LBNL-2001075

Characterization and Survey of

Automated Fault Detection and
Diagnostic Tools

Jessica Granderson and Rupam Singla

Building Technology and Urban Systems Division
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Ebony Mayhorn, Paul Ehrlich and Draguna Vrabie

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Stephen Frank
National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Energy Technologies Area

November 2017
Disclaimer
This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States
Government. While this document is believed to contain correct information, neither the
United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor The Regents of the University of
California, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or
assumes any legal responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any
information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would
not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product,
process, or service by its trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not
necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the
United States Government or any agency thereof, or The Regents of the University of
California. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state
or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof or The Regents
of the University of California.

Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, Building Technologies Office, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract
No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. The authors thank Amanda Farthing, Xin Jin, and Grant Wheeler
(National Renewable Energy Laboratory), as well as Guanjing Lin (Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory), for their support with the developer interviews that were
conducted in this work. We also recognize each of the fault detection and diagnostic tool
developers who participated in this survey.
Executive Summary
Background
It is estimated that 5%–30% of the energy used in commercial buildings is wasted due to faults
and errors in the operation of the control system. Tools that are able to automatically identify
and isolate these faults offer the potential to greatly improve performance, and to do so cost
effectively. This document characterizes the diverse landscape of these automated fault
detection and diagnostic (AFDD) technologies, according to a common framework that captures
key distinguishing features and core elements.

Approach
To understand the diversity of technologies that provide AFDD, a framework was developed to
capture key elements to distinguish the functionality and potential application of one offering
from another. The AFDD characterization framework was applied to 14 currently available
technologies, comprising a sample of market offerings. These 14 technologies largely represent
solutions that integrate with building automation systems, that use temporary in field
measurements, or that are implemented as retrofit add-ons to existing equipment. To
characterize them, publicly available information was gathered from product brochures and
websites, and from technical papers. Additional information was acquired through interviews
and surveys with the developers of each AFDD tool. The study concludes with a discussion of
technology gaps, needs for the commercial sector, and promising areas for future development.

Key Findings
Today’s AFDD technologies are being used in nearly all commercial building sectors. Smaller
facilities, however, are less commonly served, and when they are it is often through portfolios of
small buildings as opposed to single sites.

Market presence of surveyed FDD tools

1
Software-as-a-service models have quickly become the norm for AFDD technologies; even
vendors providing on premise and desktop applications also tend to offer SaaS options. A
compelling evolution in the industry is seen in the expansion of market delivery of FDD through
third-party service providers using the tools as a way to provide value-add to their customers.
This expansion offers the potential to increase access to the technology and its associated
benefits for a new class of owners who otherwise may not be using it, however third parties’
costs may vary significantly and each cost component should be defined in full to be able to
compare across delivery options.

Intended users of surveyed AFDD tools

Location of surveyed AFDD tools

While rule-based methodologies to detect and diagnose faults are still heavily used, vendors are
beginning to use process history-based techniques. Independent of the FDD methodology used,
vendors report a high degree of commonality in the systems and types of faults that their
products can cover. That is, coverage of systems and faults is driven more by site data availability
than by product offering. Most AFDD tools surveyed accept real-time BAS data and external
meters and sensors; many accept historical data from the BAS, and several accept equipment’s
onboard/ internal measures without going through the BAS. The majority of the AFDD tool
vendors surveyed cover major the HVAC systems found in commercial buildings, as well as
2
lighting systems and whole building energy use. Many tools have large libraries that are able to
determine at least some types of faults across all systems for whatever data can be provided.
Nearly all of the tool vendors surveyed are able to detect faults in the major categories, including:
sensors, energy consumption, economizers and ventilation, commercial refrigeration,
cooling/heating systems, equipment cycling, scheduling, and lighting or other end uses.
Configuration of the technologies does require site-specific tuning. While this is not a fully
automated process, some elements of the process may be automated for streamlining.

Distinguishing factors are often associated with the additional features offered to complement
the AFDD, and with the available delivery models. The market offers great diversity in additional
analytics and reporting capabilities, integration architectures, and purchase models, making it
possible to custom fit the technology to the needs of the organization. While custom solutions
are desirable for some portions of the buildings market— such as campuses, enterprises, and
large or complex facilities—others may benefit from higher degrees of commoditization.

An important theme in interpreting the findings from this survey is that many products are sold
with an emphasis on broad-scale applicability, and in analyzing the features and capabilities
across all offerings as whole, there is indeed a high degree of similarity. However, it is critical for
prospective technology users to probe providers to understand the precisely what is entailed in
a given offering’s implementation of a feature of interest. For example, there are many ways to
prioritize faults and estimate their impacts, and effective prioritization may be dependent on
customer input. Similarly, root cause analysis (diagnosis) may be supported for just a subset of
faults, or require manual input from operational staff. Analogously, ease of integration with
different makes and vintages of BAS is another critical element of implementation for which “the
devil is in the details.”

Outstanding Needs
FDD technology is seeing increased uptake in the market, and is constantly developing and
evolving. Best practice implementations can deliver significant improvements in energy
efficiency, utility expenses, operations and maintenance processes, and operational
performance—all with rapid return on investment. However, for the full potential to be realized
at scale, a core set of interrelated informational, organizational, and technical needs and barriers
must be addressed.

The primary informational barriers for prospective users are rooted in interpreting the value
proposition of FDD for their facilities, and in accessing best practices in implementation — for
example all-in costs and benefits, effective use of contractors and service providers, and
integration with higher level energy management practices. Organizationally, successful
implementation of AFDD can be slowed by a need to diverge from existing business practices and
norms. While the costs are modest compared to capital projects and can be quickly recovered,
decision makers must buy in to an increase in operation and maintenance expenses and be willing
to manage a certain degree of risk. Finally, from a technical standpoint, IT and data integration
represent one of the largest challenges. Even once data is accessible through cross-system
3
integration, it must be interpreted for use in analytic applications. The current lack of common
standards in data, metadata, and semantic representation also poses difficulties in scaling. Lastly,
today’s AFDD offerings can prove difficult and expensive to apply in smaller commercial buildings.

