Healthy and Faulty Experimental Performance of A T

Article
Healthy and Faulty Experimental Performance of a Typical

HVAC System under Italian Climatic Conditions: Artificial
Neural Network-Based Model and Fault Impact Assessment
Antonio Rosato 1,*, Francesco Guarino 1, Sergio Sibilio 1, Evgueniy Entchev 2, Massimiliano Masullo 1
and Luigi Maffei 1
1 Department of Architecture and Industrial Design, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli,

Via San Lorenzo 4, 81031 Aversa, Italy; [email protected] (F.G.);
[email protected] (S.S.); [email protected] (M.M.);
[email protected] (L.M.)
2 Natural Resources Canada, CanmetENERGY, 1 Haanel Drive, Ottawa, ON K1A 1M1, Canada;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +39-081-501-0845
Abstract: The heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system serving the test room of the
SENS i-Lab of the Department of Architecture and Industrial Design of the University of Campania
Luigi Vanvitelli (Aversa, south of Italy) has been experimentally investigated through a series of
tests performed during both summer and winter under both normal and faulty scenarios. In partic-
ular, five distinct typical faults have been artificially implemented in the HVAC system and ana-
Citation: Rosato, A.; Guarino, F.; lyzed during transient and steady-state operation. An optimal artificial neural network-based sys-
Sibilio, S.; Entchev, E.; Masullo, M.; tem model has been created in the MATLAB platform and verified by contrasting the experimental
Maffei, L. Healthy and Faulty data with the predictions of twenty-two different neural network architectures. The selected artifi-
Experimental Performance of a cial neural network architecture has been coupled with a dynamic simulation model developed by
Typical HVAC System under Italian using the TRaNsient SYStems (TRNSYS) software platform with the main aims of (i) making avail-
Climatic Conditions: Artificial
able an experimental dataset characterized by labeled normal and faulty data covering a wide range
Neural Networks-based Model and
of operating and climatic conditions; (ii) providing an accurate simulation tool able to generate op-
Faults’ Impact Assessment. Energies
eration data for assisting further research in fault detection and diagnosis of HVAC units; and (iii)
2021, 14, 5362. https://doi.org/
evaluating the impact of selected faults on occupant indoor thermo-hygrometric comfort, temporal
10.3390/en14175362
trends of key operating system parameters, and electric energy consumptions.
Academic Editor: Chi-Ming Lai
Keywords: HVAC system; air-handling unit; experimental performance; artificial neural network;
Received: 21 July 2021 simulation model; faults’ impact assessment
Accepted: 25 August 2021
Published: 28 August 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu- 1. Introduction

tral with regard to jurisdictional
The building sector contributes to approximately 40% of overall energy demand in
claims in published maps and institu-
industrialized countries, with Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) sys-
tional affiliations.
tems accounting for a large part of this energy consumption [1,2]. Several scientific publi-
cations have discussed the application of efficient/innovative technologies [3] and/or op-
timal control strategies [4] with the aim of reducing the energy demand and related green-
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Li-
house gas emissions of HVAC units. However, HVAC systems could be exposed to vari-
censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. ous abnormal faults during operation as a consequence of a failure of components, lack
This article is an open access article of correct maintenance, or wrong installation. Each component of HVAC systems can be
distributed under the terms and con- eventually altered by a fault, where a fault is an anomalous state of the system, i.e., an
ditions of the Creative Commons At- undesired divergence of at least one of the properties of the HVAC unit with respect to
tribution (CC BY) license (http://crea- healthy/standard conditions [5]. The faults can involve sensors, devices, equipment, and
tivecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). controllers [5]. A study conducted on more than 55,000 Air Handling Units (AHUs)
Energies 2021, 14, 5362. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14175362 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2021, 14, 5362 2 of 42
showed that up to 90% runs with one or multiple faults [6]. Lin et al. [7] underlined that
an effective detection of faults in HVAC units could save from 15% to 30% of overall en-
ergy required by buildings. In addition, Au-Yong et al. [8] highlighted a relevant impact
of poor maintenance of HVAC systems on indoor thermo-hygrometric comfort, identify-
ing several maintenance factors significantly correlated with occupants’ satisfaction. This
means that adopting a proper maintenance strategy is fundamental. Companies generally
adopt a reactive maintenance or a preventive maintenance. Repairs are carried out only
in the case of failures when a reactive maintenance is adopted; this approach could be
expensive and may cause safety issues. In the case of a preventive maintenance, systems
are examined and maintained at given periods (whatever their state is); however, this ap-
proach requires identifying a proper maintenance schedule in order to not waste compo-
nent life that is still profitable as well as avoid safety problems.
1.1. Automated Fault Detection and Diagnosis Methods for HVAC Systems
Critical points of reactive and preventive maintenance approaches underline how
“predicting” the faults of HVAC units could be essential. This task could be performed by
means of the so-called Automated Fault Detection and Diagnosis (AFDD), which is an
automated process of detecting faults and diagnosing the type of problem and/or its loca-
tion [5,7,9]. It could be adopted to take advantage of potentialities associated to building
energy management systems in quasi-real-time by comparing expected behavior with ac-
tual performance over a predefined period. AFDD technologies can provide numerous
benefits, such as improved operational efficiency, energy savings, reductions of utility
costs, as well as reduced equipment downtime [5,7,9]. Although currently underutilized,
AFDD products represent one of the most active research areas as well as a very fast-
growing market section in the sector of building analytics technologies [10]. The method-
ologies adopted for carrying out AFDD analyses can be categorized as (i) data-driven-
based, (ii) quantitative model-based, and (iii) qualitative model-based [5]. The first cate-
gory needs pre-labeled operational data acquired from the system under investigation in
order to the develop AFDD models; data-driven AFDD approaches achieved promising
results thanks to their applicability even in the case of simulation models are challenging
to be developed [5,10]. The quantitative model-based approach relates to the methods in-
volving simulation models physically describing the system at different levels of detail.
Finally, the qualitative models are based on the knowledge of the system deriving from
area expertise.
Nowadays, buildings are equipped with numerous sensors used for their energy
management. In addition, innovative devices are allowed to connect occupancy sensors,
power meters, and appliances that collect data in order to derive information with the aim
of taking data-driven actions. In this context, the integration of artificial intelligence tech-
nologies (that highlighted fast advancements in last years), including both unsupervised
and supervised algorithms [5,11], is particularly encouraging due to the fact that they
could allow to improve self-diagnosis capabilities and optimize energy management sys-
tems. In particular, an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) represents a kind of artificial in-
telligence that simulates the operation of the human brain; it can learn from training data
and replicate the trends of data time series, approximating nonlinear relationships be-
tween inputs and outputs of advanced energy systems without involving explicit mathe-
matical representations [11]. The data-driven approach integrating artificial intelligence
[5,12,13], with respect to the other methods, allows (i) achieving higher accuracy of fault
detection and diagnosis; (ii) learning patterns from field data without involving physical
models as well as needing an a priori knowledge of connections among faults and associ-
ated symptoms; and (iii) performing AFDD analyses considering a restricted number of
variables and, therefore, limiting the number of sensors. In more detail, supervised ap-
proaches use the domain knowledge with the aim of developing a prediction tool, while
the unsupervised methods get out concealed knowledge without a predefined goal
[5,12,13]. Supervised models are mainly based on the implementation of residual analyses
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 3 of 42
to perform an AFDD process [5,14,15], where a residual is the difference between the pre-
dicted and the experimental values of a specific parameter.
Several studies focusing on supervised techniques for AFDD of HVAC systems are
reported in the scientific literature. Piscitelli et al. [5] suggested an innovative AFDD
method based on both unsupervised and supervised data-driven approaches by consid-
ering the operational data of an AHU recorded during steady-state and transient periods.
Dehestani et al. [16] suggested a methodology based on a multi-class support vector ma-
chine with the aim of identifying faults related to air dampers and fans of AHUs. A Bayes-
ian network was considered in [17,18] for diagnosing faults associated to air dampers,
return fan failure, and cooling coil valve; the network exploited as inputs the residuals
derived from a set of statistical models and checking rules. Mulumba et al. [19] suggested
a method to predict the occurrence of faults related to return air fan, air dampers, and
cooling coil valve by means of a support vector machine combined with an autoregressive
model. Yan et al. [20] presented a mixing of two supervised methods to detect blockage
of coil valves and air dampers, return air fan failure, and duct leakage; a classification tree
has been developed using as inputs both field data and residuals derived from a regres-
sion model, while the labels of different faults have been assumed as outputs; the method
described in [20] can be helpful in performing AFDD analyses without considering tran-
sient operation of HVAC systems. McHugh et al. [21] compared several classification
models for AFDD and the classification tree model was identified as the best option for
chilled water or steam leakage.
1.2. Novelty and Structure of the Paper

The literature review performed in the previous subsection demonstrates how the
scientific community is engaged in the research area of artificial intelligence techniques-
based AFDD for HVAC units. According to the authors of [1,7,22], even if AFDD is an
effective approach to guarantee an efficient operation of HVAC systems and associated
technology is growing, it is still in the initial stage of utilization. This means that additional
investigations are still mandatory in order to address several research gaps.
First, the architecture of sensors in HVAC units is usually not designed with AFDD
in mind, and therefore some important variables are generally not measured causing a
lack of labeled data. Moreover, measurements under faulty conditions are even more chal-
lenging to be obtained due to the uncommon faults’ occurrence as well as the inconven-
ience of implementing faults into complex and expensive devices with the purpose of col-
lecting data [23]. In addition, relatively few studies give detailed information on how
faults are empirically introduced into an existing HVAC system [5,24]; almost all the
works only take into account one HVAC operating mode under different weather scenar-
ios [5,24]. Lin et al. [7] highlighted that there is a need of standard datasets for assessing
the accuracy of AFDD methods and future AFDD studies should focus on the expansion
of databases as well as their provision for public use. Granderson et al. [25] also under-
lined that it is unusual to find datasets characterized by labeled data clearly indicating
whether they represent faulty, healthy, or simply unusual operating states. Finally, Casil-
las et al. [26] indicated that one of the most important challenges of researches focusing
on AFDD methods is represented by the insufficiency of shared databases to benchmark
the performance of algorithms with the aim of assessing improvements and prioritizing
future investments in these methods. With reference to this point, it should be highlighted
that most of AFDD studies are based on the ASHRAE RP-1312 data set [24] (dated 2011)
consisting of measurements recorded every minute from an experimental set-up compris-
ing two AHUs; recently, Piscitelli et al. [5], Yun et al. [27], as well as Fan et al. [28] proposed
novel methodologies for performing AFDD analyses of AHUs based on the ASHRAE RP-
1312 data set [24]. Therefore, as also suggested by Hu et al. [23], additional researches are
required in order to obtain more experimental data under both normal and faulty opera-
tion considering the occurrence of a number of different faults upon varying the boundary
conditions.
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 4 of 42
One more research gap associated with the application of AFDD analyses is related
to the fact that not many studies quantitatively examine how various faults and fault se-
verities impact energy consumption, user comfort, maintenance cost, and equipment life
cycle [6]. This point represents a demanding task taking into account that (i) several faults
could have comparable symptoms and (ii) faults of AHUs could interact each other and,
therefore, it could be challenging to isolate multiple faults of AHUs [1,24]. According to
the authors of [7], additional works better characterizing faults’ impact based on field
measurements could prove valuable in addressing future developments and implemen-
tation attempts of AFDD techniques. Piscitelli et al. [5] also indicated that the majority of
AFDD applications are used for detecting and/or diagnosing faults of HVAC units during
steady-state operation, and therefore they could not be effectively used with reference to
transient periods because they are not fully able to automatically determine the system
operation mode and prevent false alarms. In this context, accurate simulation models of
HVAC units can provide significant benefits for performing AFDD analyses taking into
account that they could help in quantifying faults’ impact on both energy demand and
occupant comfort and, therefore, supporting corrective actions which can facilitate more
reliable commissioning decisions, more efficient system operation, improved indoor con-
ditions, and prolonged equipment service life [29]. However, according to the authors of
[30,31], most existing simulation models of HVAC systems assume normal/healthy con-
ditions without any operational faults and do not capture the significant impact of faults
on energy consumption and indoor comfort conditions. In addition, Zhang and Hong [31]
highlighted that modeling activities of HVAC systems operating under faulty conditions
are still insufficient mostly due to the fact that several fault-related researches focus on
single subcomponent operation rather than whole system performance and, conse-
quently, they cannot predict the comprehensive faults’ impact.
One additional knowledge gap to be underlined relates to the fact that models of
HVAC units developed for AFDD purposes should be fully validated via extensive com-
parisons with experimental data under both faulty and normal conditions as well as dif-
ferent boundary scenarios. However, comparative analyses against field measurements
are usually not performed for validation purposes mainly because, as mentioned above,
accurate experimental datasets, covering a wide range of operating conditions and includ-
ing faulty data, are not generally available. For example, Zhang and Hong [31] introduced
a methodology for modeling operational faults of HVAC units by using a comprehensive
whole-building performance simulation program; impacts of faults with reference to a
small-size office building have been investigated in [31], but a validation process against
experimental data has not been carried out; similarly, Basarkar et al. [30] assessed the ef-
fects of four typical faults on the HVAC unit serving a commercial reference building by
means of a simulation program; the results of comparisons between predictions and field
measures have not been reported in the paper in order to check the models’ accuracy.
In this paper, the operation of the HVAC system assisting the integrated test room of
the SENS i-Lab of the Department of Architecture and Industrial Design of the University
of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli (located in Aversa, south of Italy) has been experimentally
characterized on the basis of a series of tests performed during both summer and winter
under both normal and faulty operating conditions (transient and non-transient). In par-
ticular, five different typical faults (affecting the supply/return air fans, the valve supply-
ing the heating coil, the valve supplying the cooling coil, and the valve supplying the
steam humidifier) have been artificially implemented in the HVAC system and analyzed
during transient and steady-state operation. An optimal artificial neural network-based
system model has been identified and verified by contrasting the experimental data with
the predictions of twenty-two different neural network architectures developed in the
MATLAB environment [32]; the selected artificial neural network has been coupled with
a dynamic simulation model developed using the TRaNsient SYStems (TRNSYS) software
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 5 of 42
platform (version 17) [33]. The effect of selected faults on occupant indoor comfort, tem-
poral trends of key operating system parameters, as well as electric energy consumptions
has been assessed.
This paper addresses several research gaps highlighted by the literature review fo-
cusing on AFDD applications to HVAC systems. In fact, the dataset described in this arti-
cle includes fault free and faulty operational data of a typical HVAC unit, coupled with
ground-truth information and the indication of absence or presence of faults. In addition,
this dataset covers a wide range of operating scenarios (both transient and steady-state)
and weather conditions while encompassing five typical fault types. Moreover, a whole-
system simulation model using both MATLAB and TRSNSYS environments has been cre-
ated and extensively validated by contrasting predicted data with measurements; then, it
has been used to discover a number of patterns related to the faulty system operation and
assess the impacts of selected typical faults. Both the labeled measured data as well as the
developed simulation models will be made available on a public data repository allowing
access, consultation, and utilization to readers and organizations for institutional and re-
search purposes.
The paper consists of six main sections. In Section 2, the experimental setup is de-
tailed. Section 3 describes the investigated faults as well as the experimental results of
both fault free and faulty tests. A detailed outline of the simulation model is reported in
Section 4. An assessment of faults’ impact is performed and discussed in Section 5. Finally,
the conclusions and future research steps are indicated in Section 6.
2. Description of the Experimental Setup

The SENS i-Lab is a multi-sensorial laboratory of the Department of Architecture and
Industrial Design of the University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli (Aversa, southern Italy,
longitude: 14°12′26″ E, latitude: 40°58′21″ N). The SENS i-Lab consists of a human-cen-
tered, multi-physical, and multi-purpose test room served by an HVAC system, including
a single duct dual-fan constant air volume (CAV) air handling unit, controlling indoor air
temperature, indoor air relative humidity, indoor air velocity, and indoor air quality. The
test room has a floor area of 16.0 m2 (its height is 3.6 m) and four vertical walls (without
windows and one door); both the ceiling and floor are horizontal. It is installed inside the
Department, so that its indoor conditions are not directly affected by external climatic
conditions. Table A1 in Appendix A describes the material, thickness, thermal conductiv-
ity, conductive thermal resistance of each layer composing the walls, the ceiling, and the
floor of the integrated test room.
A CAV AHU is commonly used in buildings; it is more common in existing old build-
ings or small new buildings, while in new medium/large buildings variable air volume
(VAV) AHUs are the common choice of installation. In the case of CAV AHUs, volumetric
flow rate of supply air is constant, while its supply temperature and relative humidity are
varying. With respect to VAV AHUs, CAV AHUs are easier, cheaper, and quicker to in-
stall, but they are less efficient and with higher lifetime running costs. The AHU of the
SENS i-Lab consists of these main functional subcomponents: return air fan (RAF); supply
air fan (SAF); pre-heating coil (PreHC); post-heating coil (PostHC); cooling coil (CC);
steam humidifier (HUM); static cross-flow heat recovery system (HRS); vapor compres-
sion air-to-water single-stage electric refrigerating system (RS) connected with the cooling
coil; vapor-compression air-to-water single-stage electric heat pump (HP) connected with
the pre-heating coil and the post-heating coil; valves (VPreHC, VPostHC, VCC, VHUM) controlling
the flow rate of heat carrier fluid entering, respectively, the pre-heating coil, the post-heat-
ing coil, the cooling coil and the steam humidifier; return air damper (DRA); outside air
damper (DOA); exhaust air damper (DEA); damper of the HRS (DHRS); return air filter (RA-
Fil); outside air filter (OAFil); supply air filter (SAFil). Two 0.08 × 0.18 cm2 air grilles are
mounted on the south-oriented wall at floor level and two 0.08 × 0.18 cm2 air grilles are
mounted on the north-oriented wall at floor level with the aim of extracting air from in-
door space to be moved into the AHU; a 0.60 × 0.60 cm2 swirl diffuser acting as supply air
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 6 of 42
grille is mounted on the ceiling of the test room. Figure 1 reports the scheme of the AHU
together with its main components.
Figure 1. Air handling unit scheme.
Figure A1 of Appendix A shows the floor plan of the test room including the AHU,
together with the refrigerating system (RS), the heat pump (HP), as well as the return and
supply air ducts. Table 1 indicates the characteristics of the functional components of the
HVAC serving the SENS i-Lab. The system fulfills the requirements prescribed by the
Ecodesign Directive 1253/2014 [34] introduced by the European Union in order to support
the diffusion of energy efficient AHUs. The HVAC unit is equipped with a number of
sensors to observe and register the key operating system parameters. The measuring
range as well as the accuracy of the sensors are showed in Table 2.
Table 1. Main AHU components’ characteristics.
Maximum number of revolutions per minute (rpm) 3640

Supply air fan (SAF)
Nominal velocity of supply air fan (%) 50
Maximum number of revolutions per minute (rpm) 3080
Return air fan (RAF)
Nominal velocity of return air fan (%) 50
Nominal recovery capacity (kW) 3.1
Cross flow heat recovery system (HRS) Nominal efficiency (%) 74.7
Nominal pressure drops on external/exhaust air side (kPa) 0.047/0.048
Return air filter (RAFil) and outside air
Type/Efficiency class Fluted/G4
filter (OAFil)
Supply air filter (SAFil) Type/Efficiency class Rigid pocket/G4
Diameter (m) 0.25
Return air duct (RAD) and supply air
Supply/Return length (m) 9.8/16.8
duct (SAD)
Thermal resistance of insulating material (m2K/W) 0.25
Nominal heating capacity (kW) 4.1
Pre-heating coil (PreHC) Nominal air/fluid volumetric flow rate (m3/h) 600/0.710
Nominal air/fluid pressure drops (kPa) 0.00321/12.43
Colling coil (CC) Nominal cooling capacity (kW) 5.0
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 7 of 42
Nominal air/fluid volumetric flow rate (m3/h) 600/0.860

Nominal steam capacity (kg/h) 5.0
Steam humidifier (HUM) [35]
Nominal power (kW) 3.7
Nominal heating capacity (kW) 5.0
Post-heating coil (PostHC) Nominal air/fluid volumetric flow rate (m3/h) 600/0.860
Nominal capacity (kW) 14.0
Heat Pump (HP) [36] Nominal input power (kW) 4.75
Nominal heat carrier fluid volumetric flow rate (m3/h) 2.41
Nominal capacity (kW) 13.4
Refrigerating System (RS) [36] Nominal input power (kW) 4.48
Nominal heat carrier fluid volumetric flow rate (m3/h) 2.31
Table 2. Measuring range and the accuracy of the AHU sensors.
Sensor Model Monitored Parameter Measuring Range Accuracy

Return air temperature (TRA) 0 ÷ 50 °C ±0.8 °C
Siemens QFM2160 [37]
Return air relative humidity (RHRA) 0 ÷ 100% ±3%
Supply air temperature (TSA) 0 ÷ 50 °C ±0.8 °C
Siemens QFM2160 [37]
Supply air relative humidity (RHSA) 0 ÷ 100% ±3%
Siemens QAM2161.040 [38] Outside air temperature (TOA) −50 ÷ 50 °C ±0.75 °C
Siemens QAM2161.040 [38] Cooling coil outlet air temperature (TA,out,CC) −50 ÷ 50 °C ±0.75 °C
Temperature of air around the test room (TBEA) −10 ÷ 60 °C ±0.50 °C
TSI 7575, 982 IAQ [39]
Relative humidity of air around the test room (RHBEA) 5 ÷ 95% ±3%
The AHU is operated according to a specific control logic. In particular, the following
parameters are manually set (and eventually modified during the test) by the end users:
(i) the desired targets of both indoor relative humidity (RHSP,Room) and indoor air temper-
ature (TSP,Room) to be reached and maintained into the test room; (ii) the deadband DBT for
TSP,Room and the deadband DBRH for RHSP,Room; (iii) air flow rate of both the supply air fan
(OLSAF) and the return air fan (OLRAF); (iv) opening percentages of the outside air damper
(OPDOA), the return air damper (OPDRA), and the exhaust air damper (OPDEA); and (v) acti-
vation of the heat recovery system damper (OPDHRS). Flow rate of air moved by the supply
air fan can range between 0 (OLSAF = 0%) and 1080 m3/h (OLSAF = 100%), while flow rate of
air moved by the return air fan is between 0 (OLRAF = 0%) and 1460 m3/h (OLRAF = 100%);
the maximum electric consumption of the SAF and RAF are, respectively, 1.22 kW and
0.48 kW. The parameter OPDHRS can be fixed at 100% (no heat recovery) or 0% (heat recov-
ery takes place). The variation range of the parameters OPDRA, OPDOA, and OPDEA is 0÷100%
(100% corresponds to the dampers fully open). Once the previous parameters are manu-
ally set by the end-users, opening percentages of the valves (OPV_PreHC, OPV_PostHC, OPV_CC
and OPV_HUM) are automatically managed in the range 0 ÷ 100% by proportional-integral-
derivative (PID) controllers in order to achieve the indoor desired targets. Opening per-
centages of the valves are continuously regulated between 0% and 100% as a function of
differences between the targets of air temperature and relative humidity into the test room
and their current values. In more detail, volumetric flow rate of fluid streaming inside the
coils can be modulated between 0 and 0.860 m3/h, while flow rate of steam mass of the
steam humidifier can be varied from 0 up to 5 kg/h.
