# Day-ahead industrial load forecasting for electric RTG cranes

- 1.4k Downloads
- 2 Citations

## Abstract

Given the increase in international trading and the significant energy and environmental challenges in ports around the world, there is a need for a greater understanding of the energy demand behaviour at ports. The move towards electrified rubber-tyred gantry (RTG) cranes is expected to reduce gas emissions and increase energy savings compared to diesel RTG cranes but it will increase electrical energy demand. Electrical load forecasting is a key tool for understanding the energy demand which is usually applied to data with strong regularities and seasonal patterns. However, the highly volatile and stochastic behaviour of the RTG crane demand creates a substantial prediction challenge. This paper is one of the first extensive investigations into short term load forecasts for electrified RTG crane demand. Options for model inputs are investigated depending on extensive data and correlation analysis. The effect of estimation accuracy of exogenous variables on the forecast accuracy is investigated as well. The models are tested on two different RTG crane data sets that were collected from the Port of Felixstowe in the UK. The results reveal the effectiveness of the forecast models when the estimation of the number of crane moves and container gross weight are accurate.

## Keywords

Rubber-tyred gantry (RTG) cranes Correlation analysis Exogenous variables estimation Artificial neural networks Time series forecast modelling## 1 Introduction

- 1)
Traditional or statistical methods: for example, autoregressive integrated moving average with exogenous variable (ARIMAX) and autoregressive with exogenous variable (ARX) [8].

- 2)
Artificial intelligence methods: such as artificial neural networks (ANN) [9] and support vector machine (SVM)[10].

- 3)

Forecast models play a vital role in many electrical power system applications, such as planning, operation and energy markets. ARIMAX and ANN forecasting concepts have been applied widely in different energy applications such as buildings, industrial loads and renewable energy [13, 14]. It should also be beneficial to apply these techniques to forecasting the RTG crane demand in order to improve the understanding of load behaviour which can help to reduce peak demand and gas emissions. There are many publications that have discussed and developed load forecasting models in the literature, which successfully predict the highly volatile targets such as wind speed [15], solar radiation [16], microgrid systems and building demand by using ANN and ARIMAX techniques. However, these systems in the literature have clear physically explanatory relationships with exogenous variables compared to the RTG crane demand. For example, [17] developed two different ANN models for high and low frequency data sets with seasonal data points which is captured by using Wavelet decomposition in order to forecast a 24-hour ahead peak demand for Irans national grid. In addition, time series methods are widely used to predict electricity prices. Reference [18] proposed an ARIMAX model to forecast the electrical power prices at Nord Pool, the model included exogenous variables such as temperature, wind speed and reservoir level which mainly reflect seasonal trends in the weekly spot price and it helped to reduce the forecast error.

It should be noted that the forecast models presented in the literature for buildings, industrial loads and smart grids have used the seasonality correlation and the exogenous variables that have a clear relationship with forecast target to predict the load demand. Unlike previous studies, the electrified RTG crane demands are: \({\textcircled {1}}\) highly volatile and stochastic; \({\textcircled {2}}\) not include a clear seasonality or patterns, can help to improve the forecast quality; \({\textcircled {3}}\) highly unpredictable behaviour due to the effect of human (crane driver) on the crane moves and loads.

Furthermore, to the authors knowledge, while only a single study discussed the RTG crane forecasting problem [4], there are no studies found which specifically consider forecasting of load for electrified RTG crane by estimating the number of moves and container gross weight and examine different input variables. Reference [4] used ARIMAX and ANN models with one hidden layer to predict a 24-hour RTG crane demand. However, they assumed that the exogenous variables are known in advance without examining the impact of inputs error on the forecast accuracy. In addition, the RTG crane forecast models do not investigate the effect of exogenous input variables on the forecast performance [4].

- 1)
This paper uses two new forecast models that show more accurate results compared to the literature. Firstly, an ANN system with two hidden layers that help to improve the forecast model performance. Secondly, an ARX model that has a similar performance to the ARIMAX model but with the advantage of having a higher speed to calculate the AR coefficient.

