Energy 233 (2021) 121117

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Evaluation of cooling setpoint setback savings in commercial buildings

using electricity and exterior temperature time series data
Arash Khalilnejad a, b, c, Roger H. French b, e, d, Alexis R. Abramson c, f, *
a
Department of Electrical, Computer, and Systems Engineering, Case School of Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA
b
SDLE Research Center, Case School of Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA
c
Great Lakes Energy Institute, Case School of Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA
d
Department of Computer and Data Sciences, Case School of Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA
e
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Case School of Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA
f
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Case School of Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Commercial buildings account for a significant amount of total energy produced in the US, and the
Received 12 January 2021 Heating Ventilation and Cooling (HVAC) systems are one of the most significant components of their
Received in revised form overall consumption. In this study, we proposed a new data-driven approach to evaluate HVAC cooling
12 May 2021
systems in commercial buildings and identify savings opportunities. The focus is an investigation of the
Accepted 28 May 2021
Available online 8 June 2021
impact of thermostat setpoint setback but using only whole building, electricity data taken at 15-min
intervals for the analysis. We conducted a comparative study of setpoint setback characteristics on
432 commercial buildings with 5 building usage types across the United States. To accomplish this, both
Keywords:
Building energy
piecewise and Random Forest regression algorithms were employed using electricity and exterior
HVAC temperature datasets to identify operational characteristics and the effective setpoints in the building to
Commercial buildings determine the corresponding savings opportunities. Both occupied and unoccupied time periods were
Data analytics studied across cooling degree days (CDD), when air conditioning is typically operational. The results
Setpoint setback show that in commercial buildings, on average, cooling systems account for 9.5% of total consumption.
Random forest When a one degree setback during the cooling season is applied, an average of approximately 1.1% of
Time series annual consumption is achieved; retail and office buildings demonstrate the highest potential for sav-
ings. Additionally, we identified that the number of cooling degree days and base to peak ratio (BPR) are
the most important variables for predicting the magnitude of the consumption of cooling systems.
© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems pro-
vide thermal comfort by adjusting the air temperature to a desired
setpoint value. Additionally, in warm climate zones or on select
days during the cooling season, HVAC systems are the predominant
source of peak load [1]. Due to a high installation cost and associ-
ated complexities, the sub-metering of HVAC-related equipment
using sensors with fine granularity may not feasible in all buildings
[2]. Here, we reveal information about cooling system operations
and potential savings using only easily accessible datasets. Whole
* Corresponding author. Thayer School of Engineering at Dartmouth, Hanover,
NH, USA.
E-mail addresses: axk846@case.edu (A. Khalilnejad), rxf131@case.edu
(R.H. French), alexis.abramson@case.edu (A.R. Abramson).
building electricity data is commonly available via the utility meter,
provided in time series format and often with a resolution at 15-
min intervals [3,4]. Given such a dataset, patterns in the time se-
ries and subsequent analytics can convey information about the
operation of equipment in the building. To date, approaches to
identify equipment-level consumption from whole building energy
data (referred to as an unsupervised problem) has been challenging
[5,6].
The data-driven approaches for diagnostics of HVAC perfor-
mance have shown that HVAC systems correlate with two critical
parameters: temperature and occupancy [7e12]. Exterior temper-
ature drives HVAC operation, and therefore analysis of the energy
and temperature relationship can lead to identification of HVAC
characteristics of the buildings. For example, Zhang et al. [13]
developed a power-temperature model, relying on the correlation
of electricity and outside temperature to disaggregate energy

