Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In the context of energy digitisation,Load Profilingcan be a useful tool for making decisions about the use and the health of an electrical load and could be adopted for strategic services related to the energy efficiency, characterisation, prediction, optimisation, and diagnosis of monitored systems. To accomplish for this task it is important a spread of a new generation of smart meters. In this scenario, useful information for the developers of services based on Load Profiling could be the minimum metrological characteristics of smart meters, i.e. the monitoring quality, and the electrical parameters to extract from the electrical signature in order to have a reliable Load Profiling process, i.e. the electrical signature quality. This paper tries to answer to these questions investigating the impact of the monitoring quality and the electrical signature quality on the performance of Load Profiling. The main results of the paper are:i) generally the Load Profiling process requires metrological characteristics lower than those required for energy billing reducing sub-metering infrastructure costs;ii) the increasing of the number of energy features adopted in the Load Profiling not always improves reliability and accuracy; this happens when many of the features considered do not have great sensitivity with respect to changes in the energy states for the considered case study;iii) the use of functions that measure the sensitivity of a feature to the Load Profiling process, such as the considered “KDE” (Kernel Density Estimation), and a suitable threshold process can delete the parameters with poor sensitivity and can greatly improve the Load Profiling reliability;iv) the method considered in the paper could help to analyze Load Profiling problems related to other physical quantities (i.e., thermal energy profiling or even multi-physical systems), allowing to the definition of a target “MQ” (Monitoring Quality) and selecting a minimum number of useful features to be adopted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tari et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: