Building and Environment 150 (2019) 99–107

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Measurement of residential HVAC system runtime T

a a a,b,∗
Tianyuan Li , Masih Alavy , Jeffrey A. Siegel
a
Department of Civil and Mineral Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
b
Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Recirculating central forced-air heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems are common in re-
HVAC operation sidential buildings in North America. Runtime, the fraction of time any part of the HVAC system operates, is an
Supply temperature important parameter to evaluate system performance and its impact on building energy use and indoor air
Conditioning mode quality. Different methods have been developed to assess runtime. In this paper, we evaluate the strengths and
Fan-only mode
limitations of existing direct and indirect approaches to access runtime. Using data collected from one study in
System sequencing
Toronto, Ontario and one in Austin, Texas, we improved the algorithm of an indirect method by Thornburg et al.
(2004) which calculates conditioning runtime based on the air temperature in the supply duct. We applied the
improved algorithm to two additional studies in Toronto and compared runtime results from this temperature
method with other direct methods. The results show that the algorithm is reliable with a small annual under-
estimation (1.5–2.5% absolute difference). We also found that runtime varies considerably among similar homes
with the same ambient conditions, thus it is not reliable to use outdoor temperatures to predict runtime. A
further analysis on the real-time temperature and motor signals shows that the accuracy of the algorithm is
influenced by system sequencing (i.e. fan and conditioning unit starting and/or stopping not being coincident in
time) and fan-only operation. Overall, this work illustrates the importance to measure runtime due to its large
variation and that the temperature method is a reliable approach to access runtime in appropriate homes.

1. Introduction
Central forced-air heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)
systems are the most common types of conditioning systems in re-
sidential buildings in North America [1,2]. Runtime, the fraction of
time the HVAC system operates, is an important parameter for HVAC
system performance evaluation from various perspectives, including
energy use, filtration performance, latent heat capacity, and main-
tenance. In North American homes, the energy used by the HVAC
system accounts for a large portion of the total energy consumption,
[1,2]. As such, knowledge of runtime is essential to understand changes
in system energy use over time. Runtime is also important from an
indoor air quality perspective in residences. High efficiency filters are
increasingly utilized in HVAC systems in residential buildings to protect
the equipment from fouling and the occupants from partculate matter
exposure [3]. Runtime is essential to calculate the volumetric flow rate
of air passing through the filter and to predict particle loading on the
filter [4], both of which are important for filtration performance ana-
lyses. In addition, runtime measurements are required to determine the
cycle length of each conditioning cycle and system sequencing of the
conditioning and fan unit operation. Shirey and Henderson [5] found
that the moisture removal capacity of the cooling coil is influenced by
both cycle length and sequence. Furthermore, when compared to the
age of the system, runtime is a better indicator of the wear of the system
as it indicates the actual amount of time the system was in operation.
Unlike many commercial systems that operate continuously for
ventilation purposes, most residential forced-air systems in North
America have varying runtimes because the system cycles on and off to
meet conditioning demands. Variations in runtime of residential sys-
tems originate from several factors. Although runtime is not necessarily
a function of climate, it is often influenced by climate and house lo-
cation. Homes in more extreme climates are likely to have larger con-
ditioning systems if sized properly and these larger systems will have
shorter runtimes when ambient temperatures are milder when com-
pared to design conditions. Even in similar homes in the same location,
runtimes can be different because of user preferences (e.g. indoor
temperature set point, window use, use of cooling systems, and use of
fan-only operation without the conditioning unit). In addition, because
there is very little standardization of residential system design and in-
stallation, the flow rate, conditioning unit sizing relative to the load,
motor type, and fan capacity can vary from one similar residence to
another, resulting in different runtimes.

∗
Corresponding author. Department of Civil and Mineral Engineering, 35 St. George St, Toronto, ON, M5S 1A4, Canada.
E-mail address: jeffrey.siegel@utoronto.ca (J.A. Siegel).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.01.004
Received 20 August 2018; Received in revised form 4 January 2019; Accepted 5 January 2019
Available online 07 January 2019
0360-1323/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T. Li et al.
Given the diversity of runtimes within an individual home over time
and between different homes at the same time, several methods are
used to measure runtime. These methods can be divided into two
general categories: direct approaches and indirect approaches. While
both categories of methods have been used to assess runtime, the results
are conceptually different [6]. The direct approaches use signals that
are retrieved directly from the system, and thus they can determine the
fan runtime, the fraction of time the fan operates. Some examples in-
clude using a motor sensor to detect the magnetic field from the fan
motor [7], and deploying a current or power transducer on the elec-
trical circuit of the fan and sometimes the heating, or cooling unit
[8,9,10]. Although not truly a direct method, Touchie and Siegel [11]
utilized smart thermostats to assess runtime based on the call for
heating, cooling, or fan-only operation. The indirect approaches use an
algorithm to process change in air temperature to calculate con-
ditioning runtime, the fraction of time the conditioning is operational
(e.g. Ref. [12]). Each of these methods have been previously used to
assess HVAC runtimes; however, there has been no evaluation on the
strengths and limitations of each approach. In addition, most runtime
data are either collected for a relatively short period or have insufficient
metadata to discern fundamental factors that influence runtime. Fur-
thermore, runtime studies in the literature are mainly focused on re-
latively new homes in the southwestern US in the cooling dominated
climates (e.g. [8,9,12]). Therefore, there are still gaps in our knowledge
on both the fan and conditioning runtimes in residences in different
climates.
To fill these knowledge gaps, we first address some of the com-
plexities associated with residential HVAC systems, and evaluate the
previous approaches to measure runtime. Then, we present an algo-
rithm, improved from Ref. [12], for an indirect method to calculate
runtime based on the change in air temperature in the supply register.
This algorithm offers an opportunity to assess runtime with a simpler
measurement than conventional direct approaches. We further develop
the improved algorithm based on direct measurements from in-
vestigations in heating-dominated (Toronto, Ontario) and cooling-
dominated (Austin, Texas) climates. Runtimes from the improved al-
gorithm are used to explore the temporal variation and the home-spe-
cificity of runtime measurements. The overall objective of this paper is
to provide insights on residential runtimes and to provide a robust and
convenient tool for runtime assessments in future studies.
2. Background
Most North American homes have forced-air recirculating HVAC
systems without integrated mechanical ventilation. Conditioning run-
times are influenced by the temperature set on the thermostat. Most
thermostats also allow the occupants to set the system in fan-only
mode, to improve mixing, provide ventilation in systems equipped with
an outdoor air intake, or maximize the amount of air that goes through
the filter. Depending on the configuration of the system, the fan speed
can vary under different operation modes. Fan speed is typically set to
accommodate the size of the conditioning unit. In a cooling dominated
climate, the cooling fan speed is usually set to be higher than the
heating and the fan-only speeds to account for the larger size of the
cooling equipment. The opposite is true for a heating dominated cli-
mate. In addition, systems that are equipped with multi-stage furnaces
or compressors have different fan speeds associated with each stage.
Thus, in addition to runtime, it is essential to differentiate between the
operating modes if air flow rate or velocity is needed. A further com-
plication is that different HVAC manufacturers and installers use dif-
ferent conventions when controlling the sequencing between the fan
and conditioning equipment (e.g., turning on the fan after the heat
exchanger has been warmed at the beginning of a cycle). Depending on
the sequencing, conditioning runtime may be different from fan run-
time [6].
Previous studies have used different direct approaches to determine
100
Building and Environment 150 (2019) 99–107
Table 1
Summary of direct approaches to measure system runtime.
# Measurement Parameter Approximate Cost (USD $) Reference
1 Motor magnetic field 100–180 [7]
2 Pressure 300–500 –
3 Current or power 100–300 [8,10]
4 Modified current or powera 200–600 [9,13]
5 Smart thermostat records 200–300 [11]
a
The modified method uses current or power transducers on both the fan
and on the compressor.
runtime in light commercial or residential buildings. Table 1 sum-
marizes five commonly used methods with the typical costs of the
sensors (labor and training costs are not considered) and example re-
ferences. The cost estimation is based on sensors which can be used for
runtime assessment that are available on the US market. As these
methods track electrical or pressure signals created by the fan, all of
them monitor the fan operating periods, independent of the status of
the conditioning unit. However, because of the difference in measure-
ment parameter and the type of sensor used, they have strengths and
limitations in different areas. Although not truly a direct method, the
smart thermostat method is included in summary because it does not
require data processing and it has some limitations that are similar to
the other direct approaches.
The first method utilizes motor sensors, which detect the magnetic
field generated from the fan motor during operation. This is the most
definitive method for fan runtime as it records the fan status change
directly. Unlike the other direct methods, this method is not able to
distinguish between heating and cooling modes nor can it differentiate
the fan speed as it only records the time when the fan changes operating
status. As motor sensors are specifically designed to detect an alter-
nating current magnetic field from fans with permeant split capacitor
(PSC) motors, it generally cannot be used on fans with electronically
commutated motors (ECM) that are powered by direct current. In ad-
dition, to detect the magnetic field, this sensor has to be placed at a
specific location on the motor housing, which can be different for every
motor and makes installation challenging in some systems. The second
method uses a static pressure measurement in the distribution system to
determine the operational status of the fan. As the pressure sensor is not
directly measuring from the motor, it is more flexible in sampling lo-
cation compared to motor sensors. Unlike the motor sensor, this ap-
proach could differentiate the operating modes based on the pressure
difference if the fan speed is set to be different in each mode. The third
approach connects a current or power transducer on one of the fan
wires. Similar to the pressure method, this approach is also able to
distinguish between operating modes based on the magnitude of cur-
rent or power draw. However, proper training and adequate knowledge
of the fan is required to install the sensor. In addition, access to the fan
wires may not be always available. A modification of this approach uses
current or power transducers on both the fan and compressor. As a
result, it can differentiate cooling from heating/fan-only operation even
the fan speed is the same for all operation modes. The last approach
retrieves system operating information directly from a smart thermo-
stat. It is considered to be the most convenient method to assess run-
time; however, smart thermostats are not yet widely used, and even
when they are available, the occupants do not always have access to
runtime information because only some thermostat companies share
data with the homeowner. Moreover, as the smart thermostat is mea-
suring the call for heating, cooling, or fan-only operation; the actual
system runtime may differ depending on fan and conditioning se-
quencing and stage settings on the furnace. This difference may affect
the results of transient analyses and is explored in more details in the
Discussion section.
For most of the direct methods, the biggest challenge is the re-
quirement of system access and operator training to handle a wide
T. Li et al.
variety of HVAC systems in residential buildings. To overcome this
challenge, Thornburg et al. [12] introduced an indirect approach, the
temperature method, to calculate runtime based on air temperature in
the supply register. As this approach uses a continuous measurement of
air temperature by a temperature sensor, access to the AHU is no longer
required. By examining positive and negative temperature changes, it
can distinguish between heating and cooling modes, but it cannot
capture fan-only operation as there is generally not enough of a tem-
perature change. This method requires subjective determination to
process the temperature signals into runtimes. The algorithm used by
Thornburg et al. [12] identified potential heating or cooling operation
periods based on the magnitude of temperature changes and these
potential periods were summarized into hourly runtime averages. The
hourly averages were then reviewed by trained personnel to determine
the operation mode based on the outdoor temperature. Because this
determination process is subjective, Thornburg et al. [12] acknowl-
edged that different technicians may have different interpretations from
the same set of data. Therefore, there is a need for a robust algorithm
which calculates runtime from a temperature signal in an automated
process, without manual interventions, to improve the processing speed
of this method, as well as the consistency of the results.