Future Work
AFDD has matured significantly since its first introduction into commercial buildings. Based on
information gathered through this survey and discussion with both vendors and users, several
opportunities emerge to further advance the technology. Continued development of algorithms
that include machine learning and other promising techniques could reduce tuning needs,
simplify configuration, and enhance diagnostic power. Following the trends in other industries,
there is also potential to move beyond diagnostics into prognostics and predictive maintenance.
Machine-to-machine integration presents further opportunity for advancement to realize
pervasive “plug-and-play” functionality, thereby enabling tighter coupling of AFDD with
computerized maintenance management systems, meter analytics, and operations and asset
management tools. Finally, there are gains to be achieved through the development of corrective
and adaptive controls, in combination with tool chains that can ensure that operational design
intent is correctly implemented and maintained over the duration of the operational stage in the
building lifecycle.

4
1. Overview
Energy Management and Information Systems (EMIS) comprise a broad family of tools and
services to analyze, monitor, and control commercial building equipment and energy use. These
technologies include, for example, meter analytics or energy information systems (EIS), some
types of automated fault detection and diagnostic tools (AFDD), benchmarking and utility bill
tracking tools, and building automation systems. These technologies may encompass uses that
include monitoring-based and ongoing commissioning, remote audits and virtual assessments,
enterprise monitoring and asset tracking, continuous savings estimation, and energy anomaly
detection. There are a wide a wide variety of EMIS products available on the commercial market,
and they are increasingly heavily marketed to the energy management community.

It is estimated that 5%–30% of the energy used in commercial buildings is wasted due to faults
and errors in the operation of the control system 1, 2, 3. Tools that are able to automatically identify
and isolate these faults offer the potential to greatly improve performance, and to do so cost
effectively.

This document characterizes the diverse landscape of technologies that offer AFDD functionality,
according to a common framework that captures key distinguishing features and core elements.
These technologies can reside on local servers or in the cloud, as well as at the network edge
within equipment or controller-embedded solutions.

The primary audience for this document is building owners and operators, who are seeking an
understanding of the functionality available in AFDD products and services to inform piloting and
procurement decisions. It also may be useful to utility energy efficiency program stakeholders
who are interested in emerging technologies to test and pilot for incentive programs. A
secondary audience includes developers of AFDD solutions who are looking for information to
inform and target their efforts.

In the following sections of this review we present a general overview of FDD and other analytics
technology types, followed by a common framework to distinguish among various types of AFDD
tools. We then apply this framework to evaluate a sampling of AFDD tools and discuss the
findings. The evaluation focused primarily on solutions that integrate with building automation
systems, that use temporary in-field measurements, or that are implemented as retrofit add-ons
to existing equipment; it did not include OEM-embedded AFDD offerings (although in a few
instances these variants are available through the AFDD vendor). We conclude with a discussion
of technology gaps, needs for the commercial sector, and promising areas for future
development.

1 Roth, K. W., D. Westphalen, M. Y. Feng, P. Llana, and L. Quartararo. Energy Impact of Commercial Building Controls
and Performance Diagnostics: Market Characterization, Energy Impact of Building Faults and Energy Savings Potential.
2005. Report prepared by TIAC LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy.
2 Katipamula, S., and M. Brambley. 2005. “Methods for fault detection, diagnostics, and prognostics for building systems

– a review, part 1.” HVAC&R Research 11(1): 3–25.

3 Fernandez, N., et al. 2017. Impacts on commercial building controls on energy savings and peak load reduction. Pacific

Northwest National Laboratory. PNNL Report Number PNNL-25985.

5
2. Introduction to Fault Detection and Diagnostics
FDD is the process of identifying (detecting) deviations from normal or expected operation
(faults) and resolving (diagnosing) the type of problem or its location. FDD has been used for
decades to great success in industries that include aerospace, nuclear, and industrial applications,
and its use in building operation and control applications is growing. In practice, FDD in buildings
is most commonly conducted for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems,
however as a process, FDD is applicable to all systems in the building. Although currently
underutilized, FDD is a powerful approach to ensuring efficient building operations.

As further detailed in the characterization framework that follows, AFDD technology may be
delivered through a variety of implementation models. The FDD code may be integrated into
either server-based software, desktop software, or software that is embedded in an equipment
controller. The AFDD algorithms may rely on historical or near-real time data from building
automation systems (BAS), from data local to the equipment or controller, from external sensors
and meters, or from some combination of these data sources. AFDD software may be used by
the building operator or energy manager, or may be delivered through analysis-as-a-service
contracts that do not require direct “in-house” use of the technology.

The software tools that offer AFDD may include additional functionality such as energy
consumption monitoring and analytics, visualization, benchmarking, reporting of key
performance indicators, or fault prioritization and impact assessment. The server-based offerings
rely on continuous data acquisition and analysis; these types of AFDD tools are commonly
considered part of the broader family of tools called Energy Management and Information
Systems (EMIS). Although not within the scope of this document, other EMIS technologies such
as meter analytics or energy information systems, automated (HVAC) system optimization, and
building automation systems are powerful tools for ensuring persistent low-energy commercial
building operations—both at the facility and enterprise levels.

3. FDD Technology Characterization Framework

To understand the diversity of technologies that provide AFDD, a characterization framework
was developed to capture key elements that can be used to distinguish the functionality and
potential application of one offering from another. Content contained in this framework was
developed through review with a subset of providers, and is based on the authors’ collective
subject matter expertise, knowledge of AFDD technology and its use in commercial building
energy management applications. The categories in the framework are defined in the following
sections, with characteristics spanning delivery to market, technical capabilities, and additional
software functionality.

6
3.1 Delivery to Market
Company or institution name: The developer of the AFDD technology.
Tool name: The name of the AFDD software or service offering.
Software type: Whether the AFDD is offered as a commercial product or service, or as open
source code.
Availability to market: Whether the AFDD is commercially available or still being researched
(pre-commercial).
Current markets served: What markets are currently served in terms of:
• Building type (multi-family, hospital, outpatient healthcare, hotel, office, restaurant,
retail, supermarket, college and university, K–12 education, warehouse).
• Building size (large [> 50k square feet (sf)], medium [10–50k sf], small [< 10k sf]).
Software location: Whether the AFDD software is cloud hosted, locally hosted on an “on-site”
server, located on a desktop computer or other device, or controller-embedded.
Purchase model: Whether the AFDD software is a one-time purchase, software as a service (with
monthly or annual fee), or other. Additionally, whether the AFDD software comes with updates
and/or periodic maintenance in the initial offering costs, or whether additional purchase is
required.
Intended users: Whether the AFDD software is intended for use by the vendor (for analysis-as-a-
service), an engineering manager/operator/site staff, and/or a third-party service provider.
Software configuration: Whether the party typically responsible for the AFDD software
installation and configuration is the software vendor; an integrator, distributor, or third-party
service provider; or an engineering manager/operator/site staff.
Data sources: Whether the AFDD software relies upon data from BAS real-time data (i.e., live,
continuous), from BAS historical data (e.g., trend logs, csv, xls), from on-board or internal
equipment measures, or from external meters and sensors.
Data ownership: Whether the owner(s) of the AFDD software tool inputs and outputs is the end-
customer, the FDD software vendor, and/or a third-party service provider.
FDD method tailoring: Whether the AFDD software requires tailoring of the tuning algorithm
parameters and associated thresholds manually or automatically, or whether it is not applicable
or unnecessary.
Notification of findings: Whether the AFDD software tool delivers results through a software user
interface with fault findings, through a service to the user that includes periodic reports of fault
findings, and/or through automated notifications, e.g., via email or text.

