Search for: All records

Buildings consume nearly 40% of global energy and produce similar emissions. Whiletechnological advances address efficiency, occupant behavior causes energy use variations up to 300% between identical buildings. This gap between predicted and actual building performance impacts building design, operations, and grid demand management programs. Through analyses of smart thermostat data from 1,400 single-occupant homes, the researchdemonstrates that occupants respond to 8°F thermostat setpoint changes within a median of 15 minutes, while 2°F changes trigger responses within a median of 30 minutes. This highlights an understudied temporal relationship between thermostat setbacks and response time of occupant behaviors. Models of such behavior dynamics are required to incorporate occupant impacts into building performance simulation. A key contribution of this dissertation is the Thermal Frustration Theory (TFT), which positsthat thermal discomfort driven behaviors are caused by the time-accumulation of discomfort, not simply a temperature deviation threshold or a delay from an initiating event. Using a dataset of 634 thermostats, each with 25+ manual setpoint changes, a comparative analysis of TFT and comfort zone and a delayed response theories demonstrated that personalized TFT models better predict when manual setpoint change occur. This was measured by the area under the curve statistical measure (AUC); all three models perform similarly by a Matthews Correlation Coefficient measure. Higher AUC performance is especially important for modeling occupant behavior in demand response programs where false negatives of rare occupant interactions could adversely affect grid stability. EnergyPlus based simulations were conducted with TFT-derived occupant models, demonstrating the ability to identify parameters of known TFT models from only data observable with smart thermostats, even under the presence of noise from routine overrides. Overall, the dissertation highlights that thermostat interactions are neither static,instantaneous, nor driven solely by the environment. Instead, temporal accumulation of discomfort and routine-based behavior play important roles. The methodology and results offer a pathway towards more accurate modeling of human-building interactions for policy assessment, building design, and demand response programs. 

The expansion of renewable electricity generation, growing demands due to electrification, greater prevalence of working from home, and increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events, will place new demands on the electric supply and distribution grid. Broader adoption of demand response programs (DRPs) for the residential sector may help meet these challenges; however, experience shows that occupant overrides in DRPs compromises their effectiveness. There is a lack of formal understanding of how discomfort, routines, and other motivations affect DRP overrides and other related human building interactions (HBI). This paper reports preliminary findings from a study of 20 households in Colorado and Massachusetts, US over three months. Participants responded to ecological momentary assessments (EMA) triggered by thermostat interactions and at random times throughout the day. EMAs included Likert-scale questions of thermal preference, preference intensity, and changes to 7 different activity types that could affect thermal comfort, and an opened ended question about motivations of such actions. Twelve tags were developed to categorize motivation responses and analyzed statistically to identify associations between motivations, preferences, and HBI actions. Reactions to changes in the thermal environment were the most frequently observed motivation, 118 of 220 responses. On the other hand, 47% responses were at least partially motivated by non-thermal factors, suggesting limited utility for occupant behavior models founded solely on thermal comfort. Changes in activity level and clothing were less likely to be reported when EMAs were triggered by thermostat interactions, while fan interactions were more likely. Windows, shades, and portable heater interactions had no significant dependence on how the EMA was triggered.