3. Methodology
The development and calibration of the improved temperature al-
gorithm utilized runtime data collected from households from the four
studies. Three of the studies were conducted in a heating dominated
climate and one study was in a cooling dominated climate. Table 2
summarizes the name, sample size (# of homes), measurement para-
meters, and purposes of each of the study. In Toronto_A, three homes
were monitored for approximately one month in a typical heating
season. Runtime data were collected continuously for 10 months in
Toronto_B (two homes) and for one year in Toronto_Filtration (21
homes). In Austin_Asthma, each home was monitored for approxi-
mately two months in total, one in each of a typical heating and cooling
season, although the peculiarities of climate in central Texas meant that
both heating and cooling operation are common in the “heating”
season. Of all 84 monitored households, 81 are single-family homes,
and 3 are suites in high-rise condominiums. All the homes utilized a
centralized forced-air HVAC system with heating and cooling units and
the occupants can control the system through thermostats. In all stu-
dies, at least one temperature data logger (Onset U12-012, U12-013, or
UX100-001) was placed just inside or outside of a supply register. These
data loggers measured and recorded the temperature every minute
continuously for the entire study duration. In Toronto_A, Toronto_B,
and Toronto_Filtration, one or multiple direct methods, which were
discussed in the previous section, were deployed simultaneously in the
household with the temperature sensor. The data collected are used for
runtime results comparison between different methods. In Toronto_A
and Austin_Asthma, an additional temperature sensor was deployed
inside the return register and/or in the most-used-room (MUR) and
Table 2
Summary of projects included in this study and their purposes.
Investigation Sample Size (# of Approximate Duration Runtime Approach
homes) (months)
Toronto_A 3 1 current, temperature
Toronto_B 2 10 motor, temperature
Austin_Asthma 58 2 temperature
Toronto_Filtration 21 12 motor, pressure, current, thermostat,
temperature
101
Building and Environment 150 (2019) 99–107
recorded the air temperature every minute. The collected data are used
to explore the impact of sampling locations on runtime calculation.
Similar to the temperature method of Thornburg et al. [12], our
improved algorithm, also uses the temperature change to identify the
potential conditioning operation periods. However, instead of sub-
jective determination, our algorithm distinguishes operating modes
based on the rate of change in temperature at each point. The daily
maximum and minimum temperatures in the duct and the outdoor
temperature (obtained from a nearby weather station) are also con-
sidered in the algorithm to determine operating modes. The algorithm
was developed to identify the conditioning cycles based on the sa-
tisfaction of three fundamental criteria. First, the rate of change in
temperature (i.e. the slope) must be greater than a certain threshold
consecutively for a certain period of time. Second, the daily maximum
temperature in the duct must be higher than the maximum outdoor
temperature for heating, and the daily minimum duct temperature must
be lower than the minimum outdoor temperature for cooling. Third,
conditioning in the opposite direction cannot happen immediately after
the previous cycle. The first two criteria ensure that only the tem-
perature changes caused by system operation are considered by the
algorithm as other factors (e.g. solar radiation, buoyancy driven air-
flow, etc.) can also lead to change in air temperature in the duct. The
third criterion avoids falsely identifying periods at the end of the con-
ditioning cycle due to rapid change in temperature in the opposite di-
rection from conditioning. During the calibration process, three addi-
tional criteria were added to the algorithm to minimize the influence of
variations in system design, large diurnal change in outdoor tempera-
ture, and heating and cooling operation on the same day. Once the
thresholds and criteria were finalized, we applied the algorithm to all
studies listed in Table 2 to calculate runtime. The calibration process is
explained in more details in the following paragraphs.
The algorithm was first calibrated based on the temperature and
motor sensor data collected from Toronto_B in an iterative process
which involves two stages of calibration. First, we compared the daily
runtimes calculated by the improved temperature algorithm to the daily
runtimes from the motor signals numerically. The thresholds in the first
fundamental criterion were adjusted to minimize the absolute daily
runtime difference between the two methods. Through this iterative
calibration process, the thresholds for the first fundamental criterion
were finalized (0.3 °C/min for heating and −0.03 °C/min for cooling)
for at least 5 min consecutively to avoid falsely identifying heating/
cooling cycles due to sensor uncertainties. We selected 5 min as the
minimum period of time as a typical heating/cooling cycle ranges from
5 to 20 min. However, even if the difference is minimized numerically,
it does not guarantee that the conditioning cycles were correctly
identified. To ensure correct identification of conditioning cycles, we
conducted a visual calibration which compares the algorithm and
motor sensor results graphically with the temperature profile in the
background for more than 150 2-hour operation periods. We checked if
there was difference in runtime during the 2-hour period with the
minimized absolute daily runtime difference and if there was offset
Purposes
Impacts of sampling interval and location of
temperature measurement
Algorithm calibration to direct method
Visual calibration in heating climate
Visual calibration in cooling climate
Algorithm application in cooling climate
Impacts of sampling location
Comparison between temperature and direct methods
Algorithm application in heating climate
T. Li et al.
Fig. 1. Supply register temperature profile and operation signals from both motor sensor and temperature algorithm from 2 households a) Toronto_B Site 1 b)
Toronto_B Site 2 during 3-hour period in a typical heating month.
between the signals identified by the two methods at the beginning
and/or end of each cycle. We took notes on the difference and offset to
identify factors which may impact the accuracy of the algorithm. The
purpose of visual calibration was to ensure that the system operation
pattern determined by the improved temperature algorithm was similar
when compared to the motor sensor results. Through visual calibration,
we identified system design (e.g. the system flow rate and how far the
supply register is from the furnace) can impact the rate of change in air
temperature in heating cycles and as a result, affect the accuracy of the
algorithm. Fig. 1a) and b) show the temperature profile, On/Off signal
from the motor sensor, and runtime calculated by the algorithm for a 3-
hour period from the two houses in Toronto_B in a typical heating
month. Both homes utilize a gas furnace for heating. At the beginning of
the heating cycle, the slopes of the temperature profile at both sites
were greater than 1 °C/min. Since both slopes were greater than the
heating threshold (0.3 °C/min), the heating operation can be identified
by the algorithm. However, near the end of the heating cycle, the two
systems behaved differently. At Site 1, as the slope of the temperature
changed abruptly from positive to negative, and the algorithm can
identify the end of the cycle based on the same heating threshold.