- 2)
This work examines the impact of the accuracy of the exogenous variables on the forecast model performance in order to develop an accurate forecast model.

- 3)
An approach is proposed for estimation of the exogenous variables (number of crane moves and container gross weight). This estimation helps to check the forecast model performance for a range of errors at the forecast model inputs (exogenous variables).

- 4)
In this work, the forecast models have been tested over three different time periods. In addition, all forecast models have been trained using one RTG crane testing data set and tested with two different RTG crane data sets.

## 2 Methodology

Electrified RTG cranes are used in the intermodal operations for container handling at ports. The RTG demand behaviour is mainly non-smooth, volatile and without obvious patterns or seasonality in the demand time series which increases the challenge of forecast the crane load. In this research, ANN and ARIMAX models are developed to predict the hourly electrified RTG crane demand at hour \(t + n\) where *t* is the hour time and \(n = 1,2, \ldots , 24\). Furthermore, we examine the impact of some exogenous variables (\(X_t\), \(Y_t\)) on the forecast models performance. A general schematic of the load forecasting procedure is shown in Fig. 1. This section presents the methodologies we implement for electrified RTG crane load forecasting.

### 2.1 ANN

*n*and the hidden neuron

*i*) multiplied by the outputs of each individual neuron \(X_n\) and

*m*is the number of neurons. In the structure of a typical individual artificial neuron, the summation of input signals \({y}_{i}\) from several synapses is transferred through an activation function

*F*described by (2) for the chosen function sigmoid activation.

*i*th neuron (\(\gamma _i\)) throughout the hidden layer presented by (3) and (4).

*n*th neuron in the output layer, respectively. In (4), the error information \(\gamma _i\) is used to update the synaptic weight \(W_{in}\):

*i*th neuron. Next, the weight correction \({\mathrm {\Delta }}{W_{in}}\) is used to modify the old synaptic weigh \({W_{in,old}}\):

*n*and the hidden neuron

*i*. Finally, after the ANN model is trained, the model can be generalised and tested on similar sets.

### 2.2 ARIMAX

*p*,

*d*,

*q*) model for a time series is described by (6) and (7) [19].

*t*(defined by (7) with \(a^{(0)}_t = a_t\)); \({\sum \limits _{i=0}^{h} {\mu _i}{X_{t-i}}}\) is the

*X*variables term; \({\sum \limits _{i=1}^{p} {\psi _i}{a^{(d)}_{t-i}}}={\mathrm {AR}}(p)\) is the autoregressive term of order

*p*; \({ \sum \limits _{i=1}^{q} {\varphi _i}{\epsilon _{t-i}}}={\mathrm {MA}}(q)\) is the moving average term of order

*q*; \({\psi _i}\) is the coefficient of AR(

*p*) term; \({\varphi _i}\) is the coefficient of the MA(

*q*) term; \(\epsilon _{t}\) is error term; \({\mu _i}\) is the coefficient parameter for the exogenous variable \(X_{t-i}\) for the number of exogenous variable

*h*;

*C*is a constant term. Furthermore, ARX, ARIMA and AR are subclasses of ARIMAX models. For example, ARX is an integrate of the autoregressive terms AR(

*p*) with exogenous variables [19].

### 2.3 Exogenous variables estimation

Estimation techniques based on different distribution methods have been used widely for estimating the exogenous variables of forecast models [5, 20]. In this research, the exogenous variables at hour *t* (\(X_{t}\)) are the hourly container gross weight \(Z_t\) and number of crane moves \(Y_t\) due to the high correlation between these variables and RTG crane demand (at hour *t*). However, the exogenous variables for \(t+n\) \((n = 1,2,\ldots ,24)\) are typically unknown. Aiming to improve the forecast model and examine the impact of the exogenous variables, here we develop models for: \({\textcircled {1}}\) estimating both exogenous variables \(Z_t\) and \(Y_t\); \({\textcircled {2}}\) estimating only one exogenous variable for example \(Z_t\) and assume that the second variable \(Y_t\) is known in advance.