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.121117
0360-5442/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Khalilnejad, R.H. French and A.R. Abramson
consumption of multiple interconnected HVAC units from a single
meter. Their analysis confirms that outside temperature is critical to
predicting the HVAC consumption in buildings. In a study to
examine the correlation between occupancy and energy con-
sumption, Ahn and Park (2016) [14] employed a wavelet coherence
method and showed that in commercial buildings, when the oc-
cupants are present during set business hours (e.g., in offices and
factories), the correlation increases. They also demonstrated that
occupancy patterns typically correlate with the building usage type.
For example, in a hospital, the occupancy pattern is more random,
and therefore the correlation between occupancy and energy
consumption is weak. In a later investigation, Deng and Chen
(2019) [7] examined the effect of occupancy on the HVAC energy
consumption in 20 office buildings, and they illustrated that
ignoring the occupancy pattern accounts for significant inaccuracy
in predicting energy usage. In fact, their neural network method
showed that in scheduled buildings if they assume constant set-
point without considering occupancy, their model predicted energy
consumption with 12% less accuracy than when considering occu-
pancy. Other than air temperature and occupancy, many other
parameters affect HVAC consumption [15]. Wang et al. (2012) [16]
revealed that other weather variables, building envelope, the
presence of vacant spaces, and unoccupied conditions can affect the
uncertainty of prediction models. For example, the HVAC setpoint
setback at unoccupied times significantly influences the overall
consumption. They explained that ignoring this and other key pa-
rameters can affect the uncertainty of the prediction by 15%e70%.
Quantifying the relative impact of those parameters that have
the most influence on HVAC consumption can help affect actual
savings. For example, a large office building in a hot climate zone is
expected to have different HVAC usage compared to a small
educational building in mild climate. However, the degree of
importance of each of these parameters is unknown. This gets even
more complicated with considering parameters from relationship
of energy and temperature characteristics. For example, air condi-
tioning in the buildings with highly correlated energy and tem-
perature, operate different from the buildings with low correlation.
Thus, determining the parameters importance in performance of
HVAC system in the building is critical.
With an understating of HVAC operation and the affecting pa-
rameters, various savings analyses also can be conducted to assess
how to achieve a reduction in the HVAC consumption and evaluate
the effect on the overall building's energy pattern. HVAC setpoint
setback, an approach for saving on HVAC consumption, has been
discussed in several research studies [9,17]. For example, Papado-
poulos et al. (2019) used an EnergyPlus [18] building energy model
to fine-tune HVAC setpoint and assess the associated savings of
office buildings in different climate zones across the U.S. They
applied multi-objective optimization on their simulated model to
maximize the energy reduction by setpoint setback while main-
taining the thermal comfort, which they defined as not
exceeding±3
C. They illustrated that in locations with mild climate
zones, up to 60% of annual HVAC related energy savings can be
achieved without compromising occupant comfort [18]. In fact,
they concluded that the HVAC setpoint configuration standards in
commercial buildings should be revisited due to extensive amount
of savings opportunities. Similarly, using EnergyPlus building
modeling software [19], Hoyt et al. (2015) evaluated extending the
HVAC setpoint and widening the temperature range where HVAC is
not required to operate (referred to as deadband zone) in six office
buildings in different climate zones [20]. They demonstrated that
with an increase in the cooling setpoint from 22.2
C to 25
C, 27%
of cooling load, on average, can be saved. Their analysis illustrates
that the benefit of setpoint set back is cumulative, and small in-
cremental changes result in proportional savings. Ghahermani et al.
2
Energy 233 (2021) 121117
(2016), also analyzed the energy savings of setpoint setback on
three office buildings using EnergyPlus modeling [21]. They
concluded that the larger the deadband, the higher the energy ef-
ficiency as it relaxes the performance of an HVAC system. They also
found that the optimal setpoint selection does make a large dif-
ference (up to 30% of total building savings) in energy usage at
some outside temperatures. In fact, the significance of setpoint
reduction temperature, correlates to the range of outside temper-
ature. Additionally, Cai et al. [22] used energy modeling software,
eQuest, to model the impact of setpoint setback on energy savings
and peak load reduction in an office building. They examined set-
backs from 1
F to 5
F with 1
F increments. They observed three
different usage and savings patterns. For days on which exterior
temperature was lower than the base-case setpoint (below 70
F),
there obviously is no benefit in applying a setpoint control scheme.
For days on which outdoor temperatures are higher than the set-
point (above 78
F), a predictable percentage of energy savings can
be expected. However, on days with moderate temperatures
(70e78
F), the savings potential cannot be accurately predicted.
While valid at high temperatures, this study does not instill high
confidence in such predictions for moderate temperatures.
While not necessarily intuitive, there is a nonlinear relationship
between temperature setpoint and energy consumption that de-
serves further attention in the literature. Here, we analyze this
nonlinear relationship and present results on a population of 432
commercial buildings of five different building usage types. This
enables an analysis of the impact of several parameters on the
savings potential and the buildings’ operational characteristics. We
employ a new data-driven approach to identify the thermostat
setpoint and the potential impact of setback during the cooling
season, using only whole building, 15-min interval electricity data
and corresponding weather datasets. We used piecewise regression
to identify the HVAC operation and setpoint setback savings, and
through an analysis of energy and temperature correlations, we
investigated the energy reduction from setback increments. The
method employed also enables the disaggregation of the HVAC
component of the whole building data, which has been a chal-
lenging problem for the industry. The influence of various param-
eters on thermostat setpoint and setback savings also is discussed.
1.1. Methods
A building's cooling system reduces or maintains a room's
temperature at a desired value, its setpoint [23]. The required en-
ergy consumed for this purpose relates to the outside weather
conditions, especially air temperature. Fitting a linear regression
model to the energy vs. temperature data reveals this correlation,
with the expectation that an increase in consumption corresponds
to a rise in exterior temperature on a cooling degree day (CDD) [24].
Although other weather variables such as irradiance may
correlate with energy consumption, here we focus this study on the
relationship with exterior temperature to assess the impact of
HVAC. Previous studies have found that energy consumption and
exterior temperature are strongly correlated in commercial build-
ings, particularly for the climate zones studied here [25]. More
specifically, when the slope of the exterior energy vs. temperature
curve is zero, the HVAC is minimal or zero. When the same curve
exhibits a high slope, one can easily recognize how HVAC con-
sumption increases as temperature extremes increase. Nonethe-
less, exterior temperature, CDDs and the daily scheduled period
analyzed here are all dependent on solar irradiance, and therefore
irradiance is considered, albeit indirectly.
Differences in the behavior and response of the cooling system
to exterior temperature may be the result of occupancy and set-
point changes and/or the presence of an auxiliary system used for
A. Khalilnejad, R.H. French and A.R. Abramson
extreme temperatures. Therefore, a piecewise regression model,
shown in Fig. 1, can be used to identify the correlation and behavior.
A piecewise regression model with three segments can be derived
by the following equation [26]:
8
< a 1 þ b1 T T < Tsp1
^a ¼
E a þ b2 T Tsp1  T < Tsp2
: 2
a 3 þ b3 T Tsp2  T
where, E ^a is the linear regression model of energy consumption
Ea in kWh, T, is the outside temperature in Celsius. a1, a2, and a3 are
the intercepts of the regression of the segments and b1, b2, and b3
are the slopes of the segments. Tsp1 , and Tsp2 are the breakpoints of
the segments at which a change in slope is experienced.
Fig. 1 illustrates a first breakpoint (Tsp1 ), which typically occurs
when the outside temperature reaches a value that requires the
cooling system to “turn on” for the season. The second break point
(Tsp2 ) occurs when there is an auxiliary HVAC equipment or
different operating level of air conditioning in high temperatures.
Without an auxiliary system, Tsp2 will be equal to Tsp1. When the
thermostat setpoint is set back one degree, the cooling system re-
sponds when the interior temperature is one degree warmer. This
loosely corresponds a one degree higher temperature outdoors
[27]. In other words, the inside and outside temperatures might be
different if, for example, waste heat from building equipment
warms up the building and initiates the use of the cooling system
before exterior conditions might otherwise dictate. However, once
steady-state conditions have been reached, a change in tempera-
ture, DT, inside the building will be closely equivalent to the outside
DT if weather conditions are affecting this change. Here, we are
concerned with the impact of a change in setpoint, and not the
actual value of the setpoint itself.
By utilizing rules of geometry, as shown in Fig. 2, the energy
change encountered via a setpoint change [28,29] can be
determined:
Fig. 1. Piecewise regression on energy and temperature.
Energy 233 (2021) 121117
(1)
Fig. 2. Setpoint setback on fitted model red line represent the fitted model to actual
energy vs. temperature and the black line represents the setpoint setback reduction
with setpoint setaback of DT. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
8  
>
> ^a  a : T  Tsp
E Tsp1  T < Tsb1
>
> 2 1
< ^a  a :DT
E Tsb1  T < Tsp2
^
E ¼ ^ 2
  (2)
sb
>
>
> E a  a 2 : DT  ða3  a2 Þ T  Tsp2 Tsp2  T < Tsb2
>
: ^a  a :DT
E 3 Tsb2  T
Where E ^ is the regression model of energy consumption after
sb
the setback (Esb), and Tsb1 and Tsb2 are the two different setpoint
setback temperatures, assuming a setback of DT degrees Celsius.
Note that if the energy vs. temperature piecewise regression (e.g.
Fig. 1) shows that no auxiliary cooling system is present, then here,
Tsp1 will be equal to Tsb2 . The four parts of equation (4) correspond
to the 4 areas in Fig. 2. In area 1 (Tsp1  T < Tsb1 ), the energy con-
sumption due to a setpoint setback does not increase since the
system is operating in the deadband zone [20]. As outside tem-
perature increases as in area 2 (Tsb1  T < Tsp2 ), the slope of actual
and setpoint setback energy consumption lines are equal, and the
intercept shifts down. Even more, the energy consumption corre-
sponding to the new setback setpoint can be determined. Similarly
in area 3 (Tsp2  T < Tsb2 ), the energy consumption is a continuation
of the regression line associated with area 2. If a second setpoint
setback is employed for auxiliary equipment as in area 4 (Tsb2  T),
the slope and intercept are changed, and the energy consumption
can be determined accordingly. The annual savings of energy con-
sumption due to setpoint setback (spsbsavings) is derived by the
following equation [4]:
Ea;CDD  Esb;CDD
spsbsavings ¼  100 (3)
Ea
With implementation of Equation (2) the energy savings from a
setpoint setback can be achieved at any given DeltaT using Equation
(3). To further study the relationship between the magnitude of the
setpoint setback and the associated savings, we examine the cor-
relation of energy and temperature as a function of the setpoint
setback. At exterior temperatures below the effective thermostat
3
A. Khalilnejad, R.H. French and A.R. Abramson
setpoint, the cooling system is not operational, which essentially
equates to a zero correlation between energy and temperature
while at high exterior temperatures, the correlation may reach
values close to 1. Here, we calculate the correlation of energy vs.
temperature for each increment of setpoint using a Pearson cor-
relation [30]:
Pn  
̄ ̄
rET ¼ i¼1 Ti  T Ei  E
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffirffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (4)
Pn  ̄ 2 P
n
 ̄ 2
i¼1 Ti  T i¼1 Ei  E
where Ei and Ti are the energy and temperature data points, and
̄ ̄
E and T are the average of all energy and temperature data points,
respectively. When the cooling system is not operational, rET ¼ 0
and spsbsavings (Equation (3)) at the corresponding DT is effec-
tively equivalent to the percentage contribution of the cooling
system to the total consumption in the building (i.e. the dis-
aggregated portion of the consumption due to cooling).
In commercial buildings, the energy consumption and resulting
heat generation of interior loads that are largely independent of
exterior temperature (e.g. plug loads, lighting) cause a constant
offset above and beyond the HVAC consumption. Since our method
identifies and disaggregates the HVAC consumption, then during
periods when the heating or cooling is not operating, the energy
consumed can be attributed to these interior loads.
1.2. Random Forest regression
By calculating the HVAC share of total consumption from the
previous section, a predictive model can be developed to predict
the same output. However, instead of the energy and temperature
time series data as input parameters, a set of metadata representing
characteristics of each building can be used. If the new input pa-
rameters could predict the target of HVAC share of total con-
sumption with high accuracy, the importance of those parameters
in the determination of the predictor (HVAC cooling) can be
quantified. The input parameters in the predicative model can be
CDD, BPR, Energy and Temperature correlation based on occupancy,
buildings HVAC on and off schedule, scheduled period, climate
zone, area of the building, number of floors, and annual con-
sumption. A Random Forest regression can be used where the
prediction of air conditioning share of total consumption through
setpoint setback savings, using these input parameters to identify
the critical variables and their rank and degree of importance.
Random Forest is an ensemble of multiple classification and
regression trees (CART), where each tree is trained on a subset of
random input variables and optimized with bootstrapping [31e33].
The output of Random Forest is achieved by averaging the output of
each regression tree where the splitting criteria for each node is
selected from a small set of input variables based on the output
variance of each node [34]. For this purpose, considering X as an
input variable and Y as the response, we assume that in the ith
variable:
Yi ¼ f ðXi Þ þ ε (5)
Therefore, the impurity of node t is defined as:
1 X ̄ 2
DðtÞ ¼ Yi  Y t (6)
N X 2t
i seasons. The representation of the pattern of energy consumption
̄
where Y t is the sample mean for node t and N is the sample size
of t. Note that the impurity is in form of variance in the regression
tree. Node t of regression tree splits the samples into left and right
4
Energy 233 (2021) 121117
daughter nodes of tL, and tR at splitting point of s. Thus, the decrease
in impurity is calculated by
 
NL N
Dðs; tÞ ¼ DðtÞ  DðtL Þ þ R DðtR Þ (7)
N N
where NL is the number of samples in the left daughter node,
and tR is the number of samples in the right daughter node. Also,
D(tL) and D(tR) are the impurity of left and right daughter nodes,
respectively. In formation of regression trees, the variable with
maximized decrease of impurity (Equation (7)) will be chosen as
root node of each tree.
With the determination of optimal splitting criteria for each
tree, in Random Forest, two parameters are required to be opti-
mized. First, the number of regression trees (ntree) must be opti-
mized such that the accuracy does not change within a margin of
error. Second, the number of input variables per node (mtry) must
be optimized to obtain the highest accuracy with a default value of
1/3 of the number of variables. The optimization of mtry and ntree
is done by measuring the accuracy of the out of bag (OOB) error,
which represents the accuracy of the whole Random Forest pre-
diction model [35,36]. OOB is referred to as a sub-sample of the
dataset that is not a part of randomly drawn subsamples for
training Random Forest (the bootstrap sample). The OOB error,
defined as root mean squared error of OOB (RMSEOOB) is calculated
by:
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u X
u1 n  ̄ 2
RMSEOOB ¼t y y ^j;OOB (8)
n j¼1 j
̄
^j;OOB is
where yj is the actual output for the jth observation, and y
the average perdition from all trees in the OOB. The objective of
tuning the Random Forest parameters (ntree and mtry) is to
minimize RMSEOOB. Detailed instructions of Random Forest tuning
is given in Ref. [31]. After developing the predicted model, its ac-
curacy is tested using a testing set comprised of 20% of the whole
data and compared to a training dataset that is 80% of the original
data.
The importance of each variable is calculated as the number of
times that such a variable is used in the nodes of the regression
trees of Random Forest (IncNodePurity) [37]. As mentioned previ-
ously, the selection of the variable in each node is based on a
decrease in impurity. The more a variables used to predict the
output e in this case, the HVAC cooling share of total consumption
e the more important that variable is.
2. Results and discussion
2.1. Case study: office building in Las Vegas, NV
The building of study is an 1524 m2 office building located in Las
Vegas, Nevada, in the United States in Koppen-Geiger climate zone
of “Bwk” [38] (Tropical and Subtropical Desert Climate). The
building's 15-min interval electricity consumption from March
2017 to March 2018 varied from 1 kWh to 20 kWh, with a median of
6.2 kWh. Over the same time period, the exterior temperature
ranged from 3 to 47
C, with a median of 19.9
C. Fig. 3 is a
snapshot of the building's daily electricity consumption from
March 2017 to March 2018, broken out into summer and winter
in Fig. 3 is shown in only summer months (June, July, and August)
and winter months (December, January, and February) to illustrate
the energy consumption pattern of the building in hot and cold
days, however, the savings are applied to all CDDs. The heating
A. Khalilnejad, R.H. French and A.R. Abramson Energy 233 (2021) 121117

Fig. 3. Building energy consumption pattern and snapshot. Time series representation of the characteristic daily electricity consumption of a building across one year from March
2017 to March 2018 and broken down into summer (June, July, and August) and winter (December, January, February) seasons. The blue vertical boxes show the distribution (middle
50% variability) of energy consumption for the given hour across each season. The whiskers indicate the minimum to maximum consumption, excluding outliers, and red lines
represent the average energy consumption of each whisker. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this
article.)

source of this building is not electricity while a high electrical load

is used for cooling as demonstrated by an analysis of energy con-
sumption vs. exterior temperature. This is shown in Fig. 5a wherein
on HDDs, energy does not correlate with temperature.
In Fig. 3, the whiskers indicate the minimum to maximum
consumption, excluding outliers, and red lines represent the
average energy for each day of the week. The blue boxplots
represent the variability of energy consumption in each hour. The
red lines represent the average of the blue boxplots which are
created by summing each 15-min interval data point (in kWh) over
a 1-h period and then averaging across the relevant days (one year,
summer, and winter) for each hour. According to these boxplots,
the energy consumption during the summer period exhibits
slightly more variability compared to winter. This is because the
HVAC consumption in summer times varies in different days based
on how much cooling is required, while in winter there is no
electrical HVAC equipment. As can be seen, the baseload to peak-
load ratio in the winter is significantly higher compared to summer.
This difference in baseload to peakload ratio is caused by operation
of HVAC cooling system in the summer time, and non-electrical
heating winter time. The lack of HVAC heating system results in
low peak load. Additionally, the snapshot shows that the building/
HVAC is scheduled from approximately 06:00 to 18:00, which is
typical for an office building.
The setpoint setback algorithm, discussed in section 2, was
Fig. 4. Monthly energy consumption with 1 degree increments of setpoint setback
applied to this building with 1-degree increments, and the monthly spsb of 0 represents the actual consumption.
energy consumption was calculated, as represented in Fig. 4. The
pattern of consumption illustrates that July and August exhibit the
highest consumption due to the demand on the cooling system, and original thermostat setpoint is high (during the cooling months) as
therefore these months offer the highest opportunity for savings. In illustrated by examining the difference between each setback in-
this building, a one degree setpoint setback across the season's terval in Fig. 4.
cooling degree days results in a 3.1% reduction in total energy We can use this analysis to investigate the behavior at the
consumption. A setback of 1
has a greater impact on savings if the largest setbacks (e.g. in Fig. 4, at 22
C), which presents interesting,

5
A. Khalilnejad, R.H. French and A.R. Abramson
Fig. 5. Energy consumption pattern comparison of actual vs. cooling off (a) Energy
vs. Temperature, where blue dots represent actual energy and red dots represent en-
ergy without cooling system. (b) Energy consumption pattern on summer business
days. The blue vertical boxes show the distribution (middle 50% variability) of energy
consumption for the given hour across each season. The whiskers indicate the mini-
mum to maximum consumption, excluding outliers and red lines represent the
average energy. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the
reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
but unpractical, situation of the cooling system being inoperable
during the entire season. By comparing this condition to the actual
consumption, we can determine the fractional contribution of the
cooling system to the total consumption of the building. Essentially,
this approach enables a disaggregation of the cooling portion of the
total consumption. For this building, the cooling system contributes
37% to the total consumption as represented in Fig. 5. In Fig. 5a, we
compare the “actual” (gray data points) versus “cooling off” (orange
data points) scenarios to arrive at this percentage. As can be seen by
eliminating the operation of the cooling system, the associated
energy consumption at high temperatures is reduced and the re-
sults appear similar to the actual data for the energy usage at colder
temperatures, as expected. Fig. 5b provides further insight; here,
the data corresponding to each of two scenarios are averaged across
business days over the cooling season. Similar to Fig. 3, here the
whiskers represent the range of energy consumption, and the red
lines represent the average of the blue boxplots, For the “cooling
off” scenario, the daily pattern appears similar to the operation
during the winter season given in Fig. 3, which is expected. Also, the
variability of the data points (blue boxes) are reduced in the
“cooling off” scenario similar to during the winter period, due to the
elimination of variability caused by different HVAC cooling con-
sumption range in a given time. The similar consumption of char-
acteristics of the building in winter and summer with cooling off
scenario validates the results. Further investigation on the Fig. 5b
represents that although the energy during unoccupied times is
reduced during the “cooling off” scenario, the magnitude of the
reduction during occupied times is relatively higher since opera-
tionally, the consumption is greater during this period.
2.2. Population study
To compare savings opportunities across a population, 432
commercial buildings in the United States were analyzed as rep-
resented in Fig. 6. The majority of the buildings are clustered in the
northeast and western United States (Fig. 6a). The buildings are
6
Energy 233 (2021) 121117
spread across 10 climate zones; however, only data corresponding
to buildings in four of the climate zones was deemed to comprise a
statistically significant amount of data. They are Koppen-Geiger
climate zones: Cfa, Dfa, Dfb, and Csb. The datasets in each of
these climate zones contain 40 or more buildings (Fig. 6b), which is
sufficient for statistical significance. The first letter of climate zones
are their main classifiers, hence, letter C and D represent temperate
and continental climates, respectively, where 409 of the buildings
are in these groups. The buildings range across 5 different building
usage types: food sales, industrial, office, educational and retail
(Fig. 6c). As can be seen, the climate zones of these buildings are
similarly distributed in each of the building types, therefore, the
comparison of the findings across the buildings can be generalized.
Also, considering the main classifications of climate zones, there is
a significant number of buildings in all building types with C, and D
climate zones, similarly distributed.
As one would expect, these buildings exhibit different energy
operational patterns and characteristics. Fig. 7 represents the dis-
tribution of three important characteristics of buildings by usage
type. A critical parameter that influences electricity consumption is
the number of cooling degree days experienced by a building
annually as depicted in Fig. 7a. We saw from the above case study of
a building in Las Vegas, NV that cooling can contribute significantly
to the overall electricity consumption, and therefore an assessment
of CDDs provides insight to opportunities for savings. Note that the
number of CDDs depends on the location and climate zone of the
building, and therefore, the breakdown by building usage type does
not show a significant difference. However, the number of CDDs is
an important parameter in savings magnitude since buildings with
higher CDDs have more savings opportunities, implying the ne-
cessity of considering it for savings assessments. As shown in
Fig. 7a, the median of the CDDs by building type ranges from 128 to
134 days, with an error of only 6 days, implying the similar distri-
bution of climate zones among building types.
Fig. 7b compares when a building is scheduled to be in use (e.g.
its HVAC) and/or is operationally active (e.g. computer equipment
turned on when occupants arrive for the day). Fig. 7c illustrates the
baseload to peakload ratio (BPR) [39], which is a parameter for
evaluating the degree to which the building energy consumption is
minimized during unoccupied periods. Here, industrial buildings
exhibit a significantly higher BPR and longer hours of operation
than other building usage types, which is expected due to the na-
ture of the associated business due to longer hours of occupancy
and greater non-HVAC equipment use. The scheduled period in
food sales and retail buildings is relatively large, which may be
attributed to the nature of these businesses and associated planned
occupancy. In retail buildings, the variability of both BPR and
scheduled period is the lowest, representing a potential high sim-
ilarity of buildings of these types. Educational buildings have sec-
ond highest median of BPR after industrial buildings and also the
second longest scheduled period after food sales with relatively
high variability. Buildings with a long scheduled period can be good
potential targets for occupied time savings as oftentimes in build-
ings of these types, systems are not taking advantage of partial or
low occupancy periods.
2.3. HVAC setpoint setback
The operation of air conditioning systems causes a positive
correlation of energy vs. temperature [40]. This correlation during
occupied times can be different from unoccupied periods. This is
because in scheduled buildings, the HVAC setpoint and outside
temperature range of occupied period are different from the un-
occupied period. Therefore, HVAC cooling system works more
moderately in unoccupied times compared to occupied times
A. Khalilnejad, R.H. French and A.R. Abramson Energy 233 (2021) 121117

Fig. 6. Population of the buildings of study (a) distribution in US map, (b) breakdown by building usage type, (c) breakdown by Koppen Geinger Climate zones.

Fig. 7. Distribution of operational characteristics of the buildings by building usage type (a) number of cooling degree days (CDD) (b) operational hours, and (c) BPR. Each point
represents a building colored by climate zone. The whiskers represent the range of the data without outliers and the boxes represent the quartiles (first quantile, median, third
quantile).

resulting in different energy and temperature correlation. Fig. 8
represents the distribution of energy and temperature correlation
(rET from Equation (4)) during occupied and unoccupied times of
the population of the buildings shown in Fig. 6. In Fig. 8, the green
density curves represent the distribution of the correlations. As can
be seen, in occupied times, the peak of distributions is 0.7,
representing high density of buildings with significant HVAC
operation. Also, examining the green density plots in Fig. 8, the
correlations during occupied times are less variable than during
unoccupied periods, illustrating more predictable operation of
HVAC during occupied times, as expected. The blue boxplots on the
top and side of the figure indicate the first quartile, median and the

7
A. Khalilnejad, R.H. French and A.R. Abramson
Fig. 8. Energy vs. temperature correlations, comparing occupied vs. unoccupied
times The green lines on the side and top represent the distribution of correlations,
and the blue boxplot represent their quantiles (first quartile, median, and third
quartile). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader
is referred to the Web version of this article.)
third quartiles of the distribution. The median of the correlations in
occupied times is 0.6 which is 60% higher than the correlations in
unoccupied times with a median of 0.24, representing higher
operation of cooling systems in occupied times. With the high
variability in the distribution of correlations of the buildings shown
in Fig. 8, it can be expected that the savings potential of buildings
varies in different buildings, for example, in a building with high
correlation, the cooling system consumes relatively more energy
compared to one with low correlation. Recall, as mentioned earlier,
when the HVAC cooling operates, the energy consumption in-
creases with temperature rise, causing a positive correlation, thus,
the negative correlation in a few of the buildings in unoccupied
time represents cooling system not in operation in that period on
them. Therefore, on those buildings, the setpoint setback algorithm
is applied only on the data corresponding to occupied times.
2.3.1. One degree setback
With one degree increment steps of the setpoint setback,
tsb ¼ tsp þ 1 is the minimum adjustment to achieve savings. Fig. 9
presents the building population's annual savings from a one-
degree setpoint setback vs. BPR. A median annual energy savings
of 1.1% is demonstrated from a one-degree setpoint setback applied
to these buildings. The distribution of the savings achieved is
roughly normal, with an IQR of 1.13. Therefore, one can expect
savings ranging from 0.6% to 1.7% with 1-degree setback in the
majority of commercial buildings. A linear regression model is
fitted to the savings (the red line in Fig. 9), leading to
spsbsavings ¼ 2.2e1.97BPR, illustrating that in low BPRs savings is
expected to be higher, however, in high BPRs savings are lower.
Recall the BPR is a representation of ratio of energy consumption in
baseload compared to peakload. Therefore, buildings with BPR of 1,
represent equal consumption level in occupied and unoccupied
times, implying a non-scheduled or not in operation HVAC cooling
system in the buildings. As can be seen in Fig. 8, although the fitted
8
Energy 233 (2021) 121117
Fig. 9. Savings from setpoint setback of one degree The red line represents the linear
regression model fitted to the data. The green lines on the side and top represent the
distribution of correlations, and the blue boxplot indicates their quaritles (first quartile,
median, and third quartile). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
model represents the trend of savings vs. BPR, for a given BPR, the
savings has high variability, implying that other variables also affect
the amount of savings. For example, in BPR of 0.25, the fitted sav-
ings is 1.7% with savings of actual data points ranging from 0 to 3%,
representing a relatively large variability, compared to BPR of 0.9
where a 0.4% savings from the fitted model is achieved with range
of actual data points from 0 to 0.7%. The influence of other pa-
rameters along with BPR will be discussed in later sections.
A breakdown of the one-degree setpoint setback savings by
building type further illustrates differences in savings opportu-
nities. Fig. 10 is the savings breakdown by building usage type. The
retail buildings have the highest savings opportunity with a median
of 1.5% annual savings. The office buildings exhibit a relatively more
dispersed savings distribution compared to food sales but have an
equal median of savings (1.1%). The industrial buildings have the
lowest opportunity from savings using a one-degree setback. The
detailed statistical information on savings breakdown is given in
Table 1. As shown in the table, generally, the buildings with longer
scheduled hours have more savings opportunities. This is because
in the scheduled period, HVAC cooling consumes relatively more
energy; thus, a longer scheduled period results in more savings
opportunities. Furthermore, with the correlation of savings and BPR
is discussed in the previous section (Fig. 9) it is illustrated that both
CDDs and BPR play an important role in the determination of sav-
ings potential. The impact of these two parameters along with
other important variables will be discussed in detail in later sec-
tions. The skewness given in the table is a measure of variability,
and a high positive skewness means that the random distribution
has a tail towards higher rather than median values (i.e. right-
skewed). A negative skewness corresponds to a tail at lower than
median values. The breakdown of statistical information shows
that savings in all the building types are right-skewed (a longer tail
at values higher than median), illustrating a greater variability the
higher savings. The skewness can be due to the presence of outliers
A. Khalilnejad, R.H. French and A.R. Abramson Energy 233 (2021) 121117

Fig. 11. Energy vs. temperature correlations, comparing occupied vs. unoccupied
times at various setpoint setback increments. Each arrow represents one degree of
Fig. 10. One-degree setpoint setback savings as a function of building usage type setback while the colors indicate the magnitude of savings. (For interpretation of the
The black distribution curves (with shaded gray areas) represent the distribution of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of
savings. The red lines indicate the first, second (median), and third quartiles, and the this article.)
blue data points depict the actual savings of each building. (For interpretation of the
references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of
this article.) occupied and unoccupied period. As can be seen in Fig. 11, the
correlations eventually converge to zero during both occupied and
unoccupied times, except for the case where negative correlation
Table 1
Breakdown of the one degree setpoint setback savings. during unoccupied times occurs. In those buildings, the negative
correlations represent that HVAC is already off in unoccupied time.
building type BPR cdd_days scheduled spsb savings (%)
Therefore, the setpoint change in unoccupied time can not be
period (hour)
applied and their energy and temperature correlations are a con-
mean mean median IQR median IQR skewness
stant negative value. Also, the convergence to zero during unoc-
1 Retail 0.43 134 14.50 1.31 1.52 0.95 1.32 cupied times at lower setpoints, since, as discussed earlier, in
2 Office 0.54 128 13.50 3.04 1.14 1.36 1.18 scheduled buildings, in unoccupied times the setpoint is already
3 Food Sales 0.32 132 17.75 1.69 1.09 0.84 1.09
higher than occupied times, thus, less setbacks are required to
4 Educational 0.50 131 12.50 6.50 0.87 0.78 0.83
5 Industrial 0.61 130 11.62 8.68 0.33 0.61 2.56 make the HVAC not in operation in that period. This will be further
6 Overall 0.45 131 14.25 5.00 1.14 1.13 1.39 assessed in the later section.
A setpoint setback in nearly all buildings causes a reduction of
energy consumption and creates a lower rET. To demonstrate this
in the distribution, caused by a few buildings that the savings op- point, Fig. 12 shows the amount of annual energy savings vs. rET
portunities are exceptionally higher, due to more CDDs or greater across the population of buildings as a function of increasing set-
share of HVAC cooling to total consumption. This will be further point setback. Each arrow represents a one-degree setpoint
investigated in later sections. setback. As can be seen, the directions of initial arrows are vertical
and the last ones are roughly horizontal, illustrating much higher
savings in the first few setbacks. This is because, as mentioned
2.3.2. HVAC turn off
earlier, the initial setpoints of the HVAC cover most of the days in
As discussed earlier, when the setpoint setback is large enough
CDD, however, in higher setpoints, there are fewer days that require
to cause the energy and temperature correlation (rET) to reach zero,
air conditioning.
this represents the scenario when the cooling system effectively is
The nonlinear behavior of savings in increments of setpoint
not operational. Fig. 11 shows the energy vs. temperature correla-
setbacks motivates an interest to further identify the significance of
tions across the population of buildings, comparing occupied vs.
each increment. Fig. 13 illustrates this by plotting the distribution of
unoccupied times as a function of increasing setpoint setback. Each
savings at each setpoint setback increment. The three red lines in
arrow corresponds to an additional one-degree setback. The
each distribution curves represent the first quartile, median, and
changes in the correlations are represented by nonlinear curves for
third quartiles of the distributions. The difference between the
most buildings. As discussed earlier, the energy and temperature
third and first quartile lines equals to the IQR (interquartile), which
correlation corresponds to the HVAC operational characteristics
is a representation of variability of the distribution. As shown, the
shown in Fig. 7. The amount of change in the correlation with
distributions initially are normal with relatively lower variability
setpoint setback increments depends on various parameters such
compared to the higher setbacks. At high setbacks (i.e. > 10
), the
as climate zone, buildings thermal resistance, and setpoints in the
9
A. Khalilnejad, R.H. French and A.R. Abramson Energy 233 (2021) 121117

Fig. 14. Distribution of share of contribution of cooling to the total consumption

on the population of buildings. The green curve (with shaded red areas) represent
the density of cooling to the total consumption. The blue boxplot indicates the first,
second (median), and third quartiles, and the black data points depict the actual share
of cooling to total consumption of each building. (For interpretation of the references
to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

Table 2
Breakdown of annual savings with HVAC cooling off.

Industry Annual Savings (%)

median IQR skewness

1 Retail 10.14 3.99 2.29

2 Office 11.29 7.18 1.52
3 Food Sales 9.09 4.79 0.15
4 Educational 8.07 4.10 1.64
5 Industrial 8.47 12.30 0.30
6 Overall 9.53 4.83 2.16
Fig. 12. Annual energy savings vs. the energy vs. temperature correlation given in
setpoint setback increments. Each arrow represents one degree of setback.

commercial buildings as cited by U.S. Energy Information Admin-

distribution becomes right-skewed as demonstrated by the longer
tails at higher savings, due to the few buildings with a significantly
higher savings opportunities. Additionally, the median of savings at
setbacks higher than 9
is approximately constant, ranging from
8.7% to 9.5%. This is expected since at higher setpoint temperatures,
HVAC works in fewer days. In other words, over the first 8
of
setback, an average of 8.5% of savings is achieved; however, a
setback range of 9
e22
only an additional savings of 1% is ach-
ieved. For further validation, the 3
setback results in 29.2% of
reduction in cooling load of population of the buildings, which is
similar to the study of Hoyt et al. [20], where they achieved average
savings of 27% by setting back the setpoint by 2.8
.
As described above when rET ¼ 0, the percentage contribution of
the cooling system to the total consumption can be determined.
The distribution of the share of the cooling system to the total
consumption is shown in Fig. 14. The green line represents the
distribution curve, and the blue boxplot represents the quantiles.
Also, each of the black dots correspond to an individual building of
the population. The median of the distribution is 9.5%, which is
equal to the reported fractional contribution of cooling in
istration (EIA) [41], where they achieved by conducting 6720 onsite
interviews in commercial buildings across the United States. The
savings are skewed to higher values (right-skewed) for those
buildings with a significant share of their consumption towards the
cooling system. The skewness is caused by the outlier buildings out
of the blue boxplot with high share of cooling to total consumption
with on average 14 more CDDs compared to buildings inside the
boxplot.
For further insight, the breakdown of the share of cooling by
building use type is given in Table 2 along with relevant statistical
information. The office buildings exhibit the highest share of
cooling with a median of 11.3%. Nonetheless, the IQR of the distri-
bution is relatively high, representing a higher variability across
office buildings. The high variability is caused due to significantly
high variability in their BPR compared to other buildings (Fig. 7c).
The effect of BPR in the determination of the share of HVAC cooling
will be discussed in the next section. The retail buildings have the
second-highest share at 10.1% but with the lowest IQR of 4%,
illustrating a high savings opportunity with low uncertainty. The
high share of HVAC with low variability in retail buildings is

Fig. 13. Annual percentage savings at increasing setpoint setbacks for the population of buildings The black lines (area colored in gray) represent the distribution of the savings.
The red lines depict the first, second (median), and third quartiles, and the blue data points indicate the actual total savings of each building. (For interpretation of the references to
color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

10
A. Khalilnejad, R.H. French and A.R. Abramson Energy 233 (2021) 121117

expected as shown in Fig. 7, the retail buildings have a high

scheduled period along with significantly low variability of BPR and
scheduled period. The long scheduled period corresponds to more
HVAC operation in occupied time. Food sales and educational
buildings exhibit a median of roughly a 9% and 8% share with
similar variability of 4.8% and 4.1%, respectively. The relatively low
HVAC share of overall consumption in food sales can be due to the
higher share of other equipment such as refrigeration and cooking
in these buildings. The industrial buildings have the lowest share of
contribution from cooling with a median of 8.5% but with the
highest IQR of 12.3%, illustrating a long range of savings opportu-
nity. This is also expected as BPR and scheduled hours in industrial
buildings have the maximum variability in BPR and scheduled
hours representing. All these buildings are right-skewed, repre-
senting more uncertainty in higher savings. The right-skewness
illustrates that there are a few buildings with significantly high
HVAC cooling share of overall consumption unlike the majority of Fig. 16. Importance of the considered input variables to energy savings using an
the buildings. optimized Random Forest regression model.

2.4. Variable importance
To identify the relative importance of different variables to the
share of cooling in overall consumption, the Random Forest
regression is applied to the data as described above. First, a tuning
approach must be used to ensure the highest accuracy of the
method. The error metrics for tuning the hyper-parameters (mtry
and ntree) and the overall performance of the Random Forest is
shown in Fig. 15. The hyper-parameters are tuned by 100 times of
bootstrapping (Fig. 15a), resulting in the average OOBRMSE (Equation
(8)) of 3.4, ranging from 3.35 to 3.45. The evaluation of OOB error at
different values of mtry (Fig. 15b) illustrates that 10 is the optimal
value. The OOB error with up to 500 trees is shown in Fig. 15c. After
approximately 200 trees, the OOBRMSE does not gain a significant
increase in accuracy. Ultimately, the error of the test set which is
used for evaluation of the Random Forest model [31] is very close to
the OOB error, representing satisfactory performance.
After tuning the Random Forest to reach its highest accuracy, the
input variables that potentially affect the energy consumption
cooling system can be assessed and ranked. Recall, the ranking is
determined from the number of times the variable is used in the
nodes of the regression trees of the Random Forest model (IncNo-
dePurity [37]). As illustrated in Fig. 16, the number of CDDs is the
most critical parameter with a significantly higher IncNodePurity
compared to other parameters. This is because in the buildings with
higher CDD, there are more days that cooling system operates,
resulting in more savings opportunity. The number of CDD directly
corresponds to location and climate zone as well. In hotter climates,
there are more CDDs compared to in colder climates. Perhaps
obvious, but if cooling savings is a priority for a building portfolio
owner, then replacement, as needed, of such systems in hotter
climates will lead to greater savings for the portfolio. BPR, used 25%
less than CDDs in Random Forest regression nodes, is the second
most important variable since it contains information about the
operation of cooling systems during occupied and unoccupied
times. In buildings with a high BPR, the unoccupied time con-
sumption typically is relatively high, and therefore, there is a great
opportunity for savings. Since BPR can be an important indicator of
savings, this easy-to-determine value should be routinely calcu-
lated when assessing the potential for savings in a building.
Building usage type is the third most important variable. However,
it is used in the regression nodes 50% less than BPR, illustrating the
greater significance of the first two variables presented. This was
previously discussed when presenting the breakdown of the sav-
ings by building usage type (Table 2). It was shown that the HVAC
share of the total consumption has a different distribution (median,
IQR, and skewness) by building type, illustrating the critical

