SIcon’Ol Sensors for Industry Conference
Rosemount, Illinois, USA, 5-7 November 2001
. Effect of Thermostat Time Constant on Temperature Control and Energy
Consumption
Jin Wen and Theodore. F. Smith
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242
Email: jwen0,icaen.uiowa.edy tfsmith@icaen.uiowa.edu
Phone: 319-335-5384
Abstract
The objective of this study is to compare the temperature
control, occupant comfort, and energy usage for four
thermostats with diyerent time constants installed on a wall
in a real building zone equipped with a commercial variable
air volume (VAV) unit with hydronic reheat coil and a direct
digital control (DDC) system. This study was performed
using experiments on a VAV system controlled by
thermostats with diyerent time constants. The experimental
results veri3 that a sluggish thermostat causes higher energy
consumption, less occupant comfort, and a lack oj
temperature control.
1. Introduction
Thermostats have a broad application in HVAC systems
for both commercial and residential buildings as an indicator
of the zone air temperature. Nearly all the zone temperatures
are controlled based on the thermostat reading. Two
thermostat factors, namely, the accuracy and response time,
affect the zone air temperature reading. Hence, an inaccurate
thermostat reading affects the zone temperature control and
the energy usage of the HVAC system. The importance of
the accuracy of the sensor reading and sensor calibration are
well understood. Simulation results from [4] and [5] showed
that the sensor errors can increase annual energy
requirements for a building by as much as 30 to 50 percent.
Another character that also affects the sensor reading is the
response time. The thermostat is the first point of contact
with the air within a zone whose temperature is being
controlled. Hence, it is important to know the response
characteristics of the thermostat. If the thermostat is
sluggish, meaning that it has a slow response time, a thermal
disturbance in the zone may have passed by before the sensor
is able to detect the disturbance and the occupants of the zone
may have experience an uncomfortable event. The
thermostat time constant affects the closeness of the sensing
element temperature to the actual air temperature and affects
the temperature control and energy that is used to provide
comfort conditions for the zone. The study [12] on the
development on a building simulation model indicates the
need to properly account for the thermostat time constant
02001 IEEE
0-7803-6659-X/01/$10.00
252
when results from the model are compared to the
experimental data.
The thermostat time constant is considered a part of a
thermostat model in most building and HVAC simulation
models ([I], [2], [3]). Mathematical models of thermostats
presented by [7], [8], and [lo] are considered as first order
systems based on the lumped capacitance model. Some
models include, in addition to the thermal communications
with the zone air, the thermal communication with a wall on
which the thermostat is placed [l].
The effects of the thermostat time constant on the air
conditioner cycling rate and energy use are examined using a
simulation model [3]. The results show that from “fast” (za =
1 s) to “slow” (za = 90 s) sensors, where za is the thermostat
time constant, the cycling rate of the air conditioner increases
by 17 percent and affects the energy usage for the air
conditioner. Simulation results for thermostats with different
time constants show the impact of the time constant on the
cycling rate and energy use (E61 and 191). The time constants
of the building zone air temperature sensors have a
substantial impact on the temperature controller response to a
unit step change in the temperature set point [2]. This
literature review displays an absence of experimental
validation for the effect of the thermostat time constant on the
temperature control, energy usage, and occupant comfort for
a building zone.
The objective of the experimental study reported in this
paper is to examine the effects of the thermostat time constant
on the temperature control and energy consumption of a
variable air volume (VAV) system used to maintain the
temperature in a building zone. There are other factors, such
as the thermostat location, housing design, and
communication with the adjacent wall, that affect the
closeness of the sensor reading and the zone air temperature
but these are not addressed in this study. For discussion
purposes, a thermostat consists of a sensor and a housng.
The housing tends to reduce the thermal communication
between the sensor and the zone air whose temperature is
being controlled. Although the importance of the thermostat
is generally known by building owners and sensor
manufacturers, few studies and experiments are available to
verify the impact of the thermostat time constant on the
energy consumption, temperature control, and occupant
comfort. Results from this study illustrate the end-use
application of a sensor, provide information that assists
building owners when decisions are made about installing
sensors, and provide incentives to sensor manufacturers to
offer sensors that meet the needs of the applications.
2. Experiment Description
The effects of the thermostat time constant on the energy
