Comparison of different clustering approaches on different databases of smart meter data

被引:0
|
作者
Ferrando, Martina [1 ,2 ]
Nozza, Debora [3 ]
Hong, Tianzhen [2 ]
Causone, Francesco [1 ]
机构
[1] Politecn Milan, Milan, Italy
[2] Lawrence Berkeley Natl Lab, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
[3] Univ Bocconi, Milan, Italy
关键词
CLASSIFICATION;
D O I
10.26868/25222708.2021.30193
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Various clustering methods have been applied to determine representative groups of buildings based on their energy use patterns. We reviewed and selected the most commonly used clustering methods, including k-means, k-medoids, Self-Organizing Map (SOM) coupled with k-means and hierarchical, and our proposed deep clustering algorithm for comparative performance assessment using datasets of smart meters. After the data preparation (data cleaning, segmentation, and normalization), the clustering is run, firstly, letting the number of clusters free to be chosen by the optimization process, and then forcing it to be equal to the number of primary functions of buildings. Depending on the purpose of clustering, e.g., to identify daily 24-hour load shape, to identify primary building use type (e.g., office, residential, school, retail), the optimal number of clustering can vary greatly. Thus, based on the final aim, forcing somehow the number of clusters is the most followed and suggested for engineering purposes. The k-means, the k-medoid, and the hierarchical algorithms show the best results, in all cases. While for the nature of the databases the additional step of adding a SOM to the k-means algorithms does not show improvements in terms of evaluation metrics. The direct comparison of the different algorithms gives a clear overview of the existing main clustering approaches and their performance in capturing typical use patterns in typical smart meter databases. The resulting cluster centroids could be used to better understand and characterize the energy use patterns of different buildings and building typologies with the final aims of benchmarking or customers segmentation.
引用
收藏
页码:1155 / 1162
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Multi-Domain Feature Extraction for Improved Clustering of Smart Meter Data
    Shamim, Gulezar
    Rihan, Mohd
    TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMICS OF SMART GRIDS AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, 2020, 5 (01):
  • [42] Multi-Domain Feature Extraction for Improved Clustering of Smart Meter Data
    Gulezar Shamim
    Mohd Rihan
    Technology and Economics of Smart Grids and Sustainable Energy, 5
  • [43] COTTON BALE MOISTURE METER COMPARISON AT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS
    Byler, R. K.
    Pelletier, M. G.
    Baker, K. D.
    Hughs, S. E.
    Buser, M. D.
    Holt, G. A.
    Carroll, J. A.
    APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE, 2009, 25 (03) : 315 - 320
  • [44] Comparison of Different Approaches to Patent Search
    Simsek, Bugra
    Demirel, Onur
    Tamkoc, Ali Kemal
    Kilinckaya, Behic
    Somuncu, Ozcan
    Sahin, Pinar Duygulu
    32ND IEEE SIGNAL PROCESSING AND COMMUNICATIONS APPLICATIONS CONFERENCE, SIU 2024, 2024,
  • [45] A Comparison of Different Approaches in BTK Revascularization
    Dinoto, Ettore
    Mirabella, Domenico
    Pecoraro, Felice
    JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY, 2024, 79 (04) : 39S - 39S
  • [46] COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO SEGREGATION ANALYSIS
    WILLIAMS, WR
    BADZIOCH, MD
    ANDERSON, DE
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS, 1983, 35 (06) : A210 - A210
  • [47] Polarimetric Calibration - a comparison of different approaches
    Schimpf, Hartmut
    Fuchs, Hans-Hellmuth
    2008 PROCEEDINGS INTERNATIONAL RADAR SYMPOSIUM, 2008, : 152 - 155
  • [48] Comparison of different treatment approaches for gangliogliomas
    Rades, D.
    Zwick, L.
    Leppert, J.
    Bonsanto, M. M.
    Tronnier, V.
    Dunst, J.
    STRAHLENTHERAPIE UND ONKOLOGIE, 2009, 185 : 15 - 15
  • [49] Comparison of Different Approaches for Hotels Deduplication
    Kozhevnikov, Ivan
    Gorovoy, Vladimir
    KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING AND SEMANTIC WEB, KESW 2016, 2016, 649 : 230 - 240
  • [50] Comparison of different approaches for mobile advertising
    Bulander, R
    Decker, M
    Schiefer, G
    Kölmel, B
    Second IEEE International Workshop on Mobile Commerce and Services, Proceedings, 2005, : 174 - 182