7
3.2 Technical Capabilities
Systems covered: Whether the FDD software has existing libraries and rules for the following
systems: air conditioners/heat pumps (including packaged rooftop units), chillers and towers, air
handler units (AHUs) and variable air volumes (VAVs), fan coil units (FCUs), commercial
refrigeration, lighting, boilers/furnaces, water heaters, and/or whole-building.
Categories of faults detectable: These are broad categories of faults that the AFDD tool is able to
detect and potentially diagnose. The fault categories included in this framework include:
• Sensor errors/faults
• Energy consumption (explicit energy use fault)
• Economizers and ventilation
• Control-related pressurization issues
• Commercial refrigeration (related to vapor/compression)
• Space cooling/heating (related to vapor/compression)
• Heating system (boiler, heat exchanger, furnace, etc.)
• Cooling system (chillers, towers, etc.)
• Equipment cycling
• Pump and fan systems
• Scheduling (too little, too long, wrong time, etc.)
• Simultaneous heating and cooling
• Lighting or other end uses
Note that problems such as mechanical failures and departures from setpoint or intended
sequences may be included under multiple fault categories in the list above.
Methods/algorithms: These are the categories of analytical methods used in the AFDD software.
The schematic diagram below depicts the definition of algorithm types that are used in this
framework.

Figure 1. Depiction of algorithm types used in this framework, from Katipamula and Brambley, 20052

8
As illustrated in Figure 1, FDD methods may be model-based or based purely on process history
data. The model-based methods rely upon knowledge of the underlying physical processes and
first principles governing the system(s) being analyzed. Quantitative model-based approaches
are not yet frequently employed in commercial AFDD tool offerings, however qualitative model-
based approaches which include rule-based FDD, have been extensively used in the industry and
provide intuitive representations of engineering principles. The process history-based (data-
driven) approaches do not rely upon knowledge of first principles, but may leverage some degree
of engineering knowledge; they rely upon data from the system in operation. These include
statistical regression models, neural networks, and other methods. Process history-based AFDD
algorithms are increasingly being explored for use in commercial tool offerings. Although the
distinctions between these method types may become blurry (even to developers), AFDD users
may have interest in understanding whether a technology uses rules-based techniques versus
newer data driven approaches, or less commonly employed first principles – or a combination of
several approaches.
Detection and diagnosis capabilities: Whether the AFDD tool is capable of identifying fault
presence (reporting a fault without specification of the physical location, severity, or root cause),
fault location, fault severity (degree of faultiness as opposed to impact on energy or dollars,
which is covered in “additional functionality”), root cause, and/or estimated costs of resolution
and payback.

3.3 Additional Functionality

Other features: Additional features of the AFDD tool that are not represented above, and may
include:
• Detection of equipment degradation
• Fault prioritization
• Automated work order request system integration
• Assessment of energy impacts
• Conversion of energy impacts to cost impacts
• Assessment of cost impacts other than energy cost, e.g., reduced equipment life
• Meter data analytics
• Time series visualization and plotting
• Key performance indicator (KPI) tracking and reporting
• Longitudinal and cross-sectional benchmarking (within a given portfolio or via ENERGY
STAR Portfolio Manager)

9
4. Technology Characterization Findings
The AFDD characterization framework was applied to 14 currently available technologies,
comprising a sample of market offerings (see the Appendix for a list of those surveyed). These
technologies were identified based on factors including:
• Diversity across defining characteristics to illustrate market breadth
• Known use in commercial buildings based on the authors’ knowledge of the market and
engagement with the community of AFDD users
• Vendor or developer willingness and ability to share information necessary for a full
characterization
It is important to emphasize that inclusion in this survey does not indicate endorsement, and
conversely, absence from the survey does not indicate non-endorsement.

To characterize the technologies, publicly available information was gathered from product
brochures and websites, and from technical papers. Additional information was acquired through
interviews and surveys with the vendors and developers of each AFDD tool. The information that
was acquired was therefore based on self-reporting from the technology provider. It was not
within the scope of this effort to independently verify reported functionality and characteristics
of each technology that is included. Moreover, as the market is constantly evolving and
technologies are continuously modified, these market findings represent a snapshot in time.
Although specific offerings may evolve, it is expected that the characterization framework itself
will remain a viable tool to distinguish key AFDD technology elements well into the future.

The tables in the Appendix provide a summary of the capability of each tool surveyed, with
respect to each category in the characterization framework.

4.1 Delivery to Market

All tool vendors surveyed offered proprietary, commercially available software and/or hardware.
However, several of the software vendors noted that they provide an open application
programming interface (API) to support integration with third-party applications.

The markets currently served by the AFDD tool vendors are represented in Figure 2. Multi-family,
restaurant, data centers, and manufacturing facilities are less commonly served, with a mostly
even coverage of other sectors. In addition to the market segments shown in the figure, several
tool vendors noted additional facility types such as industrial subsectors, arenas, multi-event
facilities, and correctional facilities. The technologies are commonly used in large and medium
facilities, with less penetration in smaller buildings. Several tool vendors also noted that they do
not serve a particular building size and that their product would be applicable to any size building.

10
 Figure 2.Market presence of surveyed FDD tools

As shown in Figure 3, the software for all 14 tool vendors can be cloud hosted; eight of them offer
that as the only option. Additionally, four AFDD tools can be installed on a locally hosted on-site
server, and three can be located on a desktop computer or other device (such as a handheld
device). Three can be controller-embedded, reflecting emerging variants in software delivery that
can entail relationships with OEMs.

Figure 3. Software location

AFDD tool vendors offer a wide range of variability in purchase models. Many vendors noted that
there is no standard, and that often the purchase model is tailored to what the customer wants.
Typically tools that are hosted on the cloud offer a software-as-a-service (SaaS) model with
ongoing updates and maintenance included for either an annual or a monthly fee. Maintenance
and updates may come bundled or optionally in an upfront fee, or can be deferred for later
purchase.

As reflected in the tallies in Figure 4, all of the AFDD tool vendors surveyed have multiple
intended users. The traditional model of in-house technology used by the end customer is still
prevalent—all vendors surveyed listed engineering manager/operator/site staff as an intended
user. However, tools are increasingly being used by and resold by third-party service providers
11
as a value-add to customers, with all of the AFDD tool vendors surveyed also listing a third-party
service provider as an intended user. Nine vendors provide analysis-as-a-service directly to their
clients and are therefore an intended user of the tool. This is expected to grow as the market
matures and alternative business models are explored by the industry.

Figure 4. Intended Users

The majority of the AFDD tools are installed and configured by some combination of the software
vendor, an integrator/distributor/third-party service provider, and the engineering
manager/operator/site staff, as shown in Figure 5. In most cases, the vendor plus a third party
do the configuration, working from owner requirements. In some cases multiple parties are
required for the installation, and in some cases the vendor offers several options for who does
the installation.

Figure 5. Parties involved in software configuration

There is a range of input data that are required by AFDD tools and a range of data that they can
accept, as shown in Figure 6. Most of the tools take in real-time BAS data, which would be
expected, given the large number of cloud-based solutions that serve as a BAS overlay. Eleven
tools are also able to utilize historical data from the BAS. Most of the tools are also able to utilize
external meters and sensors. Three tools are able to utilize equipment’s onboard/ internal
measures without going through the BAS. Typically not all of the data points that can be
12
processed by the tool are required, and the technologies operate based on the data that are
available. Though the tool vendor may have a short list of critical points, additional data are used
to enhance the spectrum of diagnostics that can be performed.

Figure 6. Data sources for surveyed FDD tools

All AFDD tool vendors note that primarily, the customer owns the data. Additionally, two vendors
noted that they themselves also have ownership over the data and one other tool vendor noted
that a third-party service provider has ownership over the data. Several tool vendors noted that
they retain the right to use aggregate and anonymous data for benefit of all their users; for
example, to provide peer benchmarking analyses.

All 14 tools require some degree of tuning or tailoring algorithm configuration and
implementation. While none offer fully automated tuning, six vendors noted that they provide
automated routines and/or GUIs to streamline the process. At least one tool comes with a fault
library with default thresholds, with which the customer may subsequently tune parameters or
hire consultants to help.

All of the AFDD tool vendors provide access and viewing of fault findings through a software
interface, as shown in Figure 7. In addition to user-facing GUIs, the majority of offerings surveyed
also provide services to periodically output reports of fault findings. All but two of the tools
provide automated notifications via text, e-mail, or even other novel communications options
such as tweets. Several tool vendors have the capability to have reports sent via e-mail at user-
defined intervals (daily, weekly, monthly) and on customer demand.

13
 Figure 7. Notification of findings

4.2 Technical Capabilities

As seen in Figure 8, the majority of the AFDD tool vendors surveyed cover most of the systems
that were included in the survey (AC/heat pump which includes packaged rooftop units, chillers
and towers, AHU and VAV, FCUs, commercial refrigeration, lighting, boilers/furnaces, water
heaters, and whole-building). Many tools have large libraries that are able to determine at least
some types of faults across all systems for whatever data can be provided. Several vendors
reported that they additionally include energy recovery ventilators (ERVs), other terminal units
besides VAV boxes, solar panels, industrial processes, variable refrigerant flow (VRF) systems,
BAS controls, cogeneration, and manufacturing equipment.

Figure 8. Systems covered

Nearly all of the tool vendors surveyed are able to detect faults in the majority of the fault
categories in the survey: sensor errors/faults, energy consumption, economizers and ventilation,
control-related pressurization issues, commercial refrigeration, space cooling/heating, heating
system, cooling system, equipment cycling, pump and fan systems, scheduling, simultaneous
heating and cooling, and lighting or other end uses. Many tools have large libraries that are able

14
to determine at least some types of faults for whatever data can be provided. See Figure 9 for
details.

Figure 9. Categories of detectable faults

Most of the tools (12 out of 14) use rule-based algorithms, the majority of which apply some
combination of expert systems, first principles-based, and limits and alarms. Many of the rule-
based tools are supplemented with other approaches, and in one case the offering is a platform
that is most commonly programmed and configured to deliver rule-based algorithms, but also
includes machine learning functions. Three tools use black-box process history-based
approaches; one of these also uses a gray-box approach. Two tools use quantitative model-based
approaches. Figure 10 illustrates these findings graphically—dark shading indicates approaches
used by ten or more tools, medium shading indicates approaches used by two or three tools, and
light shading indicates approaches used by one or no tools.

Figure 10. Methods and algorithms

15
As shown in Figure 11, all vendors surveyed reported the ability to identify fault presence as well
as physical fault location. All but one tool is able to identify potential root causes. Depending on
the specific fault identified, root case identification may be more or less precise, or in some cases,
not possible. In addition, all but one reported some quantification of fault severity, e.g., degree
of leakage. The degree of faultiness may be determined based on the frequency of a fault, fault
magnitude (e.g., how far a point is away from setpoint), and fault duration. Several tools
associate fault severity with assessment of the degree to which energy, energy cost, comfort, and
maintenance costs are affected. At least one of these tools prioritizes the faults, then displays
only one fault at a time to the user.

Figure 11. Detection and diagnosis capabilities

4.3 Additional Functionality

AFDD tools are commonly delivered with many supplementary features. Out of the tools
surveyed, the most common features were time series visualization and plotting, quantification
of energy impacts, and fault prioritization, as shown in Figure 12. Other very common features
were equipment degradation, conversion of energy impacts to cost impacts, KPI tracking and
reporting, automated work order request system integration, and meter data analytics. Less
common but still prevalent features were cost impacts other than energy cost (such as the cost
of pending equipment failure), longitudinal and cross-sectional benchmarking, and estimated
cost of fault resolution and payback.

In addition, tool vendors noted a number of other features, including feedback for load
management and demand response applications, verification of corrective actions, savings
measurement and verification (M&V), equipment level M&V, asset data and service history, and
issue-tracking systems. These other features were not exhaustively reviewed in the survey (or
Tabulated findings in the Appendix) but are important complements to the AFDD capabilities.

16
 Figure 12. Relative frequency of a selected set of additional features of AFDD tools

5. Industry Needs and Future Development

This survey focused on AFDD solutions that integrate with building automation systems, that use
temporary in-field measurements, or that are implemented as retrofit add-ons to existing
equipment. As indicated in the findings, today’s AFDD technologies are being used in nearly all
commercial building sectors. Smaller facilities, however, are less commonly served, and when
they are it is often through portfolios of small buildings as opposed to single sites. Cost
effectiveness and complexity of implementation may vary as the technology is applied to
different sectors and building sizes. For example, with a historic emphasis on HVAC systems and
larger buildings, solutions for built-up systems may be simultaneously more developed, yet also
more complex than those for packaged systems.

Software-as-a-service models have quickly become the norm for AFDD technologies; even
vendors providing on-premise and desktop applications also tend to offer SaaS options. A
compelling evolution in the industry is seen in the expansion of market delivery of FDD through
third-party service providers using the tools as a way to provide value-add to their customers.
Illustrated in Figure 13, these third-party services may cover a spectrum of activities. This is in
contrast to earlier models that relied on in-house direct organizational use, and also from
analysis-as-a-service provided by the AFDD vendor. This expansion offers the potential to
increase access to the technology and its associated benefits for a new class of owners who

17
otherwise may not be using it, however third parties’ costs may vary significantly and each cost
component should be defined in full to be able to compare across delivery options.

Figure 13. A spectrum of analytics-focused activities that service providers may offer their customers

While rule-based methodologies to detect and diagnose faults are still the norm, vendors are
beginning to use process history-based techniques. Independent of the FDD methodology used,
vendors report a high degree of commonality in the systems and types of faults that their
products can cover. That is, coverage of systems and faults is driven more by site data availability
than by product offering. Configuration of the technologies does require site-specific tuning,
which may be conducted by vendors and service providers with varying degrees of involvement
from site staff. While this is not a fully automated process, some elements of the process may be
automated for streamlining.

Distinguishing factors are often associated with the additional features offered to complement
the AFDD, and with the available delivery models. The market offers great diversity in additional
analytics and reporting capabilities, integration architectures, and purchase models, making it
possible to custom fit the technology to the needs of the organization. While custom solutions
are desirable for some portions of the buildings market— such as campuses, enterprises, and
large or complex facilities—other portions of the market may benefit from higher degrees of
commoditization.

18
An important theme in interpreting the findings from this survey is that many products are sold
with an emphasis on broad-scale applicability, and in analyzing the features and capabilities
across all offerings as whole, there is a high degree of similarity. However, actual implementation
needs can differ widely from one application case to another. Moreover, it is critical for
prospective technology users to probe providers to understand the precisely what is entailed in
a given offering’s implementation of a feature of interest. For example, there are many ways to
prioritize faults and estimate their impacts, ranging from those that rely upon static assumptions
of fault persistence versus intermittence, to those that rely upon more dynamic calculations of
concurrent operational conditions – and effective prioritization may be dependent on customer
input. Similarly, root cause analysis (diagnosis) may be supported for just a subset of faults, or
require manual input from operational staff. Analogously, ease of integration with different
makes and vintages of BAS is another critical element of implementation for which “the devil is
in the details.”

FDD technology is seeing increased uptake in the market, and is constantly developing and
evolving. Best practice implementations can deliver significant improvements in energy
efficiency, utility expenses, operations and maintenance processes, and operational
performance—all with rapid return on investment (see the Smart Energy Analytics Campaign
Year 1 Report 4 for a snapshot of EIS, FDD and ASO performance and cost). However, for the full
potential to be realized at scale, a core set of interrelated informational, organizational, and
technical needs and barriers must be addressed.

Informational:
1. Prospective users remain challenged in interpreting the value proposition of FDD for their
facilities. Common questions include: what will it really take to make this work for my
buildings? What will the all-in costs and benefits be, up-front, and in the long-term? How
do I navigate this developing market with numerous evolving players and product
options?
2. Prospective users also face more specific implementation questions such as: What is the
distinction between automated fault detection and diagnostics (AFDD) and BAS alarms,
and which products support one versus the other? What are best practices for tuning and
avoidance of false positives? What is the benefit of integrating AFDD within higher-level
energy management practices such as strategic energy management and ongoing
monitoring-based commissioning? How do I best integrate the support of contractors and
service providers with in-house activities?

4Smart Energy Analytics Campaign. Synthesis of year 1 outcomes in the Smart Energy Analytics Campaign [Internet].
2017 [accessed on September 25, 2017]. Available from: https://smart-energy-analytics.org/
19
Organizational:
3. Successful implementation of AFDD can be slowed by a need to diverge from existing
business practices and norms. While the costs are modest compared to capital projects
and can be quickly recovered, decision makers must buy in to an increase in operation
and maintenance expenses and be willing to manage a certain degree of risk. Translation
of information into action requires allocation of resources for staff time and training to
act upon on identified fixes; it also requires effective operational response processes.

Technical:
4. While improving, IT and data integration represent one of the largest barriers to scale. It
is complex, expensive and crosses organizational business units, and communications
infrastructures are not easily leveraged for installation of analytics technologies.
5. Once data is accessible through cross-system integration, it must be interpreted for use
in analytic applications. The current lack of common standards in data, metadata, and
semantic representation also poses difficulties in scaling.
6. Similar to many efficiency solutions, today’s AFDD offerings can be difficult and expensive
to apply in smaller commercial buildings. Smaller facilities do not commonly have building
automation systems or energy management staff and present much tighter payback
constraints due to smaller energy expenditures.

A number of academic, industry, utility, and federal efforts are seeking to address these barriers.
These collective efforts are far too varied and numerous to comprehensively describe, however,
a few examples from current work sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) are
provided as an illustration.
• The University of New Haven is conducting a public-facing field evaluation 5 of
approximately 10 AFDD solutions to quantify technology costs and benefits, and is
partnering with the utility community to inform the development of incentive programs
for scaled regional deployment.
• The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is conducting early-stage development
of AFDD solutions for small commercial facilities that are based on simulation modeling
and smart meter data.6
• Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) is administering the Smart Energy
Analytics Campaign 7 to provide technical assistance to AFDD and other analytics users,
track gaps and benefits, and synthesize barriers.

5 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Department of Energy announces
scaling up the next generation of building efficiency packages funding awards [Internet]. 2017 [accessed on August
29, 2017]. Available from: https://energy.gov/eere/buildings/articles/department-energy-announces-scaling-next-
generation-building-efficiency
6 Frank, S., et al. 2016. Hybrid model-based and data-driven fault detection and diagnostics for commercial buildings.