usage, temperature control, and occupant comfort are
examined in this study by comparing the control
characteristics of four thermostats that have different time
constants for an interior building zone with a VAV system.
The tests are executed at the Iowa Energy Center Energy
Resource Station (ERS) (Price and Smith, 2000).
2.1. Building zone and W A C system
The building zone is an interior building zone and is
shown in Fig. 1. The surrounding environment for this
interior building zone is conditioned to be 70°F. The
building zone is equipped with a commercial VAV unit that
includes a hydronic reheat (HRH) coil. Outdoor and return
air is conditioned first by an air handling unit (AHU) to 60°F
and then sent to the VAV unit located in the plenum of the
test building zone. A boiler is employed to supply heated
water to the HRH coil. The HVAC system at the ERS is
controlled by a commercially available energy management
control system (EMCS). The building zone air is controlled
by a local controller that is part of the EMCS.
A comfort sensor that measures surrounding air
temperature, humidity and air velocity, is placed in the
middle of the zone to examine the occupant comfort level.
Because in this study, the entering air flow rate and humidity
do not vary, only the temperature reading from the comfort
sensor is employed as an indication of occupant comfort.
2.2. Thermostat
Four thermostats with different time constants are installed
on a wall in the building zone that is under test (Fig. 2). The
four thermostats include a bare platinum resistance
temperature detector (RTD) sensor (fast thermostat) with a
time constant around 2.5 min; a platinum RTD with housing
(normal thermostat) whose time constant ranges from 14 to
20 min; a platinum RTD with housing and insulation
(sluggish thermostat) whose time constant is from 30 to 40
min; and a commercial thermostat (commercial thermostat)
whose time constant is between 20 and 25 min. The housings
for the thermostats in this test are commercially available.
Although only one brand of housing is used in this study (Fig.
3), other commercially available housings have similar
structures. A cardboard enclosure is installed to block the
radiant exchange between the fast thermostat and other
surfaces in the zone (Fig. 4). The fast, normal, and
commercial thermostat time constants were experimentally
verified by suddenly immersing the thermostat in a near
constant temperature environment. The sluggish thermostat
(Fig. 3) is employed to demonstrate the effects of a very slow
253
responding thermostat. It has the same sensor and housing as
the normal thermostat. Although the time constant for this
sluggish thermostat was not experimentally determined as for
the other thermostats, it is believed to have the largest time
constant. The experimental results from this study also verify
this assumed large time constant.
2.3. Control
A proportional integral (PI) control algorithm that resides
in the local controller for the test room is used to control the
zone temperature. The PI algorithm compares the thermostat
reading with the zone temperature set point. If the thermostat
reading is lower than the zone temperature set point, then the
PI algorithm opens the HRH valve to increase the flow rate of
the heated water through the HRH coil and thereby heat up
the discharge air temperature to the zone. If the thermostat
reading is higher than the zone temperature set point, then the
PI algorithm partially closes the HRH valve to reduce heating
of the cool air (60°F in this experiment) to lower the zone air
temperature. The EMCS that the local controller is connected
to records the data with a time interval of 1 min.
2.4. Experiments
During the experiments, the four thermostats are used
individually to control the VAV unit to maintain a set of
scheduled temperature set points (Table 1). The capability of
the thermostats with different time constants to track the
variation of the temperature set points determines the VAV
energy consumption and zone comfort. The experiments are
repeated to check for repeatability. The experiments last for
six days. During the first 7 hours, the room temperature is
controlled by the fast thermostat to stabilize the HVAC
system. Then, the room temperature is controlled by the four
sensors one by one, with a sequence of fast, normal, sluggish,
and commercial thermostat. Each thermostat controls the
room for 30 hrs. During the first 10 hrs of the 30 hrs, the
room temperature set point is 80°F; and the set point is
changed to be 7OoF for 5 hrs; this 15 hrs is called a cycle.
Each thermostat controls the room temperature for two
cycles. The VAV damper position is fixed to be 100% open
resulting an air flow rate of 400 CFM entering the zone. The
heated water temperature for the HRH is around 160°F.
3. Results
The experiments were executed several times from March
to August 2001 to examine the effects of repeatability,
housing, and energy consumption. The effect of the housing
is discussed first in Section 3.1. The repeatability are
reported in Section 3.2. Sections 3.3 and 3.4 compare the
occupant comfort and energy consumption when different
thermostats are in control.
3.1. Housing effect
Before experiments were executed, it was anticipated that