However, at Site 2, the steepness of the slope (i.e. second derivative of
the temperature curve) decreased slowly while the temperature con-
tinued to increase until the end of the heating cycle. This pattern is
likely because the location of the supply register at Site 2 was farther
away from the furnace than Site 1 and/or the air flow rate was smaller,
which resulted in slower heat dissipation in the duct. For Site 2, a
portion of the heating cycle cannot be identified by the algorithm as the
slope of the temperature profile was smaller than the threshold. To
overcome this challenge, a new criterion was introduced in the algo-
rithm for heating. In both sites, it was observed that the fan turns off
immediately after the temperature reaches the highest point based on
the motor signals. Therefore, we decided to use the peak of the tem-
perature profile to identify the end of the heating cycle regardless of the
slope. This new criterion also improves the flexibility of the algorithm
as the slope of the temperature profile may vary from system to system,
but the peak remains as a good indicator of the end of the heating cycle.
The calibrated algorithm was then applied to the Austin_Asthma
data set to ensure it can work on data collected from homes in a cooling
dominated climate. While measurements from direct methods are not
available for result comparison, visual calibration was conducted for
200 2-hour periods to ensure that the conditioning cycles identified by
the algorithm synchronizes with the temperature profile. The results
show that the algorithm can identify all the heating cycles, but cannot
identify some cooling cycles because of the climate of central Texas.
Due to the large diurnal variation in outdoor temperature, it is possible
for the minimum duct temperature to be higher than the minimum
daily temperature. As a result, the second fundamental criterion is not
always achieved when system operates in cooling mode in winter. To
address this challenge, an additional threshold (slope < −0.3 °C/min)
102
Building and Environment 150 (2019) 99–107
was added in the algorithm to process cooling runtimes when the
second fundamental criterion cannot be satisfied. The magnitude of this
addition threshold is 10 times greater than the first threshold to elim-
inate noise caused by the diurnal variation. In addition, similar to the
heating algorithm, the lowest point of each cycle was used to determine
the end of the cooling cycle. Moreover, because there is no typical
heating season in Austin, Texas, more than half of the households in the
study had heating and cooling operations on the same day. As this
problem is prevalent in cooling dominated climates, we designed the
algorithm to identify cooling cycles before heating cycles. We also as-
sumed that the occupants would not switch to heating immediately
after a cooling cycle. A minimum time of 25 min between cooling and
heating operation was determined based on the longest system off time
between two cooling cycles to minimize the number of falsely identified
heating cycles. With the two new criteria added to the algorithm, the
visual calibration results from Austin_Asthma show that the algorithm
can correctly identify the heating and cooling cycles with varying
outdoor temperatures.
4. Results
In this section, the runtime results from Toronto_B are first discussed
to illustrate the accuracy of the algorithm and the potential factors
which influence the accuracy of the algorithm. Then, we applied the
algorithm to the temperature data collected from Toronto_Filtration.
The calculated runtime was compared with the results from four other
direct methods including motor sensor, pressure sensor, current trans-
ducer, and smart thermostat to further verify the accuracy of this ap-
proach. The similarity and difference between the results and potential
causes are discussed. In addition, the calculated daily heating and
cooling runtimes from both Toronto_Filtration and Austin_Asthma are
plotted against outdoor temperature to explore the influence of ambient
condition on runtime and the reasonableness of using outdoor tem-
perature to estimate runtime.
Fig. 2 compares the difference in daily runtimes from the motor
sensor signal and temperature method in the two households from
Toronto_B. As discussed previously in Methodology, the temperature
method is not able to capture the periods when the system operates in
fan-only mode; therefore, 118 days when Site 2 operated the fan con-
tinuously are excluded (this mode of operation is done in some homes
to minimize temperature stratification or to achieve more benefit from
filtration). As shown in Fig. 2, the difference between the two runtimes
is almost always greater than zero at both sites, which shows that the
temperature method is underpredicting runtime. This difference could
be an issue with algorithm and also may have a contribution by short
periods of fan-only operations not excluded from the dataset. In addi-
tion, it is important to note that the difference between the two
methods are greater during the heating months (December–March)
when the total runtime is higher because of the increased heating
T. Li et al.
Fig. 2. Absolute difference in runtimes from motor sensor signal and supply
temperature method between Site 1 and Site 2 in Toronto B.
demand. This increase in difference is most likely caused by system
sequencing. Although Fig. 1a) and b) indicate that the fan stopped
approximately the same time as the furnaces in both homes, in some of
the heating cycles, the fan could continue to operate after the heating
unit is turned off to extract the residual heat to maximize performance.
This offset between the heating unit and fan is usually related to the
amount of residual heat in the AHU. During the colder months, the
higher heating demand leads to more frequent heating operation,
higher AHU temperatures, and resulted in longer fan runtime after the
heating unit is turned off. Moreover, the higher runtime also amplifies
the runtime difference due to sequencing. Therefore, the difference
between the two methods are greater during the colder months. The
detailed implications of system sequencing are explored further in the
Discussion. Over the study period, the runtime results from the two
methods are slightly but significantly different (sign rank test,
p < 0.05). However, the difference is mainly attributed to the fan
overrun time in the colder months, and the absolute difference is small
(mean absolute difference = 2.5%) which suggests that the algorithm is
well-calibrated for these two homes.
To further compare the runtime results from the temperature
method with other direct approaches, we applied the algorithm to the
21 homes in Toronto_Filtration. Fig. 3 shows the mean monthly runtime
Fig. 3. Comparison between mean monthly runtimes calculated by temperature
algorithm and four other direct methods from 21 homes in Toronto, Ontario.
The sites are differentiated by color. (For interpretation of the references to
color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this
article.)
103
Building and Environment 150 (2019) 99–107
calculated from temperature method (y-axis) against the four other
methods (x-axis) listed in Table 2. 43 site-months when a system was
operating continuously in fan-only mode were excluded from the
figure. In addition, 44 site-months were dropped because the direct
methods failed to record runtime due to implementation or sensor
failure. In the figure, 253 site-month are in close proximity ( ± 5%
difference) to the 1:1 relationship line, which suggests that the tem-
perature method results are comparable to the other methods for these
data points. Some exceptions can also be observed. There are 132 site-
months above the 1:1 relationship line which indicates that the run-
times measured by other direct methods are 5%–45% higher than the
runtimes calculated by temperature method. The difference is most
likely caused by system sequencing or periods of fan-only operation,
which is aligned with the observations from Fig. 2. Almost all the
runtimes from the smart thermostat are above the 1:1 line. This dif-
ference is most likely caused by the fact that the smart thermostat is
recording the call for conditioning instead of the actual system re-
sponse, as discussed by Touchie and Siegel [11]. The difference could
also be caused by intentional fan-only operation, as the smart ther-
mostat allows occupants to set a minimum fan-only time for each hour.
There are also 30 site-months below the 1:1 relationship line, which
indicate that the runtimes from the temperature method are greater
than the direct methods. This difference is likely to be caused by the
variations in fan speed caused by operation mode. Because Toronto is in
a heating dominated climate, the cooling fan speed in most households
is lower than the heating speed. As a result, motor sensors which were
working during heating season may not be able to capture the signals
during cooling seasons due to the weaker electromagnetic signals. Si-
milarly, current transducers would not be able to capture the cooling
runtime if it was installed on the wire used for heating/fan-only instead
of cooling (it is not always possible to easily identify the common wire).
Therefore, the direct method sensors can be sensitive to operating
modes depending on the way they were installed. Overall, paired sign
rank tests with Bonferroni correction (m = 2) suggest that the runtime
results from the temperature method are not significantly different
(p > 0.025) from the other three methods (mean absolute differ-
ence = 1.5%), but are significantly different from the smart thermostat
results (p < 0.025) with mean absolute difference of 26.5%.
In addition to the difference between the direct and indirect ap-
proaches, we observed that the runtime at a given site could vary
considerably over time. This variation is likely caused by the change in
outdoor temperature and the resulting changes in conditioning de-
mand. Thus, short-term runtime measurement is not a good re-
presentation of the annual runtime, especially in climates with dis-
tinctive seasons, and it is vital to measure runtime over the long term.
Because of the challenges of runtime measurements, some studies (e.g.
Ref. [14]) used the mean daily or monthly outdoor temperature to es-
timate hours of heating and cooling of each month. To explore the in-
fluence of outdoor temperature and occupant behavior on runtimes in
different climates, and to evaluate the reasonableness of this runtime
estimation method, we plotted the average daily heating and cooling
runtimes from Toronto_Filtration and Austin_Asthma against the mean
daily outdoor temperature in Fig. 4a) and b). In both figures, the black
line represents the average daily conditioning runtime over the year for
all homes in the study.
Two trends observed illustrate the impact of outdoor temperature
on daily runtime. First, the heating runtime increases as the outdoor
temperature decreases, this trend is more obvious in Toronto because it
has a wider range of outdoor temperatures during the heating season.
Second, the cooling runtime increases as a function of the outdoor
temperature, and this trend is more obvious in Austin, which is cooling
dominated.
While the trends are similar, the median outdoor temperature for
conditioning are different in the two cities. In Toronto, the median
outdoor temperatures for cooling and heating are 20.8 °C and 4.2 °C,
respectively. In Austin, the median outdoor temperatures for cooling
T. Li et al.
Fig. 4. Average daily runtime response to daily outdoor temperature in a) Toronto_Filtration and b) Austin_Asthma.
and heating are 27.2 °C and 10 °C, respectively. This difference (6.4 °C
for cooling and 5.8 °C for heating) shows that in the colder climate,
people tend to use cooling at lower outdoor temperatures. As a result,
the daily runtime under the same mean outdoor temperature varies
between cities with different climates. In addition, variability is ob-
served in the same city for a given outdoor temperature. This variability
is likely caused by factors including system sizing relative to load and
user operation. Moreover, fan-only operation, which is determined by
user preference and not necessarily by outdoor temperature are not
reflected in the figures above, could have a greater influence on the
daily runtimes. Thus, the outdoor temperature is not particularly useful
for accurate runtime estimation for individual homes because of the
variations between climates and among homes in the same climate
[11]. However, the outdoor temperature data is easily and readily ac-
cessible compared to other direct or indirect methods, so it still may be
useful for average runtime estimations for a population of homes when
the other measurements are not available, but care should be taken
when using it to determine runtime for a particular home.
5. Discussion
In this section, we explore the impacts of sampling locations, sam-
pling frequency, and system sequencing on the accuracy of the algo-
rithm. The limitations and implications of the temperature method are
also discussed.
5.1. Impact of sampling location
The impact of sampling location on the accuracy of temperature
algorithm is assessed through two comparisons, between measurements
in two different supply registers, and between a supply register and a
location with room temperature. To compare daily runtimes calculated
from different supply registers, we applied the algorithm to eight
households in Austin_Asthma, where an additional temperature sensor
was deployed in a separate supply register. The mean absolute differ-
ence in daily cooling and heating runtime is 0.01% (Std. dev = 2.2%)
and 0.1% (Std. dev = 1.1%). These results show that the location of the
supply register has very limited impact on the conditioning runtime
results. Thus, the temperature sensor can be deployed in any supply
register in the house to measure runtime, although care should be taken
to avoid registers with little or no flow because of damper operation or
duct design issues.