We compare these estimation methods to the case when we assume knowing the exact values of the exogenous variable \(X_{t}\) in advance. We will estimate the variables by means of random sampling from appropriate distribution functions. As we will show, the exogenous variables are highly correlated hence when one variable is known we must use the conditional probability for sampling.

*M*is the sample size.

### 2.4 Load forecasting model evaluation

*i*is the time step;

*N*is the number of observations.

## 3 Data analysis and forecasting models

- 1)
Estimating the exogenous variables (number of crane moves and container gross weight) as described in Section 2.3.

- 2)
Estimating one of the exogenous variables and assuming the other variable is known in advance.

- 3)
Assuming both exogenous variables are known in advance.

- 4)
Generating the forecast models without the exogenous variables.

### 3.1 Data collection and analysis

The measured data were collected at the Port of Felixstowe in the UK from two electrified RTG cranes over three different periods during normal operation days. The first data set was collected from 15th of April to 10th of May, 2016 and the second data set from 7th of September to 10th of October, 2016 with both sets coming form the same crane. The third data set was collected from another RTG crane over seven days from the 7th to the 13th of December, 2016. The first data set is divided into 21 days of training data and five days of testing data. The second and third data sets are used as testing data sets. Due to the non-smooth behaviour of the RTG crane load and the lack of seasonality or trends over the time series (as described in the following section) and motivated by the literature [2, 4], we assume that the gap in the time series will have negligible effect on the forecast results. In this paper, the testing period with 46 days data set allows us to evaluate the forecast model over three different time periods and test the transferability of the model trained on one crane to other cranes with the same specifications.

Difference between the power demand values for the same number of moves and container gross weight

Moves | Weight (ton) | Time in 2016 | Demand (kW) |
---|---|---|---|

2 | 46 | 9th of October (11:00) | 37 |

2 | 46 | 13th of October (09:00) | 23 |

2 | 59 | 12th of September (06:00) | 28 |

2 | 59 | 12th of September (09:00) | 47 |

2 | 59 | 12th of September (14:00) | 48 |

7 | 184 | 1st of September (15:00) | 86 |

7 | 184 | 2nd of September (07:00) | 164 |

7 | 184 | 27th of September (20:00) | 137 |

### 3.2 Exogenous variables estimation model

### 3.3 ANN

To forecast the hourly power demand of an electrified RTG crane for the next 24 hours, two ANN models are used, as seen in Fig. 8. The proposed models are feed-forward ANN activated by a sigmoid function and trained by the Levenberg-Marquard algorithm that has been widely used with highly volatile forecast targets. Generally, there is no specific or favourite method that can guarantee the best number of neurons for each layer and the number of layers [10]. However, an increase in the number of neurons and layers may generate over fitting and overestimation problems and increase the training time required [10]. An experiment was carried out based on the number of hidden layer from 1 to 5 and number of hidden neurons 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 in this study to select the best parameters for the forecast model that produces the minimum forecast error. In general, one or two hidden layers with a sufficient number of neurons is able to handle a wide range of forecasting problems without leading to over-fitting [24]. The ANN forecast model with two hidden layers generates the minimum forecast error for the same number of hidden neurons compared to the [4] with single hidden layer and ANN models with 3 to 5 hidden layers over the same data set.

#### 3.3.1 Model A

The objective of Model A is to investigate the performance of a forecast model that does not include the exogenous variables. The RTG crane demand data analysis in Section 3.1 shows that the autocorrelation over the time series is weak. However, for this model we choose the lags with the highest correlation values. These values are used as input neurons for Model A as follows: \({\textcircled {1}}\) the average of the previous day load; \({\textcircled {2}}\) the average of the previous week load; \({\textcircled {3}}\) the same hour load for previous day; \({\textcircled {4}}\) the previous hour load.

In this study, the parameters of Model A are: \({\textcircled {1}}\) 4 input neurons; \({\textcircled {2}}\) 2 hidden layers; \({\textcircled {3}}\) 20 neurons in each hidden layer; \({\textcircled {4}}\) 1 output layer referring to the RTG crane demand of one hour in order to simplify the model network. This load forecasting is repeated 24 times for each hour of the next day to forecast the next day demand. In this paper, we use Model A as a benchmark to compare against the other forecast models.