Fig. 15. Evaluation of Random Forest performance based on accuracy metrics (a) The OOB RMSE histogram based on 100 times bootstrapping, the blue line represent the
median of RMSE, (b) error of OOB based on mtry from 1 to 17 (c) comparison of RMSE of testing dataset and OOB dataset with 500 trees in RF. (For interpretation of the references to
color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

11
A. Khalilnejad, R.H. French and A.R. Abramson
importance of this parameter. The next important variable, the
energy and temperature correlation, represents the impact of the
cooling system. As discussed earlier, the energy and temperature
correlation (rET) represents the HVAC operational characteristics, as
in buildings with high correlation consume the HVAC consumption
is high. It can be seen that the occupied energy and temperature
correlation is more important than for unoccupied times. This can
be because in occupied time the HVAC setpoint is higher, and
consumes more electricity, resulting in higher share in overall
HVAC cooling usage. Note that Random Forest performs well even
when variables are highly correlated [42]. Therefore, despite highly
collinearity of energy and temperature correlations of the total,
occupied, and unoccupied time, the algorithm is capable of
choosing the more important ones for splitting the regression trees
in Random Forest. The other parameters presented in Fig. 16, with
each being used in 2%e3% of total decision tree nodes, are within
the error of each other, illustrating less importance of those
parameters.
3. Conclusion
Using a data-driven analysis, we have demonstrated and
quantified the significant savings opportunity from cooling systems
in commercial buildings. The data sets employed consisted of
electricity data at 15-min intervals from 432 commercial buildings
across five building usage types. A piecewise regression analysis on
energy vs. temperature data showed that the effective setpoint of
HVAC cooling system can be detected and the setpoint setback
savings can be applied to the energy consumption data. The anal-
ysis illustrated how 1
increments in setpoint influence potential
savings. The results demonstrate that with only a one degree
setback, a median of 1.1% of annual energy was saved. By continuing
to increase the setpoint setback to the point that the correlation
between energy and temperature reached zero, the disaggregated
share of cooling to the total consumption also could be determined.
We found that cooling in commercial buildings accounts for a
median of 9.5% of the total annual energy consumption across the
population studied with an IQR range of 7%e13%. Our results were
similar to U.S. EIA where they achieved 9% cooling share of total
energy consumption by conducting 6720 onsite interviews in
commercial buildings across the United States. A Random Forest
regression algorithm also was used to develop a model that pre-
dicts the already calculated annual air conditioning share of total
energy consumption (from setpoint setback) to rank the impact of
the relative importance of different building-related parameters on
HVAC cooling. The Random Forest model with RMSE of 3.39
enabled an analysis of the and showed that the number of cooling
degree days, which should be higher in warmer climate zones, is
the most important variable that influences the magnitude and
associated savings of cooling systems. Base-to-peak ratio was sec-
ondly important because it is a representative of energy con-
sumption magnitude in occupied and unoccupied time. Building
usage type and the magnitude of energy and temperature corre-
lation also were ranked highly since, it is presented that the HVAC
cooling systems share of total consumption distribution broken
type by building type is different from each other.
In future work, we expect that further insight may be gained by
examining building use types beyond those studied here. Addi-
tionally, we plan to conduct a similar analysis that focuses on
heating. In the dataset studied herein, there was not a statistically
significant population of electrically heated buildings. Most build-
ings in the U.S. consume natural gas for heating, and there is limited
access to such datasets.
12
Energy 233 (2021) 121117
Credit author statement
Arash Khalilnejad: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Writing e original draft, Writing e review &
editing. Roger H. French: Supervision, Funding acquisition. Alexis R.
Abramson: Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing e review &
editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal
relationships which may be considered as potential competing
interests:The authors are founders and equity holders in a startup
company, Edifice Analytics, that has spun out from Case Western
Reserve University (CWRU) where the work presented herein was
conducted. Edifice Analytics has a license from CWRU to perform
virtual energy audits of buildings.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Advanced Research Projects
Agency-Energy(ARPA-E), U.S. Department of Energy, award DE-AR-
0000668. This research was performed in the SDLE Research Cen-
ter, established with Ohio Third Frontier funding under award Tech
11e060, Tech 12e004, and the Great Lakes Energy Institute, both at
Case Western Reserve University. This work made use of the High
Performance Computing Resource in the Core Facility for Advanced
Research Computing at Case Western Reserve University.
References
[1] Shiel P, West R. Effects of building energy optimisation on the predictive ac-
curacy of external temperature in forecasting models. Journal of Building
Engineering 2016;7:281e91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2016.07.001.
[2] Niu F, O'Neill Z, O'Neill C. Data-driven based estimation of HVAC energy
consumption using an improved Fourier series decomposition in buildings.
Building Simulation 2018;11(4):633e45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-
018-0431-2.
[3] Khalilnejad A, Karimi AM, Kamath S, Haddadian R, French RH, Abramson AR.
Automated pipeline framework for processing of large-scale building energy
time series data. PloS One 2020;15(12):e0240461. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0240461.
[4] Khalilnejad A, French RH, Abramson AR. Data-driven evaluation of hvac
operation and savings in commercial buildings. Appl Energy 2020;278:
115505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115505.
[5] Batra N, Singh A, Whitehouse K. If you measure it, can you improve it?
Exploring the value of energy disaggregation. In: Proceedings of the 2Nd ACM
international conference on embedded systems for energy-efficient built en-
vironments, BuildSys ’15. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2015. p. 191e200. https://
doi.org/10.1145/2821650.2821660.
[6] Ji Y, Xu P, Ye Y. HVAC terminal hourly end-use disaggregation in commercial
buildings with Fourier series model. Energy Build 2015;97:33e46. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.03.048.
[7] Deng Z, Chen Q. Impact of occupant behavior on energy use of HVAC system in
offices. E3S Web of Conferences 2019;111:04055. https://doi.org/10.1051/
e3sconf/201911104055.
[8] Sala E, Kampouropoulos K, Prieto MD, Romeral L. Disaggregation of HVAC load
profiles for the monitoring of individual equipment. In: 2016 IEEE 21st in-
ternational conference on emerging technologies and factory automation
(ETFA). Berlin, Germany: IEEE; 2016. p. 1e6. https://doi.org/10.1109/
ETFA.2016.7733568.
[9] Marík K, Rojí
cek J, Stluka P, Vass J. Advanced HVAC control: theory vs. Reality.
IFAC Proceedings Volumes 2011;44(1):3108e13. https://doi.org/10.3182/
20110828-6-IT-1002.03085.
[10] Haque A, Pipattanasomporn M, Rahman S, Kothandaraman R, Malekpour A,
Paaso EA, Bahramirad S. An SVR-based building-level load forecasting method
considering impact of HVAC set points. In: 2019 IEEE power energy society
innovative smart grid technologies conference (ISGT); 2019. p. 1e5. https://
doi.org/10.1109/ISGT.2019.8791649.
[11] V. Pashaei, M. Bahrami, An electromagnetic micro power generator based on
mechanical frequency up-conversion. int.
[12] Pashaei V, Roman A, Mandal S. Conformal ultrasound transducer array for
image-guided neural therapy. In: 2018 IEEE biomedical circuits and systems
conference (BioCAS). IEEE; 2018. p. 1e4. https://doi.org/10.1109/
BIOCAS.2018.8584727.
A. Khalilnejad, R.H. French and A.R. Abramson
[13] Zhang X, Cai M, Pipattanasomporn M, Rahman S. A power disaggregation
approach to identify power-temperature models of HVAC units. In: 2018 IEEE
international smart cities conference (ISC2); 2018. p. 1e6. https://doi.org/
10.1109/ISC2.2018.8656976.
[14] Ahn K-U, Park C-S. Correlation between occupants and energy consumption.
Energy Build 2016;116:420e33. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enbuild.2016.01.010.
[15] Liu Z, Yin H, Ma S, Wei B, Jensen B, Cao G. Effect of environmental parameters
on culturability and viability of dust accumulated fungi in different HVAC
segments. Sustainable Cities and Society 2019;48:101538. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scs.2019.101538.
[16] Wang L, Mathew P, Pang X. Uncertainties in energy consumption introduced
by building operations and weather for a medium-size office building. Energy
Build 2012;53:152e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.06.017. wOS:
000309086900017.
[17] Kusiak A, Li M, Tang F. Modeling and optimization of HVAC energy con-
sumption. Appl Energy 2010;87(10):3092e102. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2010.04.008.
[18] Papadopoulos S, Kontokosta CE, Vlachokostas A, Azar E. Rethinking HVAC
temperature setpoints in commercial buildings: the potential for zero-cost
energy savings and comfort improvement in different climates. Build Envi-
ron 2019;155:350e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.03.062.
[19] Crawley DB, Lawrie LK, Winkelmann FC, Buhl WF, Huang YJ, Pedersen CO,
Strand RK, Liesen RJ, Fisher DE, Witte MJ, Glazer J. EnergyPlus: creating a new-
generation building energy simulation program. Energy Build 2001;33(4):
319e31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(00)00114-6. wOS:
000167272000005.
[20] Hoyt T, Arens E, Zhang H. Extending air temperature setpoints: simulated
energy savings and design considerations for new and retrofit buildings. Build
Environ 2015;88:89e96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.09.010.
[21] Ghahramani A, Zhang K, Dutta K, Yang Z, Becerik-Gerber B. Energy savings
from temperature setpoints and deadband: quantifying the influence of
building and system properties on savings. Appl Energy 2016;165:930e42.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.12.115.
[22] Cai M, Ramdaspalli S, Pipattanasomporn M, Rahman S, Malekpour A,
Kothandaraman SR. Impact of HVAC set point Adjustment on energy savings
and peak load reductions in buildings. In: 2018 IEEE international smart cities
conference (ISC2); 2018. p. 1e6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISC2.2018.8656738.
[23] Aghniaey S, Lawrence TM. The impact of increased cooling setpoint temper-
ature during demand response events on occupant thermal comfort in com-
mercial buildings: a review. Energy Build 2018;173:19e27. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.04.068.
[24] Erhardt RJ. Mid-twenty-first-century projected trends in North American
heating and cooling degree days. Environmetrics 2015;26(2):133e44. https://
doi.org/10.1002/env.2318.
[25] Hossain MA. Development of building markers and unsupervised non-
intrusive disaggregation model for commercial buildings’energy usage. Ph.D.
thesis. CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY; 2018.
[26] Yang L, Liu S, Tsoka S, Papageorgiou LG. Mathematical programming for
13
Energy 233 (2021) 121117
piecewise linear regression analysis. Expert Syst Appl 2016;44:156e67.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.08.034.
[27] 42540_19 - chapter 19 energy Estimating and modeling Methods General
Considerations 19.1 models and approaches 19.1 characteristics of models
19.1 d Course Hero.
[28] Hitchin R, Knight I. Daily energy consumption signatures and control charts
for air-conditioned buildings. Energy Build 2016;112:101e9.
[29] Heidarinejad M, Mattise N, Dahlhausen M, Sharma K, Benne K, Macumber D,
Brackney L, Srebric J. Demonstration of reduced-order urban scale building
energy models. Energy Build 2017;156:17e28.
[30] J. Z. Bakdash, L. R. Marusich, Repeated measures correlation, Front Psychol 8.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00456.
[31] M. R. Segal, Machine Learning Benchmarks and random forest regression.
[32] Liu D, Sun K. Random forest solar power forecast based on classification
optimization. Energy 2019;187:115940. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2019.115940.
[33] Pashaei V, Dehghanzadeh P, Enwia G, Bayat M, Majerus SJ, Mandal S. Flexible
body-conformal ultrasound patches for image-guided neuromodulation. IEEE
Transactions on Biomedical Circuits and Systems 2019;14(2):305e18. https://
doi.org/10.1109/TBCAS.2019.2959439.
[34] Ishwaran H. The effect of splitting on random forests. Mach Learn 2015;99(1):
75e118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-014-5451-2.
[35] Wang Z, Wang Y, Zeng R, Srinivasan RS, Ahrentzen S. Random Forest based
hourly building energy prediction. Energy Build 2018;171:11e25. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.04.008.
[36] Aggarwal P, Karri S, Pashaei V, Dehghanzadeh P, Mandal S, Subramanyam G.
Towards automated positioning of ultrasonic probes. In: 2019 IEEE national
aerospace and electronics conference (NAECON). IEEE; 2019. p. 477e80.
https://doi.org/10.1109/NAECON46414.2019.9058185.
[37] Gro €mping U. Variable importance assessment in regression: linear regression
versus random forest. Am Statistician 2009;63(4):308e19. https://doi.org/
10.1198/tast.2009.08199.
[38] Peel MC, Finlayson BL, McMahon TA. Updated world map of the Ko €ppen-
Geiger climate classification. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 2007;11(5):1633e44.
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-11-1633-2007.
[39] Zhang X, Pipattanasomporn M, Kuzlu M, Rahman S. Conceptual framework for
a multi-building peak load management system. In: 2016 IEEE PES innovative
smart grid technologies conference europe (ISGT-Europe); 2016. p. 1e5.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ISGTEurope.2016.7856238.
[40] Ghahramani A, Jazizadeh F, Becerik-Gerber B. A knowledge based approach
for selecting energy-aware and comfort-driven HVAC temperature set points.
Energy Build 2014;85:536e48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.09.055.
[41] Cbecs. Energy usage summary. 2012. https://www.eia.gov/consumption/
commercial/.
[42] Shah AD, Bartlett JW, Carpenter J, Nicholas O, Hemingway H. Comparison of
random forest and parametric imputation models for imputing missing data
using MICE: a CALIBER study. Am J Epidemiol 2014;179(6):764e74. https://
doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwt312.