The temperature sensors were also deployed at other sampling lo-
cations in the Austin_Asthma study. The temperature sensor was placed
in the return register in 14 sites and in the most-used room (MUR, e.g.,
the living room) in 50 sites (some of the sites had both return and MUR
sensors installed). The calculated daily runtimes and standard devia-
tions are summarized in Table 3. Paired sign rank tests with Bonferroni
correction (m = 4) were used to avoid a significant association by
chance when performing multiple tests on the same dataset. The results
suggest that both heating and cooling runtime calculated based on the
104
Building and Environment 150 (2019) 99–107
Table 3
Daily mean runtime (standard deviation) calculated from supply, return and
MUR temperature using the temperature algorithm in Austin_Asthma homes.
Operation mode Sampling location
Supply (n = 58) Return (n = 50) MUR (n = 14)
Heating 4.61 (3.63) 4.77 (4.94) 3.41 (2.41)
Cooling 17.0 (9.45) 16.5 (10.7) 10.8 (10.7)
return and MUR temperature are not significantly different
(p > 0.0125) from the runtimes calculated based on supply tempera-
ture. Thus, temperatures in the return register and MUR can also be
used to calculate runtime. However, it is important to note that the
change in temperature in the return register and MUR are very small,
sometimes less than 1 °C. As the algorithm uses the slopes in tempera-
ture profile to identify conditioning cycles, the results could be easily
affected by air temperature changes near the sampling location due to
air movement and human activities.
To further verify the accuracy of this approach, the runtimes cal-
culated based on return and MUR temperatures are compared to daily
runtime results from a direct approach in a heating dominated climate
during heating season. In Toronto_A, a current transducer (CT) and two
temperature sensors, one in the return register and one in the MUR
were deployed in all homes for one typical heating month. The absolute
difference between results from the CT and return temperature, CT and
MUR temperature are −17% (Std. dev = 8.66%) and −8.3% (Std.
dev = 0.5%), respectively. It is worth noting that the temperature
method underestimated the runtimes in both cases by 8–17% and there
is even considerable difference between the MUR and return results,
which is different from the results in Austin_Asthma. This difference is
likely due to the fact that the thresholds used in the return and MUR
runtime calculation were calibrated based on the Austin_Asthma da-
taset. Because the magnitudes of the slopes are so small, the algorithm
is very sensitive at detecting changes in the air temperature. As a result,
the return and MUR algorithm is not very accurate for runtime calcu-
lation in a heating climate like Toronto because it strongly depends on
the temperature distribution within the space (which itself is often a
function of runtime because of mixing). The small changes in tem-
perature also introduced more uncertainty to the runtime result.
Therefore, the return register or MUR are not the ideal locations for
sampling. While indoor temperature can be used to estimate con-
ditioning runtimes, the results should be verified by results comparison
and visual inspection before being used for further analyses.
5.2. Impacts of sampling frequency
To evaluate the impact of sampling frequency, an identical tem-
perature sensor which recorded temperature at 1.25-min interval was
deployed in the same supply register besides the sensor recording at 1-
min interval in the 3 homes in Toronto_A. Two additional data sets with
T. Li et al.
Table 4
Mean daily runtime and standard deviation calculated at different sampling interval from Toronto_B.
Operation mode Sampling interval
1 min 1.25 min
Heating 15.6% ± 16.0% 16.0% ± 16.5%
Cooling 2.55% ± 5.52% 2.75% ± 6.03%
2-min and 2.5-min sampling intervals were generated by eliminating
every other observation of the measured data from both sensors. The
mean daily runtime and standard deviation calculated from these four
datasets are summarized in Table 4. Within the same dataset, the large
standard deviation in heating indicates the variations in daily runtimes
in the two households over the course of the study, which is aligned
with our previous observations. Comparison between the datasets
shows that the runtimes calculated at 1.25, 2, and 2.5-min interval are
similar to the 1-min interval results. Thus, the sampling frequency has a
small impact on runtime prediction and the temperature sensors can be
deployed at lower sampling frequency for a longer time. However, the
sampling interval should still be shorter than the length of the con-
ditioning cycles (usually varies between 5 and 20 min) to avoid missing
changes in the air temperature in the supply register.
5.3. Impacts of sequencing of the system
Comparison and visual calibration between the methods indicate
that conditioning operations are generally not entirely coincident with
fan operations because of system sequencing. In other words, con-
ditioning runtime of a system may be different from fan runtime, or the
two runtimes may be similar in duration, but have an offset. Therefore,
system sequencing could considerably affect the accuracy of the tem-
perature method, which calculates the conditioning runtime based on
temperature changes.
In heating mode, the fan usually continues operating after the
heating unit is turned off to extract residual heat from the heat ex-
changer to maximize its performance. To evaluate the impact of se-
quencing, we examined the potential factors which could influence the
fan overrun time. The length of the fan overrun time is found to be
related to the air temperature in the system. Fig. 5 shows an example of
this phenomenon from Toronto_B Site 1 for a 2-hour period. As shown
in Fig. 5, the peak temperature recorded in the supply register was
greater than 50 °C during the first 45 min. As explained earlier, the peak
in temperature of every cycle indicates the time when the gas burners
turned off. After the peak, as indicated by the motor signal, the fan
continued operating for another 5 min to extract residual heat from the
Fig. 5. Temperature profile, On/Off signals recorded by motor sensor and
calculated by the temperature method from Site 1, Toronto_B. Note fan con-
tinues to run after heating cycle ends.
