Evaluation of thermostat location for multizone commercial building performance

In multi-zone buildings, it is often found that a single shared thermostat controls more than one conditioned zones. Although these shared zones are supposed to have similar thermal needs (e.g., cooling and heating load), in reality, they are not mainly due to different orientations, sizes of windows, occupancy, space types, etc. This can cause unnecessary energy waste or thermal discomfort for the occupants. How to quantify this impact in multizone buildings remains a research gap. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the impact of different sensor (i.e., thermostat) locations for multizone commercial buildings through a comprehensive modeling study. Two different scenarios for the sensor locations were selected to evaluate the impact in terms of energy and thermal comfort. The scenario (1) is that one to five sensors distributed among the five zones, but the sensor readings from selected zones will be used for no-sensor zones, which is no-mean sensor scenario. The scenario (2) is that one to five sensors distributed among the five zones, but the average temperature from the shared zones will be used for each of the shared zones, which is a mean sensor scenario. The uncertainty analysis was performed for different sensor location scenarios. (a)The major findings from an energy perspective, for scenario (1), the differences of cooling energy go as high as 17% more or 12% less, compared with the baseline. For heating energy consumption, the discrepancies go as high as 51% more or 52% less, compared with baseline. For site energy consumption, the discrepancies go as high as 3.2% more or 3.2% less, compared with baseline. For fan energy consumption, the discrepancies go as high as 3.2% more or as low as 1.0% less, compared with baseline. For scenario (2), the discrepancies of cooling energy go as high as 3% more, or 0.5% less, compared with the baseline. For heating energy consumption, the discrepancies, are go as high as 10.1% more or as low as 3.0% less, compared with baseline. For site energy consumption, the discrepancies go as high as 1.3% more or 0.3% less, compared with baseline. For fan energy consumption, the discrepancies go as high as 3.1% more or as low as 1.0% less, compared with baseline. (b) In terms of the indoor thermal comfort, for the no-mean-sensor scenarios, the discrepancies of unmet hours for cooling mode can be as high as 1,200 h, compared with the baseline. The discrepancies of unmet hours for heating mode can be as high as 740 h, compared with the baseline. For the mean-sensor scenarios, the discrepancies of unmet hours for cooling mode can be as high as 750 h, compared with the baseline. The discrepancies of unmet hours for heating mode can be as high as 50 h, compared with the baseline.