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
  • [21] COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO RENORMALIZATION
    MARINARO, M
    NUOVO CIMENTO DELLA SOCIETA ITALIANA DI FISICA A, 1972, A 9 (01): : 62 - +
  • [22] A Comparison of Different Clustering Methods on the Biological Data with n<p Dimensions
    Ozturk, Irfan
    Yildiz, Necati
    KAHRAMANMARAS SUTCU IMAM UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF NATURAL SCIENCES, 2012, 15 (04): : 26 - 36
  • [23] Different approaches to fuzzy clustering of incomplete datasets
    Timm, H. (timm@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de), 1600, Elsevier Inc. (35):
  • [24] Different approaches to fuzzy clustering of incomplete datasets
    Timm, H
    Döring, C
    Kruse, R
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF APPROXIMATE REASONING, 2004, 35 (03) : 239 - 249
  • [25] Comparing Smart Cities with Different Modeling Approaches
    Anthopoulos, Leonidas
    Janssen, Marijn
    Weerakkody, Vishanth
    WWW'15 COMPANION: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 24TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WORLD WIDE WEB, 2015, : 525 - 528
  • [26] Different Databases for Different Strokes
    Vial, Gregory
    IEEE SOFTWARE, 2018, 35 (02) : 80 - 85
  • [27] Comparison of Clustering Approaches for Gene Expression Data
    Borg, Anton
    Lavesson, Niklas
    Boeva, Veselka
    TWELFTH SCANDINAVIAN CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (SCAI 2013), 2013, 257 : 55 - 64
  • [28] A Comparison Among Different Approaches to Data from Single Subject Designs
    Brownell, Hiram
    Kearns, Kevin
    Lundgren, Kristine
    AOA2010, 48TH ACADEMY OF APHASIA PROCEEDINGS, 2010, 6 : 256 - +
  • [29] Relative radiometric normalisation of multitemporal landsat data -: A comparison of different approaches
    Over, M
    Schöttker, B
    Brauni, M
    Menz, G
    IGARSS 2003: IEEE INTERNATIONAL GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING SYMPOSIUM, VOLS I - VII, PROCEEDINGS: LEARNING FROM EARTH'S SHAPES AND SIZES, 2003, : 3623 - 3625
  • [30] A comparison of different chemometrics approaches for the robust classification of electronic nose data
    Piotr S. Gromski
    Elon Correa
    Andrew A. Vaughan
    David C. Wedge
    Michael L. Turner
    Royston Goodacre
    Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 2014, 406 : 7581 - 7590