105
Building and Environment 150 (2019) 99–107
2 min 2.5 min
15.7% ± 16.2% 16.4% ± 17.1%
2.63% ± 5.68% 2.80% ± 6.05%
heat exchanger. Because of this 5-minute overrun, the temperature al-
gorithm underpredicts the runtime (the average hourly runtimes by the
motor signal and by the temperature method are 70.5% and 42.6%,
respectively). After the first hour, the system was operating less fre-
quently likely because of decrease in heating demand. This less frequent
operation resulted in a lower supply plenum temperature and shorten
the fan overrun time. As a result, the fan operation is more synchro-
nized with heating unit and the accuracy of the algorithm is improved
(the average hourly runtimes by motor signal and temperature method
are 24.6% and 23.0%, respectively). Thus, the algorithm is more ac-
curate when the temperature in the supply plenum is lower for a given
system.
The other pattern we identified from Fig. 5 is the point of inflection,
which is the point where the second derivative of the temperature
profile is negative. It can be easily identified on the supply temperature
profile if there is a sudden increase in the slope of the temperature
profile before it decreases again. We found that in this case (Fig. 5), the
point of inflection occurs at the time the fan turns off, because there is
no more air movement in the duct and the rate of temperature decrease
diminishes. It is worth noting that the occurrence of point of inflection
on the temperature profile depends on the duration of fan overrun time.
If the fan turns off immediately after the heating unit (e.g., Fig. 1a and
b), the fan overrun time is short and there will be no visible point of
inflection on the temperature profile. However, if the fan overrun time
is longer, the point of inflection will be more obvious (as shown in
Figs. 5–7) and it will be a better indicator for the time when the fan
turns off. For this reason, in addition to the peak temperature, the point
of inflection can be used for future improvements of the temperature
method for fan runtime calculations.
The heating demand could have a greater impact on the fan overrun
time if a furnace has more than one stage. These furnaces often first
operate at the lower output level to satisfy the heating demand for a
certain period of time. If the room is not heated to the desired tem-
perature during the first stage, the furnace will stop and then start the
second stage to operate at its full capacity to satisfy the demand faster.
Because the furnace is not operating at its full capacity from the be-
ginning, the cycle length of a two-stage furnace is usually longer than a
Fig. 6. Temperature profile, On/Off signals from both motor sensor and tem-
perature method from Site 1, Toronto_Filtration when the system is operating in
two-stage heating.
T. Li et al.
Fig. 7. Temperature profile, On/Off signals from both smart thermostat and
temperature method from Site 13, Toronto_Filtration. The fan operated before
the heating unit turned on.
single stage furnace if the second stage engages. Fig. 6 shows an ex-
ample of the temperature profile of a two-stage furnace in study Tor-
onto_Filtration for a 2-hour period. The system was operating in the
first stage and the measured temperature was lower than 40 °C from
17:00–18:30. This pattern is expected because of the mild outdoor
weather (2 °C). At 18:40, the second-stage engaged to meet the heating
demand. It is indicated in the temperature profile as the slope of the
profile first decreased then increased. Because of the engagement of the
second stage, the heating cycle was longer than usual, and the mea-
sured temperature was approximately 10 °C higher. Due to the higher
temperature, the fan overrun time also increased at the end of the cycle.
During this 2-hour period, the temperature algorithm under-predicted
the runtime by 3% compared to the motor sensor results (43% and 46%,
respectively). However, a greater difference is expected if the second
stage engages more often due to a higher heating demand. Overall, the
algorithm tends under-predict runtime for two-stage (or multi-stage)
furnaces, as a higher temperature is usually reached in the system when
the second stage engages and results in longer fan overrun time.
In addition to fan overrun time at the end of the cycle, from Fig. 6
also identified a short delay in motor signal at the beginning of the
cycle. The delay could be caused by the different response time of the
sensors, but it is more likely because most natural gas furnaces delay
the fan until the heat exchanger has been warmed by the burners to
avoid circulation of cold air through the house. The delay is generally
shorter than 2 min, and it slightly offsets the underprediction of runtime
by the temperature method.
There are also rare cases where the fan may come on before the
burner cycle. This is often an option for homes with smart thermostats
and it is done to circulate the air in the home to promote thermal
mixing. In this case, the temperature algorithm underpredicts the run-
time because the air temperature no longer represents fan operation.
Fig. 7 shows an example of the fan starting before the gas burners at
Site 13 from Toronto_Filtration. According to the smart thermostat re-
sults, the fan was operating five minutes prior to the burners at the
beginning of each cycle. The algorithm was not able to capture the fan
operation and under-predicted the runtime by 23% over the 2-hour
period.
Similar to the overrun pattern that we have identified previously
from other sites, the fan at Site 13 also operated independent of the gas
burners at the end of the cycle, likely for the same reasons as in the
other homes with gas furnaces. It is worth noting that this period of fan
operation was not identified by the smart thermostat because the smart
thermostat reads the call for heating or cooling set by the occupants
instead of the real system response. Since the fan operation was trig-
gered by the furnace controls, it is not captured by the smart thermo-
stat. Therefore, the smart thermostat could also underpredict runtime if
106
Building and Environment 150 (2019) 99–107
Fig. 8. Temperature profile, On/Off signals from both pressure signal and
temperature method from Site 1, Toronto_Filtration. The system is operating in
cooling mode.
the fan is designed to operate at the end of the cycle.
When the system is operating in cooling mode, there are generally
two types of system sequencing: one is the compressor and the fan stop
at the same time, and the other is the fan continues operating after the
compressor is off to benefit from the cold coil. Fig. 8 shows an example
of cooling sequence from Site 1 in Toronto_Filtration. As indicated in
the graph, the pressure signal indicates that the fan continued to run for
2–4 min after the temperature in system reached the lowest point. In
this system, the fan overrun time had limited impact on the accuracy of
the algorithm because the fan started 2–4 min late at the beginning of
each cycle. As a result, the conditioning runtime and the fan runtime
were similar in duration in this system.