#### 3.3.2 Model B

Model B is structured to generate the forecast models using the exogenous variables. This model is a variation of the benchmark model. Which aims to build an RTG crane demand forecast model using the following exogenous variables: \({\textcircled {1}}\) the number of crane moves; \({\textcircled {2}}\) container gross weight.

- 1)
Model B1: assuming both exogenous variables are known.

- 2)
Model B2: estimating the number of crane moves while assuming the container gross weight is known.

- 3)
Model B3: estimating the container gross weight while assuming the number of crane moves is known.

- 4)
Model B4: estimating both of the exogenous variables.

### 3.4 ARIMAX and ARX

This section presents ARIMAX, ARX, ARIMA and AR models to forecast the power demand of an electrified RTG crane. The ARX model is an extension of the AR(*p*) model, the autoregressive term, with exogenous variables, as shown in Fig. 9. The ARIMAX modelling procedure is presented in Section 2.2 and described by (6) and (7). After the data collection stage, we first confirmed that the time series is stationary using the augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test. To identify and choose the best orders of the ARIMAX parameters (*p*, *d*, *q*), we consider the ACF and PACF plots for the crane demand in Fig. 4.

The ACF and PACF plots show a number of positive and significant lags but do not show obvious signs of repetition or seasonalities. Based on the ACF and PACF plots we test a range of *p* and *q* parameters using the Bayesian information parameters. The literature review [13, 21] shows that in many applications the model parameters are often between 1 to 2 for *p* and *q* and between 0 and 2 for *d*. In this paper, the optimal *p*, *d*, *q* are those which give the smallest BIC value. The BIC matrix calculations show that the best ARIMAX model order are equal to (1, 0, 2). ARIMAX takes into account exogenous variables (the number of crane moves and container gross weight) as input parameters. In addition, since the differencing is not included in this work we simply refer to the ARMA and ARMAX models.

#### 3.4.1 Model C

Model C is the ARIMAX (1, 0, 2) forecast model. This model is aims to examine the exogenous variables as input parameters similar to Model B. In addtion, the ARIMAX model is divided into four models: Model C1, Model C2, Model C3 and Model C4 analogous to Model B.

#### 3.4.2 Model D

Model D (ARX) is a variation and class of ARIMAX. The main advantage of an ARX model is the high speed at calculating the forecast and the model coefficients. The ARX(*p*) order based on BIC calculations for the available data sets gives *p* = 1. The BIC matrix was calculated and tested for *p* values from 1 to 24 in order to: \({\textcircled {1}}\) cover all significant lags in ACF and PACF plots especially when there is no trend or repeating values for the significant lags as shown in Fig. 4; \({\textcircled {2}}\) cover one day lags (24 lags); \({\textcircled {3}}\) cover large numbers of lags compared to the literature.

Furthermore, to evaluate the exogenous variables effect on the forecast model, the ARX model is divided into four models similar to Model B and Model C.

#### 3.4.3 Model E and Model F

Overall MAPE over three testing periods

Testing period | MAPE value (%) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Model A | Model B1 | Model B2 | Model B3 | Model B4 | Model C1 | Model C2 | Model C3 | |

Period 1 | 23.2 | 7.8 | 11.8 | 10.1 | 30.4 | 9.2 | 11.9 | 12.1 |

Period 2 | 29.2 | 9.5 | 11.2 | 12.6 | 32.6 | 10.3 | 10.3 | 14.5 |

Period 3 | 19.7 | 7.6 | 8.3 | 16.8 | 18.1 | 8.6 | 8.5 | 24.6 |

Testing period | MAPE value (%) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Model C4 | Model D1 | Model D2 | Model D3 | Model D4 | Model E | Model F | ||