Proceedings of the 2016 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings.

7 Smart Energy Analytics Campaign. Smart Energy Analytics Campaign [Internet]. 2017 [accessed on August 29, 2017].

Available from: https://smart-energy-analytics.org/

20
 • LBNL and NREL are conducting public-facing multi-site field evaluations of technologies
for rooftop unit AFDD and combined FDD/HVAC optimization.8 Performance results are
intended to inform the market at large, with a particular focus on public and private sector
portfolio owners.

AFDD has matured significantly since its first introduction into commercial buildings. Based on
information gathered through this survey and discussion with both vendors and users, several
opportunities emerge to further advance the technology. Some of these are technical
development challenges, and some strongly tied to the interplay between market demand and
business choices concerning standardization and interoperability.

Continued development of algorithms that include machine learning and other promising
techniques could reduce tuning needs, simplify configuration, and enhance diagnostic power.
Following the trends in other industries, there is also potential to move beyond fault diagnostics
into controls optimization, prognostics, and predictive maintenance. Integration of physics-based
models to complement data-driven approaches holds promise to increase diagnostic power and
support predictive analytics.

Machine-to-machine integration presents further opportunity for advancement. For example,

truly pervasive “plug-and-play” functionality is still being developed, as are solutions to
automatically extract and semantically interpret data across diverse systems and data types. The
ability to interface AFDD tools with computerized maintenance management systems (CMMS) is
just beginning to be explored, and will streamline the process of operationalizing action-taking
based on the findings from analytics tools. Similarly, the practice of energy management will be
enhanced through an ability to more tightly couple today’s disparate systems and platforms with
more pervasive data and connectivity for controls optimization, FDD, site and portfolio meter
analytics, and operations and asset management. While an “all in one” tool is not likely, nor
necessarily optimal, some convergence for users would be beneficial.

Finally, there are gains to be achieved through the development of corrective and adaptive
controls, in combination with tool chains that can ensure that operational design intent is
correctly implemented and maintained over the duration of the operational stage in the building
lifecycle.

8 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. BuildingIQ Inc: Predictive Energy
Optimization [Internet]. 2017 [accessed on August 29, 2017]. Available from:
https://energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/buildingiq-inc-predictive-energy-optimization

21
Appendix

Table 1 summarizes aspects of market delivery for each tool surveyed, and Table 2 summarizes their AFDD technical capabilities and additional
software features.

Table 1. Market delivery aspects of each tool surveyed

Tool name Company Building type of Building Software Purchase model Intended Software Data sources Data FDD Notification of
markets served size of location users configuration ownership method findings
markets tailoring
served
SkySpark SkyFoundry Hospital, Outpat. Large, Cloud hosted, One time FDD vendor, Third-party BAS real-time End- Manual Software user
(platform) Health., Hotel, Office, Medium, Desktop purchase with Site staff, provider; Site and historical customer interface, Service
Restaurant, Retail, Small computer or maintenance Third-party staff data, Equipment with periodic
Supermarket, College other device, included; SaaS provider on- reports,
and Univ, Controller- through partners board/internal Automated
K-12 Ed, Warehouse embedded measures, notifications
External meters
and sensors
SkySpark CBRE|ESI Hospital, Office, Retail, Large, Locally hosted SaaS. Optional Site staff, Third-party BAS real-time End- Manual Software user
(implementn.) Supermarket, College Medium server, Cloud updates and Third-party provider and historical customer, interface, Service
and Univ, hosted maintenance provider data, External FDD vendor, with periodic
K-12 Ed after first year meters and Third-party reports,
sensors provider Automated
notifications
True Analytics Ecorithm Multi-fam., Hospital, Large Cloud hosted SaaS. Updates Site staff, FDD vendor, BAS real-time End- Manual and Software user
Hotel, Office, College and Third-party Third-party and historical customer Automated interface, Service
and Univ, K-12 Ed, maintenance provider provider data with periodic
Warehouse included reports
Clockworks KGS Multi-fam., Hospital, Large, Cloud-hosted SaaS. Updates FDD vendor, FDD vendor, BAS real-time End- Manual Software user
Outpat. Health., Hotel, Medium (via platform- and maintenance Site staff, Third-party and historical customer interface, Service
Office, Retail, as-a-service) included Third-party provider data, External with periodic
Supermarket, College provider meters and reports,
and Univ, sensors Automated
K-12 Ed, Warehouse notifications

22
Tool name Company Building type of Building Software Purchase model Intended Software Data sources Data FDD Notification of
markets served size of location users configuration ownership method findings
markets tailoring
served
Kaizen CopperTree Multi-fam., Hospital, Large, Cloud hosted SaaS. Use FDD vendor, FDD vendor, BAS real-time End- Manual and Software user
Analytics Outpat. Health., Hotel, Medium, partners as Site staff, Third-party and historical customer Automated interface, Service
Office, Restaurant, Small value-added Third-party provider data, External with periodic
Retail, Supermarket, resell distributers provider meters and reports,
College and Univ, Updates and sensors Automated
K-12 Ed, Warehouse maintenance notifications
included
BuildPulse BuildPulse Inc. Hospital, Outpat. Large, Cloud hosted SaaS. Updates FDD vendor, Third-party BAS real-time End- Manual and Software user
Health., Hotel, Office, Medium and maintenance Site staff, provider, Site data, External customer Automated interface, Service
Retail, College and included Third-party staff meters and with periodic
Univ, K-12 Ed provider sensors reports,
Automated
notifications
Analytika Cimetrics Hospital, Outpat. Large, Cloud hosted SaaS. Updates FDD vendor, FDD vendor BAS real-time End- Manual and Software user
Health., Hotel, Office, Medium and maintenance Site staff, and historical customer Automated interface, Service
Supermarket, College included Third-party data, External with periodic
and Univ, provider meters and reports,
K-12 Ed, Warehouse, sensors Automated
Mfg Facilities notifications
Niagara Tridium Multi-fam., Hospital, Large, Locally hosted One time FDD vendor, FDD vendor, BAS real-time End- Manual and Software user
Analytics 2.0 Outpat. Health., Hotel, Medium, server, Cloud purchase with Site staff, Third-party and historical customer Automated interface,
Office, Restaurant, Small hosted, optional updates Third-party provider data, Equipment Automated
Retail, Supermarket, Controller- and maintenance provider on- notifications
College and Univ, embedded board/internal
K-12 Ed, Warehouse, measures,
Data Centers, Mfg External meters
Facilities and sensors
IntelliCommand JLL Hospital, Outpat. Large, Cloud hosted SaaS. Updates Site staff, FDD vendor BAS real-time End- Manual Software user
Health., Hotel, Office, Medium and maintenance Third-party and historical customer interface, Service
Retail, Supermarket, included provider data, External with periodic
College and Univ, meters and reports,
K-12 Ed, Warehouse, sensors Automated
Data Centers, Mfg notifications
Facilities

23
Tool name Company Building type of Building Software Purchase model Intended Software Data sources Data FDD Notification of
markets served size of location users configuration ownership method findings
markets tailoring
served
Balance EEI Multi-fam, Hospital, Large, Cloud hosted SaaS. Updates FDD vendor, FDD vendor, BAS real-time End- Manual Software user
Outpat. Health., Hotel, Medium and maintenance Site staff, Third-party and historical customer, interface, Service
Office, Restaurant, included. Third-party provider, Site data, External FDD vendor with periodic
Retail, Supermarket, provider staff meters and reports
College and Univ, sensors
K-12 Ed, Warehouse,
Data Centers, Mfg
Facilities
Facility Analytix ICONICS Hospital, Outpat. Large Locally hosted One-time Site staff, FDD vendor, BAS real-time End- Manual Software user
Health., Hotel, Office, server, Cloud purchase or SaaS. Third-party Third-party and historical customer interface, Service
Restaurant, Retail, hosted Maintenance provider provider, Site data, External with periodic
Supermarket, College included, staff meters and reports,
and Univ, updates optional sensors Automated
K-12 Ed, Warehouse, notifications
Data Centers, Mfg
Facilities
eIQ Transformativ Hospital, Outpat. Large, Cloud hosted SaaS. Updates FDD vendor, FDD vendor, BAS real-time End- Manual Software user
e Wave Health., Hotel, Office, Medium, and maintenance Site staff, Third-party and historical customer interface,
Restaurant, Retail, Small included Third-party provider, Site data, External Automated
Supermarket, College provider staff meters and notifications
and Univ, sensors
K-12 Ed, Warehouse,
Data Centers, Mfg
Facilities
ClimaCheck ClimaCheck Multi-fam, Hospital, Large, Locally hosted Onsite: One-time FDD vendor, Third-party BAS real-time End- Manual and Software user
Onsite/ Outpat. Health., Hotel, Medium, server, Cloud purchase. Site staff, provider, Site data, External customer Automated interface, Service
ClimaCheck Office, Restaurant, Small hosted, Desktop Optional updates Third-party staff meters and with periodic
Online Retail, Supermarket, computer or provider sensors reports,
College and Univ, other device Online: Updates Automated
K-12 Ed, Warehouse, and maintenance notifications
Data Centers, Mfg included.
Facilities
HVAC Service Field Multi-fam, Outpat. Large, Cloud hosted, One-time Site staff, Equipment on- End- Manual Software user
Assistant, SA Diagnostic Health., Hotel, Office, Medium, Desktop purchase or SaaS. Third-party board/internal customer interface, Service
Mobile, Services Restaurant, Retail, Small computer or Updates included provider measures, with periodic
Onboard Supermarket, K-12 Ed, other device, External meters reports,
controller Warehouse, Data Controller- and sensors Automated
Centers embedded notifications

24
Table 2. Technical capabilities and additional features of each tool surveyed

Tool name Company Systems covered Categories of faults detectable Methods/algorithms Detection and Additional functionality
diagnosis
capabilities
SkySpark SkyFoundry AC/HP, Chillers & Sensor errors, Energy consumption, Econ. & Rule-based. Platform Fault presence, Equip degradation, Fault prioritization, Auto
towers, AHU & VAV, vent., Pressurization issues, Com. refrig., supports full location, work order, Energy impacts, Energy cost
FCU, Com. refrig., Space Clg./Htg., Htg. system, Clg. system, programmability of rules severity, impacts, Other cost impacts, Meter data
Lighting, Equip cycling, Pump & fan systems, and includes machine root cause analytics, Time series visualization, KPI
Boilers/furnace, Scheduling, Sim. htg. & clg., Lighting or other learning functions for tracking and reporting, Benchmarking, Cost
Water heaters, end uses use in FDD algorithms. of resolution and payback
Whole-building
SkySpark CBRE|ESI AC/HP, Chillers & Sensor errors, Energy consumption, Econ. & Rule-based Fault presence, Equip degradation, Fault prioritization, Auto
(implementn.) towers, AHU & VAV, vent., Pressurization issues, Space Clg./Htg., location, work order, Energy impacts, Energy cost
FCU, Lighting, Htg. system, Clg. system, Equip cycling, Pump severity, impacts, Meter data analytics, Time series
Boilers/furnace, & fan systems, Scheduling, Sim. htg. & clg., root cause visualization, KPI tracking and reporting,
Whole-building Lighting or other end uses Benchmarking, Cost of resolution and
payback
True Analytics Ecorithm AC/HP, Chillers & Sensor errors, Energy consumption, Econ. & Qual. Model-based, Fault presence, Equip degradation, Fault prioritization,
towers, AHU & VAV, vent., Pressurization issues, Com. refrig., Rule-based, Expert location, Energy impacts, Meter data analytics, Time
FCU, Com. refrig., Space Clg./Htg., Htg. system, Clg. system, Systems, First Principles- severity, series visualization, KPI tracking and
Lighting, Equip cycling, Pump & fan systems, based, Machine learning root cause reporting, Benchmarking
Boilers/furnace, Scheduling, Sim. htg. & clg., Lighting or other techniques, fast-
Water heaters, end uses sampling algorithms,
Whole-building and the spectral
method.
Clockworks KGS AC/HP, Chillers & Sensor errors, Energy consumption, Econ. & Simplified Physical Fault presence, Equip degradation, Fault prioritization, Auto
towers, AHU & VAV, vent., Pressurization issues, Com. refrig., Models, Expert Systems, location, work order, Energy impacts, Energy cost
FCU, Com. refrig., Space Clg./Htg., Htg. system, Clg. system, First Principles-based, severity, impacts, Meter data analytics, Time series
Lighting, Equip cycling, Pump & fan systems, Limits and Alarms, root cause visualization, KPI tracking and reporting,
Boilers/furnace, Scheduling, Sim. htg. & clg., Lighting or other Statistical Benchmarking
Water heaters, end uses
Whole-building