the effect of the housing on h e thermostat reading at steady
state condition was small. It was assumed that, although the
different thermostats may read differently during the transient
period, the readings would be close to each other during ,
steady state conditions. The results from a test executed in
March 2001 (Fig. 5 ) show that the thermostat readings differ
by 1 to 2°F when the zone air temperature is at 80°F and 0.5
to 1°F when the zone air temperature is at 70°F. In Fig. 5 , the
x axis is the time axis with units of min and the y axis is the
thermostat reading with units of OF.
Each thermostat sensor was calibrated on site after this
test, except for the commercial sensor, which is factory
calibrated, to eliminate any inaccuracy caused by the sensors
themselves. From the calibration, the difference between the
fast, normal, and sluggish thermostat sensor readings at 70°F
is less than 0.05"F, and the difference at 80°F is less than
0.1"F. But the test (Fig. 6, performed in July 2001) after the
thermostats were calibrated still shows that the thermostat
readings differ about 0.5 to 1°F when the zone air
temperature is around 70 and 80"F, respectively.
A housing effect test was then executed. The housing
effect test has the same test conditions except that the
housings for the normal, sluggish, and commercial
thermostats were removed (Fig. 4). The results (Fig. 7) from
this housing effect test show that the thermostat readings
overlap each other when the housings are absent at both 70
and 80°F. This test verifies that it is the housing that causes
the thermostat readings to differ at steady state condition.
It has not been verified why the housing affects the
thermostat steady-state readings. It is suspected that the
housing conducts heat into the wall, which has a lower
temperature than the zone air temperature because the zone
surrounding temperature is around 70°F. It is also observed
that a thicker housing causes larger steady-state errors.
3.2. Repeatability
Besides the experiments in March and July 2001, another
experiment was performed in August 2001. The results from
the experiment in August 2001 are shown in Fig. 8. In this
test, the normal thermostat did not read correctly. Therefore,
only three thermostat readings are shown. Although all
experiments, namely March, July, and August, were executed
under the same test conditions, the small variations of the
supply air temperature from the AHU, the heated water
temperature that enters the HRH, the zone surrounding
temperature, etc., are expected to produce slight differences
between the tests.
Figures 5 , 6, and 8 show that the experiments have very
similar thermostat responses. The steady state differences
among thermostats are also repeatable for the first and second
cycles for each experiment. Because the thermostat sensors
were calibrated between the March and the July tests, it is not
suitable to compare the steady state differences from the
March test with the later tests. The July and August tests
have similar steady state differences among the thermostats.
The energy consumption from these tests are discussed in
Section 4. Although, because of the varied test conditions,
254
the energy consumptions are not the same from test to test,
the trend that the faster a thermostat is the less energy it
consumes is found for each test. It is concluded that the
experiments are repeatable.
3.3. Comfort
From the comfort temperature readings in Figs. 5 , 6, and
8, it is observed that the comfort temperature readings are
very close to the fast thermostat readings. The more sluggish
a thennostat is, the lower the reading is at 80°F and the
higher the reading is at 70°F. Hence, when the more sluggish
thermostat is controlling the VAV unit and when it reaches
steady state, the zone air temperature actually has a higher
temperature at 80°F and a lower temperature at 70°F. For
example, when the sluggish thermostat is in control, the
comfort temperature reaches 82°F in Fig. 5 and 81°F in Figs.
6 and 8, while the zone temperature set point is 80°F. And
the comfort temperature reaches 69°F in Figs. 6 and 8 when
the zone temperature set point is 70°F. Also, a comparison of
the transient periods when different thermostats are in control
indicates that the faster thermostat brings the comfort
temperature to the desired set point faster. This means that
the slow responding thermostat results in the occupant being
uncomfortable during both the transient and steady state
times.
A variable, Comf, that is used to calculate the difference
between the comfort temperature and the set point over a
period of time that a certain thermostat is in control, and to
quantitatively evaluate the comfort over the period time, is
defined as
ie
comf = c(Tco,f(i)-Ts(i)2 At (1)
i=ib
where i is the ith time interval. At is the time interval which
is 1 min in this study. ib and ie are the beginning and ending
times for a period time that a certain thermostat is in control.
Tcod and '& are the comfort and set point temperature.
Table2 supplies Comf for each test. The comfort percentage
(C ) to evaluate the difference between the Comf when
ditferent thermostats are in control is calculated using
where Comf, and Comff are the Comf values for the
