang J, Wang J, Li Y, Zhu S, Zhao J. Techniques of applying wavelet de-noising
into a combined model for short-term load forecasting. Electr Power Energy Syst
2014;62:816–24.
[26] Hou Z, Lian Z, Yao Y, Yuan X. Cooling-load prediction by the combination of rough
set theory and an artificial neural-network based on data-fusion technique. Appl
Energy 2006;83:1033–46.
[27] Tang F, Kusiak A, Wei X. Modeling and short-term prediction of HVAC system with
a clustering algorithm. Energy Build 2014;82:310–21.
[28] Massana J, Pous C, Burgas L, Melendez J, Colomer J. Short-term load forecasting for
non-residential buildings contrasting artificial occupancy attributes. Energy Build
2016;130:519–31.
[29] Zhang F, Deb C, Lee S, Yang J, Shah K. Time series forecasting for building energy
consumption using weighted support vector regression with different evolution
optimization technique. Energy Build 2016;126:94–103.
[30] Fan C, Xiao F, Zhao Y. A short-term building cooling load prediction method using
deep learning algorithms. Appl Energy 2017;195:222–33.
[31] Cui C, Wu T, Hu M, Weir JD, Li X. Short-term building energy model re-
commendation system: a meta-learning approach. Appl Energy 2016;172:251–63.
[32] Xu X, Huang G, Liu H, Chen L, Liu Q. The study of the dynamic load forecasting
model about air conditioning system based on the terminal user load. Energy Build
2015;94:263–8.
[33] Powell K, Sriprasad A, Cole W, Edgar T. Heating, cooling and electrical load fore-
casting for a large-scale district energy system. Energy 2014;74:877–85.
[34] Sun Y, Wang S, Xiao F. Development and validation of a simplified online cooling
load prediction strategy for a super high-rise building in Hong Kong. Energy
Convers Manage 2013;68:20–7.
[35] Wong S, Wan K, lam T. Artificial neural networks for energy analysis of office
buildings with daylighting. Appl Energy 2010;87:551–7.
[36] Lim H, Kim G. Prediction model of cooling load considering time-lag fore pre-
emptive action in buildings. Energy Build 2017;151:53–65.
[37] Pedersen C, Fisher D, Liesen R. Development of a heat balance procedure for cal-
culating cooling loads. ASHRAE Trans 1997;103(Part 2):459–68.
[38] Spitler J, Fisher D, Pedersen C. The radiant time series cooling load calculation
procedure. ASHRAE Trans 1997;103(Part 2):503–15.
[39] American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers..
ASHRAE handbook: fundamentals. Inch-pound ed. Atlanta (GA): ASHRAE; 2013. p.
4.15–6.
[40] Zhang G, Patuwo B, Hum Y. Forecasting with artificial neural networks: the state of
the art. Int J Forecast 1998;14:35–62.
[41] Cybenko G. Approximation by superpositions of sigmoidal function. Math Control
Signals Syst 1989;2(4):303–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02551274.
[42] NeuroShell 2 manual. Frederick (MA): Ward Syst. Group Inc.; 1995. Ward.
[43] Carney J, Cunningham P. Tuning diversity in bagged ensembles. Int J Neural Syst
2000;10(4):267–79.
[44] Leung P, Lee E. Estimation of electrical power consumption in subway station de-
sign by intelligent approach. Appl Energy 2013;101:634–43.
[45] Yuen J, Lee E, Lo S, Yuen R. An intelligence-based optimization model of passenger
flow in a transportation station. IEEE Trans Intell Transport Syst 2013;14(3).
[46] Yuen J, Lee E, Lam W. An intelligence-based route choice model for pedestrian flow
in a transportation station. Appl Soft Comput 2014;24:31–9.
[47] Jain A, Dube R, Chen C. Bootstrap techniques for error estimation. IEEE Trans
Pattern Anal Mach Intell 1987;PAMI-9(5):628–33.
[48] Chua K, Chou S, Yang W, Yan J. Achieving better energy-efficient air conditioning:
a review of technologies and strategies. Appl Energy 2013;104:8–104.
[49] Lu L, Cai W, Soh Y, Xie S, Li S. HVAC system optimization-condenser water loop.
Energy Convers Manage 2004;45(4):613–30.
[50] Wang L, Lee E, Yuen R. A practical approach to chiller plants’ optimisation. Energy
Build 2018;169:332–43.
[51] Li Z, Huang G. Re-evaluation of building cooling load prediction models for use in
humid subtropical area. Energy Build 2013;62:442–9.
[52] Buildings Department. Code of practice for fire safety in buildings. Buildings
Department; 2011. p. 25–7.
[53] Kwok S, Lee E. A study of the importance of occupancy to building cooling load in
prediction by intelligent approach. Energy Convers Manage 2011;52:2555–64.
[54] University of Wisconsin-Madison. TRNSYS 16: A TRaNsient SYstem Simulation
Program – Volume 5 mathematical reference. Madison: University of Wisconsin;
2006. p. 137–40.
[55] A TRaNsient SYstems Simulation Program. Solar Energy Laboratory University of
Wisconsin; 2003.
L. Wang et al.
[56] Loutzenhiser P, Manz H, Felsmann C, Strachan P, Frank T, Maxwell G. Empirical
validation of models to compute solar irradiance on inclined surfaces for building
energy simulation. Sol Energy 2007;81:254–67.
[57] Al-ajmi F, Hanby V. Simulation of energy consumption for Kuwaiti domestic
buildings. Energy Build 2008;40:1101–9.
[58] Chargui R, Sammouda H. Modeling of a residential house coupled with a dual
source heat pump using TRNSYS software. Energy Convers Manage
2014;81:384–99.
[59] Cacabelos A, Eguia P, Migues J, Granada E, Arce M. Calibrated simulation of public
library HVAC system with a ground-source heat pump and a radiant floor using
TRNSYS and GeoOpt. Energy Build 2015;108:114–26.
[60] Djedjig R, Bozonnet E, Belarbi R. Analysis of thermal effects of vegetated envelopes:
Integration of a validated model in a building energy simulation program. Energy
1753
Applied Energy 228 (2018) 1740–1753
Build 2015;86:93–103.
[61] Ruiz-Calvo F, Montagud C, Cazorla-Marin A, Corberan J. Development and ex-
perimental validation of a TRNSYS dynamic tool for design and energy optimization
of ground source heat pump systems. Energies 2017;10:1510. https://doi.org/10.
3390/en10101510.
[62] Martani C, Lee D, Robinson P, Britter R, Ratti C. ENERNET: Studying the dynamic
relationship between building occupancy and energy consumption. Energy Build
2012;47:584–91.
[63] Banko M, Brill E. Scaling to very very large corpora for natural language dis-
ambiguation. ACL’01 Proceedings of 39th annual meeting on association for com-
putational linguistics, Toulouse, France 2001. p. 26–33. https://doi.org/10.3115/
1073012.1073017.