Period 1 | 43.4 | 9.3 | 9.1 | 13.2 | 49.2 | 35.1 | 35.1 | |

Period 2 | 31.1 | 10.8 | 10.6 | 13.7 | 32.3 | 36.6 | 35.5 | |

Period 3 | 43.3 | 9.3 | 10.2 | 27.2 | 42.8 | 22.1 | 24.6 |

Performance of forecast models over 34 day testing period

Model | MAE value (kW) | RMSE value (kW) |
---|---|---|

Model A | 30.9 | 37.7 |

Model B1 | 11.6 | 14.2 |

Model B2 | 14.2 | 17.2 |

Model B3 | 17.5 | 23.4 |

Model B4 | 45.1 | 56.5 |

Model C1 | 12.5 | 15.4 |

Model C2 | 13.2 | 16.6 |

Model C3 | 17.9 | 24.8 |

Model C4 | 43.5 | 54.4 |

Model D1 | 12.8 | 15.9 |

Model D2 | 13.6 | 16.8 |

Model D3 | 18.2 | 25.9 |

Model D4 | 43.9 | 55.2 |

Model E | 46.2 | 57.4 |

Model F | 45.8 | 56.9 |

## 4 Results and discussion

A total of 21 days of data from crane number 1, as described in Section 3.1, are used for training each model separately. In addition, three testing periods are utilised to assess the prediction performance of the proposed forecast models. The testing data set includes 46 days of crane operations with the total number of hours equal to 1104 from two different electrified RTG cranes. The MAPE, RMSE and MAE values are used to measure the model performance, see (11) to (13). In this section, the forecast performance for all models are presented and then the model that performed best is further analysed.

### 4.1 Overall comparisons

Firstly, the MAPE is calculated for each day of the three testing periods and plotted for each model in Fig. 10, in addition, the overall MAPE for each model is presented in Table 2. From Fig. 10 and Table 2, Model B1 provides the highest prediction accuracy over 3 testing periods by considering the overall performance. For all three testing periods, Model A outperforms Model E and Model F. The MAPE for Model A is 23.2\(\%\), 29.2\(\%\) and 19.7\(\%\) for testing periods 1, 2 and 3, respectively. From Fig. 10a it is seen that by using the exogenous variables in Model B1, the performance clearly improves compared to Models A, E, F that use the RTG crane historical load data only. The MAPE curve of Model B1 in Fig. 10a shows a sign of stability over the testing period compared to benchmark models that exhibit extreme peaks. This is due to the weak daily and weekly trends in the data. Furthermore, the high error peaks in Fig. 10 correspond to low load values and can be explained the significant disturbance that introduced by the human operator and the large uncertainty of the exogenous variables correlation. Then, the RMSE and MAE methods are applied to evaluate the forecast models performance over the crane data set from 7th of September to 10th of October, 2016 (testing period 2). Table 3 shows that the Model B1 outperforms all other models and provides the minimum RMSE and MAE values by 14.2 kW and 11.6 kW, respectively. Model E generates the highest RMSE and MAE values over the testing period by 57.4 kW and 46.2 kW.

### 4.2 Effect of estimating exogenous variables

In order to improve the forecast performance and reduce the error peaks, the exogenous variables have been used in this paper. Tables 2 and 3 show that the proposed forecast models that estimate one of the exogenous variables (for example Model C2 ) or know both of them (for example Model D1) give significant improvements over the benchmark models (for example Model E ) by MAPE 26.3% and 26%, respectively, over the second testing period. Furthermore, the RMSE and MAE values of Model C2 decreased by 40.8 kW and 33 kW, respectively, compared to Model E for the same testing period. In addition, Model C2 and Model D1 outperform the best model that estimates both exogenous variables (Model B4) with 11.9% and 9.3% compared 30.4% over the first data set. Overall, models that estimate both exogenous variables exhibit very large errors. This indicates that, with the current data set, using the historical electrified RTG crane power demand and the estimation of both exogenous variables as inputs is not recommended.