25
Tool name Company Systems covered Categories of faults detectable Methods/algorithms Detection and Additional functionality
diagnosis
capabilities
Kaizen CopperTree AC/HP, Chillers & Sensor errors, Energy consumption, Econ. & Rule-based. Includes an Fault presence, Equip degradation, Fault prioritization, Auto
Analytics towers, AHU & VAV, vent., Pressurization issues, Com. refrig., open library of rules for location, work order, Energy impacts, Energy cost
FCU, Com. refrig., Space Clg./Htg., Htg. system, Clg. system, users to download, severity, impacts, Other cost impacts, Meter data
Lighting, Equip cycling, Pump & fan systems, publish and share root cause analytics, Time series visualization, KPI
Boilers/furnace, Scheduling, Sim. htg. & clg., Lighting or other tracking and reporting
Water heaters, end uses
Whole-building
BuildPulse BuildPulse Inc. AC/HP, Chillers & Sensor errors, Energy consumption, Econ. & Rule-based, Qualitative Fault presence, Equip degradation, Fault prioritization, Auto
towers, AHU & VAV, vent., Pressurization issues, Space Clg./Htg., model location, work order, Energy impacts, Energy cost
FCU, Lighting, Htg. system, Clg. system, Equip cycling, Pump severity, impacts, Other cost impacts, Meter data
Boilers/furnace, & fan systems, Scheduling, Sim. htg. & clg., root cause analytics, Time series visualization, KPI
Water heaters, Lighting or other end uses tracking and reporting, Benchmarking, Cost
Whole-building of resolution and payback
Analytika Cimetrics AC/HP, Chillers & Sensor errors, Energy consumption, Econ. & Quant. Model-based, Fault presence, Equip degradation, Fault prioritization, Auto
towers, AHU & VAV, vent., Pressurization issues, Com. refrig., Qual. Model-based, location, work order, Energy impacts, Energy cost
FCU, Com. refrig., Space Clg./Htg., Htg. system, Clg. system, Rule-based, Expert severity, impacts, Other cost impacts, Meter data
Lighting, Equip cycling, Pump & fan systems, Systems, First Principles- root cause analytics, Time series visualization, KPI
Boilers/furnace, Scheduling, Sim. htg. & clg., Lighting or other based, Limits and tracking and reporting, Benchmarking
Water heaters, end uses Alarms, Process History-
Whole-building based, Black Box,
Statistical, Gray Box
Niagara Tridium AC/HP, Chillers & Sensor errors, Energy consumption, Econ. & Rule-based, Limits and Fault presence, Equip degradation, Fault prioritization, Auto
Analytics 2.0 towers, AHU & VAV, vent., Pressurization issues, Com. refrig., Alarms location, work order, Energy impacts, Energy cost
FCU, Com. refrig., Space Clg./Htg., Htg. system, Clg. system, severity, impacts, Other cost impacts, Meter data
Lighting, Equip cycling, Pump & fan systems, root cause analytics, Time series visualization, KPI
Boilers/furnace, Scheduling, Sim. htg. & clg., Lighting or other tracking and reporting, Cost of resolution
Water heaters, end uses and payback
Whole-building
IntelliCommand JLL AC/HP, Chillers & Sensor errors, Energy consumption, Econ. & Rule-based, Limits and Fault presence, Equip degradation, Fault prioritization, Auto
towers, AHU & VAV, vent., Pressurization issues, Space Clg./Htg., Alarms, Statistical, Other location, work order, Energy impacts, Energy cost
FCU, Com. refrig., Htg. system, Clg. system, Equip cycling, Pump Pattern Recognition severity, impacts, Other cost impacts, Meter data
Lighting, & fan systems, Scheduling, Sim. htg. & clg., Techniques root cause analytics, Time series visualization, KPI
Boilers/furnace, Lighting or other end uses tracking and reporting
Whole-building

26
Tool name Company Systems covered Categories of faults detectable Methods/algorithms Detection and Additional functionality
diagnosis
capabilities
Balance EEI AC/HP, Chillers & Sensor errors, Energy consumption, Econ. & Rule-based, Expert Fault presence, Equip degradation, Fault prioritization, Auto
towers, AHU & VAV, vent., Pressurization issues, Com. refrig., Systems, First-Principles location, work order, Energy impacts, Energy cost
FCU, Com. refrig., Space Clg./Htg., Htg. system, Clg. system, Based severity impacts, Other cost impacts, Meter data
Lighting, Equip cycling, Pump & fan systems, analytics, Time series visualization, KPI
Boilers/furnace, Scheduling, Sim. htg. & clg., Lighting or other tracking and reporting, Cost of resolution
Water heaters, end uses and payback
Whole-building
Facility Analytix ICONICS AC/HP, Chillers & Sensor errors, Energy consumption, Econ. & Rule-based, First Fault presence, Fault prioritization, Auto work order, Energy
towers, AHU & VAV, vent., Pressurization issues, Com. refrig., Principles-based, Limits location, impacts, Energy cost impacts, Other cost
FCU, Com. refrig., Space Clg./Htg., Htg. system, Clg. system, and Alarms severity, impacts, Meter data analytics, Time series
Lighting, Equip cycling, Pump & fan systems, root cause visualization, KPI tracking and reporting
Boilers/furnace, Scheduling, Sim. htg. & clg., Lighting or other
Water heaters, end uses
Whole-building
eIQ Transformative AC/HP Sensor errors, Energy consumption, Econ. & Rule-based, Expert Fault presence, Fault prioritization, Energy impacts, Energy
Wave vent., Pressurization issues, Space Clg./Htg., Systems, Limits and location, cost impacts, Time series visualization
Htg. system, Pump & fan systems, Sim. htg. & Alarms root cause
clg.
ClimaCheck ClimaCheck AC/HP, Chillers & Sensor errors, Energy consumption, Econ. & Thermodynamic Fault presence, Equip degradation, Energy impacts, Energy
Onsite/ towers, AHU & VAV, vent., Com. refrig., Space Clg./Htg., Htg. Evaluation, Energy location, cost impacts, Time series visualization, KPI
ClimaCheck FCU, Com. refrig. system, Clg. system, Equip cycling, Pump & Signatures severity, tracking and reporting
Online fan systems, Scheduling, Sim. htg. & clg., root cause
Lighting or other end uses
HVAC Service Field Diagnostic AC/HP, AHU & VAV, Sensor errors, Energy consumption, Space Fault presence, Equip degradation, Fault prioritization, Auto
Assistant, SA Services FCU Clg./Htg. location, work order
Mobile, Onboard severity,
controller root cause

27