thermostat under evaluation and the fast thermostat. Table 2
shows that more sbw responding thermostat has larger Comf.
The maximum C in Table 2 even reaches 8O%, which
indicates that t i e sluggish thermostat causes longer
uncomfortable periods compared with the fast thermostat.
3.4. Energy Consumption
In this study, only the energy consumed by the VAV HRH
is accounted for. The total energy is calculated from
ie
Et = Z P Q C ( T ~ ( ~ ) - T M ( N A ~ (3)
i=ib
where p and c are the water density and specific heat at
160°F. Tm and & are the entering and leaving water
temperatures from the HRH coil. Q is the HRH water flow
rate. T, TM, and Q are all measured variables.
Table 2 summarizes the total energy ansumption over
the period when a certain thermostat is in control for the
March, July, and August tests. The energy percentage (E& to
evaluate the difference between the energy consumed when
different thermostats are in control is calculated using
(4)
where and q-f are the total energy for the thermostat
under evaluation and the fast thermostat. B shows that
although different tests have different energy consumption
values, all tests indicate that when the fast thermostat is in
control, the energy consumption is the least. The more
sluggish the thermostat is, the more energy is consumed. The
maximum difference between the sluggish and fast
thermostat is 7 % of the energy.
4. Conclusions
The objective of this study is to compare the temperature
control, occupant comfort, and energy usage for four
thermostats with different time constants installed on a wall
in an actual building zone equipped with a commercial VAV
unit with a HRH coil and a DDC system. This study was
performed using experiments on a VAV system controlled by
four thermostats with different time constants. The
experimental results verify that although the thermostat time
constant does not affect the stability of the temperature
control, a sluggish thermostat causes higher energy
consumption, less occupant comfort, and a lack of
temperature control. The findings from this study contribute
to the information about the effect of the thermostat time
constant on the energy consumption and comfort condition in
a building zone using a VAV operation and are
experimentally demonstrated.
Table 1 Set point schedule and experimental settings.
ooling Set Point Heating Set Point
Time Sensor*
Day (OF) (OF)
1 17:OO Fast 72 70
2 0:OO Fast 82 80
255
References
[I] Ahmed, O., Mitchell, J. W., and Klein, S. A., “Experimental
Validation of Thermal and Pressure Models in a Laboratory
Simulator,” ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 104, Pt. 2., pp. 983 - 998,
1998.
[2] Athienitis, A. K., Stylianou, M., and Shou, J., “A Methodology
for Building Thermal Dynamics Studies and Control Applications,”
ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 96, Pt. 2, pp. 839 - 848,1990.
[3] Henderson, H., I., “Simulating Combined Thermostat, Air
Conditioner, and Building Performance in a House,” ASHRAE
Transactions, Vol. 98, Pt. 1, pp. 370 - 380, 1992.
[4] Kao, J. M., and Pierce, E. T., “Sensor Errors, their effects on
Building Energy Consumption”, ASHRAE Journal, Vol. 25, n 12,
pp. 42 45,1983.
[5] Kao, J. M., “Sensor Errors”, ASHRAE Journal, Vo1.27, n 1, pp.
100- 104,1985.
[6] Lamb, G., and Tree, D. R., “Seasonal Performance of Air
Conditioners - An Analysis of the DOE Test Procedures: The
Thermostat and Measurement Errors,” Energy Conservations, U. S.
Department of Energy, Division of Industrial Energy Conservation,
Report No. 2, DOE/CS/23337-2, Jan., 1981
[7] McBride, M. F., “Measurement of Residential Thermostat
Dynamics for Predicting Transient Performance,” ASHRA E
Transactions, Vol. 85, Pt. 1, pp. 684 - 694, 1979.
[8] Nelson, L. W., “Predicting Control Performance of Residential
Heating System with an Analog Computer,” IEEE Transactions of
Industry ApplicationsIA -10(6), pp. 73 1 - 740, 1974.
[9] Nelson, L. W., “Comments in Response to Presentation of
Nguyen and Goldschmidt (1983): ASHRAE Transactions,Vol. 89,
Pt. 2A,pp. 373,1983.
[IO] Nguyen, H. V. and Goldschmidt, V., “Modeling of a
Residential Thermostat and the Duty Cycle of a Compressordriven
HVAC System,” ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 89, Pt. 2A;pp. 361 -
372,1983.
[ 111 Price, B. A. and Smith, T. F., Description of the Iowa Energy
Center Energy Resource Station: Facility Update 111, Technical
Report: METFS-00-001, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, 2000.
[I21 Wen, J. and Smith, T. F., “Development and Validation of a
Dynamic Simulation Model for Thermal Response of a Building,”
accepted for presentation at the 8th International Conference on
Building Envelopes, 2001.
Day
4
 Table 2 Energy consumption and comfort level comparison.

Note: F - Fast thermostat; N - Normal thermostat; S - Sluggish thermostat; C - Commercial thermostat

in ft.
View A

Interior Wind01
1.0x7.0
I Thermostats
f2

Door 17.8 R 2 b- 17.8 b-

I
Figure 1 Test building zone dimension.

Figure 3 Thermostat housing structure.

Figure 2 The location of four thermostats.

Figure 4 Thermostat without housing.

256
 o 600 1200 6000 6600, 7100

83

69
67
0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 4200 4800 5400 6000 6600 7300
Time,rmn
Figure 7 Resultsforexperimentwithout housing.

69
67

257