To evaluate the impact of estimating the exogenous variables compared to assuming that the variables are known inputs to the forecast models, Fig. 10b is analysed. The ARIMAX model that estimates the number of crane moves only (Model C2) and Model C1 (the ARIMAX model with the assumption that the exogenous variables are known) perform in a similar way. Furthermore, the MAPE curves of Model C2 and Model C1 show a better performance and stability compared to Model C4 (the ARIMAX model that estimates the container gross weight). This leads to the conclusion that accurate container gross weight has a more significant impact on the forecast performance than number of crane moves. In addition, the daily MAPE results in Fig. 10b shows that the forecast models that estimate either one of the exogenous (Model C2 and Model C3) outperform Model C4, which estimates both variables. Fig. 10b shows that each of the prediction models with an uncertain estimation of the exogenous variables performs differently based on the type of variable.

Fig. 10c presents the daily MAPE results over the first testing period for the ANN, ARIMAX and ARX models that estimate the container gross weight (Model B3, Model C3, Model D3). During the first testing period the ANN model (Model B3) shows a better performance compared to Model C3 and Model D3. However, MAPE results of Models B3, C3 and D3 on 9th and 10th of May are roughly equal. In order to generalise and examine the forecast models, all models in this paper are tested by using a data set collected from another RTG crane (testing period 3), as seen in Fig. 10d and Table 2. The ARIMAX and ARX models with the assumption that both exogenous variables are known (Model C1 and Model D1) performed in similar way over the this testing period. However, the ANN model (Model B1) shows more accurate result especially from 7th to 9th of December but after that all models performed similarly. In Fig. 10d, the lowest MAPE values for Model B1, Model C1 and Model D1 are 5.1\(\%\) , 3.8\(\%\) and 3.76\(\%\), respectively. Furthermore, the lowest MAPE values for all models In Fig. 10d are met on 10th of December.

Based on the data set, the forecast models should include the number of crane moves and container gross weight as exogenous variables. Estimation of one or both of the variables helps to reduce the high error peaks, outliers and avoids the impact of low or zero load values during ideal and off operation modes. Moreover, the ANN forecast models show that the significant factor is the types of inputs that are used not the number of inputs. In this paper, our main target is to forecast the RTG crane load for a day ahead and compare different structures of the ANN, ARIMAX and ARX models. We believe that it is preferable to use the exogenous variables to decrease the forecast errors.

### 4.3 Forecast error analysis

## 5 Conclusion

Electrical load forecasting has become a significant evaluation tool for power consumers and producers. The importance of effective and accurate prediction models is to minimise utility risks and power costs and increase competitiveness. While there is a large quantity of load forecasting research, the RTG crane demand forecasting literature is more limited and complex compared to typical distribution loads. There are a number of challenges facing load forecasting of RTG cranes. These challenges can be attributed to three factors. First, there are no clear seasonality trends or pattern over the historical load data. Second, the outliers of the correlation between the exogenous variable and crane demand due to the human factor effect. Third, there is highly stochastic, volatile and non-smooth load behaviour especially for the low load values. In this research we have implement and tested a number of models to forecast the RTG crane day ahead load. After the RTG crane load series and the exogenous variables are analysed, we examine different options of forecast model inputs. Each model is trained separately using 21 days of data. To verify the prediction ability of the forecast models they are applied to two different cranes over three testing periods. The evaluation methods results of each model with different input variables discussed in this paper show that the ANN model (Model B1) outperforms all other models. Although there are some extreme error peaks, the proposed Model B, Model C and Model D which exclude the estimation of both input variables achieved an acceptable level of prediction accuracy. Our results show that it is not recommended to estimate both exogenous variables in the models. Moreover, the prediction models achieve an acceptable performance when estimating only one exogenous variable with a more significant impact on forecast performance for the accurate container gross weight. This result is very encouraging for ports following the SOLAS requirements and record the container weight before moving them, which will help to forecast and understand the RTG crane demand.

## Notes

### Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the Port of Felixstowe for providing the electrified RTG cranes data.