It is also worth to mention that the comparison between fan and
conditioning runtime can be used to evaluate the operation of cooling
systems. Running the fan continuously after the compressor is off de-
grades the moisture removal capacity of the cooling coil because the
moistures condenses on the coil surface during the cooling cycle eva-
porates back into air stream before it has a chance to drain from the coil
[5]. This is a bigger concern on higher efficiency coils with smaller
spaces between the heat exchanger fins. A well-designed system, par-
ticularly in a climate where latent removal is important, should stop the
fan operation before the surface temperature of the cooling coil be-
comes higher than the wet-bulb temperature of the entering air to
prevent evaporation from occurring. In well-designed systems, the
conditioning runtime shoudl be similar in duration when compared to
fan runtime. In other systems, the fan overrun time could be longer and
result in underprediction of fan runtime. Overall, for both heating and
cooling, the examples discussed in this section show that the con-
ditioning runtime can be different from fan runtime due to system se-
quencing and fan-only operation, and resulted in the algorithm un-
derpredicting the fan runtime.
6. Conclusion
The improved temperature algorithm, which calculates runtime
based on the changes in air temperature in the supply duct, is an al-
ternative, convenient, and reliable approach to assess runtime in re-
sidential buildings, even though it calculates conditioning runtime in-
stead of fan runtime. The greatest strengths of this method are that it
does not require access to the AHU or specially-trained personnel and it
can differentiate between heating and cooling modes. Overall, com-
pared to the direct runtime measurement methods, the improved tem-
perature algorithm slightly underpredicts runtimes in heating domi-
nated climates due to the influence of system sequencing. In cooling
dominated climates, especially for well-designed systems, the algorithm
provides similar runtime results to the direct methods. It is more
T. Li et al.
accurate and reliable than indirect approaches which use the daily or
monthly outdoor temperature to estimate runtimes. For annual runtime
calculation, the algorithm underestimates the runtime by 1.5–2.5%
annually compared to other methods used in this work. In addition, we
found that air temperature measurements from the supply register can
provide the most accurate results and the sampling frequency has a
small impact on the accuracy of the algorithm, as long as the sampling
interval is shorter than the conditioning cycle length. Because this
temperature method determines the conditioning runtime instead of fan
runtime, fan-only operation, which is dependent on the user preference
and independent on conditioning needs, can influence the accuracy of
the method. Thus, knowledge of the occupant preference is required
before choosing the most suitable approach to measure runtime.
Overall, our results show that the newly proposed temperature method
is a robust tool that can be utilized to further enhance our knowledge of
residential systems runtime and its impacts on thermal comfort, HVAC
energy use, and indoor air quality.
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the National Sciences and Engineering
Research Council (NSERC: RGPIN-2014-06698) and the measurements
in the Austin homes were funded by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD: TXHHU0023-13). Tianyuan Li was partially
supported by a Canada Graduate Scholarship-Master's Program and
Masih Alavy was partially supported by an Alexander Graham Bell
NSERC Canada Graduate Scholarships-Doctoral Program. We gratefully
acknowledge the participation of all the homeowners in the investiga-
tions cited here.
107
Building and Environment 150 (2019) 99–107
References
[1] EIA, Energy Consumption Survey (RECS): Table HC1.1 Fuels Used and End Uses in
U.S. Homes by Housing Unit Type, (2015) Feb-2017. [Online]. Available: https://
www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/hc/php/hc6.1.php , Accessed
date: 11 April 2018.
[2] Statistics Canada, Households and the Environment Survey, (Mar. 2015).
[3] B Stephens, A. Novoselac, J.A. Siegel, The effects of filtration on pressure drop and
energy consumption in residential HVAC systems (RP-1299), HVAC R Res. 16 (3)
(May 2010) 273–294.
[4] J.A. Siegel, Primary and secondary consequences of indoor air cleaners, Indoor Air
26 (1) (Feb. 2016) 88–96.
[5] D.B. Shirey, H.I. Henderson, Dehumidification at part load, ASHRAE J. 46 (4) (Apr.
2004) 42–49.
[6] T. Li, J.A. Siegel, Impacts of HVAC sequencing on runtime, Indoor Air 2018,
Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2018.
[7] S. Giri, M. Berges, Virtual metering of electrical appliances through analysis of data
from contactless sensing, 2015 IEEE Global Conference on Signal and Information
Processing, GlobalSIP, 2015, pp. 348–352.
[8] K.S. Cetin, P.C. Tabares-Velasco, A. Novoselac, Appliance daily energy use in new
residential buildings: use profiles and variation in time-of-use, Energy Build. 84
(Supplement C) (Dec. 2014) 716–726.
[9] B Stephens, J.A. Siegel, A. Novoselac, Operational characteristics of residential and
light-commercial air-conditioning systems in a hot and humid climate zone, Build.
Environ. 46 (10) (Oct. 2011) 1972–1983.
[10] D. Kosar, S. Scott, H. Vadnal, P. Glanville, Field monitoring of rooftop unit (RTU)
heating runtimes and gas usage for selected commercial buildings, ASHRAE Trans.
120 (1) (Jan. 2014).
[11] M. Touchie, J.A. Siegel, Residential HVAC runtime from smart thermostats: char-
acterization, comparison, and impacts, Indoor Air 28 (6) (Nov. 2018) 905–915.
[12] J.W. Thornburg, C.E. Rodes, P.A. Lawless, C.D. Stevens, R.W. Williams, A pilot
study of the influence of residential HAC duty cycle on indoor air quality, Atmos.
Environ. 38 (11) (Apr. 2004) 1567–1577.
[13] K.S. Cetin, A. Novoselac, Single and multi-family residential central all-air HVAC
system operational characteristics in cooling-dominated climate, Energy Build. 96
(Jun. 2015) 210–220.
[14] C. Chen, B. Zhao, C.J. Weschler, “Indoor exposure to ‘outdoor PM10’: assessing its
influence on the relationship between PM10 and short-term mortality in U.S. cities,
Epidemiology 23 (6) (Nov. 2012) 870–878.