## References

- [1]Yang YC, Chang WM (2013) Impacts of electric rubber-tired gantries on green port performance. Res Transp Bus Manag 8:67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [2]Papaioannou V, Pietrosanti S, Holderbaum W et al (2016) Analysis of energy usage for RTG cranes. Energy 125:337–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [3]Alasali F, Haben S, Becerra V et al (2017) Optimal energy management and MPC strategies for electrified RTG cranes with energy storage systems. Energies 10(10):1–18Google Scholar
- [4]Alasali F, Haben S, Becerra V et al (2016) Analysis of RTG crane load demand and short-term load forecasting. Int J Comput Commun Instrumen Eng 3(2):448–454Google Scholar
- [5]Ziel F, Liu B (2016) Lasso estimation for GEFCom2014 probabilistic electric load forecasting. Int J Forecast 32(3):1029–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [6]Hong T, Fan S (2016) Probabilistic electric load forecasting: a tutorial review. Int J Forecast 323:914–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [7]Kou P, Gao F (2013) A sparse heteroscedastic model for the probabilistic load forecasting in energy-intensive enterprises. Electr Power Energy Syst 55:144–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [8]Feuerriegel S, Riedlinger S, Neumann D (2014) Predictive analytics for electricity prices using feed-ins from renewables. In: Proceedings of twenty-second European conference on information systems, Tel Aviv, Israel, 9–11 June 2014, 14 ppGoogle Scholar
- [9]Gui M, Ke D, Gan D et al (2015) Statistical scenarios forecasting method for wind power ramp events using modified neural networks. J Mod Power Syst Clean Energy 3(3):371–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [10]Kalogirou S (2000) Applications of artificial neural-networks for energy systems. Appl Energy 67(1–2):17–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [11]Yan X, Chowdhury N (2014) Mid-term electricity market clearing price forecasting utilizing hybrid support vector machine and auto-regressive moving average with external input. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 63:64–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [12]Rasmussen L, Bacher P, Madsen H et al (2016) Load forecasting of supermarket refrigeration. Appl Energy 163:32–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [13]Jiang Y, Chen X, Yu K et al (2017) Short-term wind power forecasting using hybrid method based on enhanced boosting algorithm. J Mod Power Syst Clean Energy 5(1):126–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [14]Hu W, Min Y, Zhou Y et al (2017) Wind power forecasting errors modelling approach considering temporal and spatial dependence. J Mod Power Syst Clean Energy 5(3):489–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [15]Liu H, Tian H, Li Y (2012) Comparison of two new ARIMA-ANN and ARIMA-Kalman hybrid methods for wind speed prediction. Appl Energy 98:415–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [16]Amrouche B, Pivert X (2014) Artificial neural network based daily local forecasting for global solar radiation. Appl Energy 130:333–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [17]Moazzami M, Khodabakhshian A, Hooshmand R (2013) A new hybrid day-ahead peak load forecasting method for Irans national grid. Appl Energy 101:489–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [18]Torr H (2009) Electricity futures prices: some evidence on forecast power at Nord pool. J Energy Mark 2(3):3–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [19]Yanga Z, Cea L, Liana L (2017) Electricity price forecasting by a hybrid model, combining wavelet transform, ARMA and kernel-based extreme learning machine methods. Appl Energy 190:291–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [20]Munkhammara J, Widna J, Rydnb J (2015) On a probability distribution model combining household power consumption, electric vehicle home-charging and photovoltaic power production. Appl Energy 142:135–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [21]Montgomery D, Jennings C, Kulahchi M (2014) Introduction to time series analysis and forecasting-III. Wiley, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
- [22]UN Faq (2015) Verification of the gross mass of packed containers by sea. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/. Accessed 10 June 2015
- [23]International Maritime Organization (2017) SOLAS container mass verification requirements. http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/container. Accessed 3 Apr 2017
- [24]Papaioannou G, Dikaiakos C, Dramountanis A et al (2016) Analysis and modeling for short- to medium-term load forecasting using a hybrid manifold learning principal component model and comparison with classical statistical models (SARIMAX, exponential smoothing) and artificial intelligence models (ANN, SVM): the case of Greek electricity market. Energies. https://doi.org/10.3390/en9080635 Google Scholar

## Copyright information

**Open Access**This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.