Table 3 reports the main criteria for activating and deactivating the main functional
subsystems of the AHU serving the test room. The pre-heating coil is not included in the
table because this subsystem has been kept deactivated during the entire duration of all
experimental tests. The post-heating coil is activated when return air temperature be-
comes not larger than the temperature difference (TSP,Room − DBT), while it is deactivated in
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 8 of 42
the case of TRA assumes a value not lower than the temperature (TSP,Room + DBT). The cooling
coil is activated when return air temperature becomes not lower than the temperature
(TSP,Room + DBT), while it is deactivated in the case of TRA assumes a value not larger than
the temperature difference (TSP,Room − DBT). The steam humidifier is activated when return
air relative humidity becomes not larger than the air relative humidity difference
(RHSP,Room − DBRH), while it is deactivated in the case of RHRA assumes a value not lower
than the air relative humidity (RHSP,Room + DBRH). The heat pump is activated when tem-
perature into the hot tank THT is lower than 44 °C, while it is deactivated in the case of THT
assumes a value not lower than 46 °C. The refrigerating device is activated when the tem-
perature into the cold tank TCT is larger than 8 °C, while it is deactivated in the case that
TCT assumes a value not larger than 6 °C. The signals managing the opening percentages
of the valves (OPV_PreHC, OPV_PostHC, OPV_CC, and OPV_HUM) are generated by PID controllers.
As an alternative to the automatic operation based on PID controllers, the opening per-
centages of the valves (OPV_PreHC, OPV_PostHC, OPV_CC, and OPV_HUM) can be also forced by the
end-users; therefore, the end user is allowed to force component operation/parameters
based on specific research purposes.
Table 3. Activation criteria of the AHU’s components.
Component of AHU ON OFF

RHRA ≥
Steam humidifier (HUM) RHRA ≤ (RHSP,Room − DBRH)
(RHSP,Room + DBRH)
TRA ≥ (TSP,Room + DBT) TRA ≤ (TSP,Room − DBT)
Cooling coil (CC) OR AND
RHRA ≥ (RHSP,Room + DBRH) RHRA ≤ (RHSP,Room − DBRH)
Post-heating coil (PostHC) TRA ≤ (TSP,Room − DBT) TRA ≥ (TSP,Room + DBT)
Heat Pump (HP) [36] THT < 44 °C THT ≥ 46 °C
Refrigerating System (RS) [36] TCT > 8 °C TCT ≤ 6 °C
However, alternatively, the end users can also manually force (at the beginning or
during the test) the opening percentages of the valves for research purposes (instead of
operating according to the automatic control logic).
3. Experimental Tests
A set of 18 fault-free and faulty daily experimental tests has been performed in order
to examine the HVAC system operation during transient and steady-state operation un-
der both winter and summer conditions. Tables 4 and 5 describe the operating of the ex-
perimental tests under summer and winter conditions, respectively.
Table 4. Operating conditions of the experimental tests under fault free (tests 1–4) and faulty operation (tests 5–9) during
summer.
TSP,Room RHSP,Room OLRAF OLSAF OPV_CC OPV_HUM

Test n. TOA (°C) OPV_PostHC (%) Date (dd/mm/yyyy)
(°C) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
1 26 50 20.6 ÷ 26.7 50 50 0 ÷ 100 0 ÷ 100 0 ÷ 100 29/06/2020
2 26 50 29.1 ÷ 35.2 50 50 0 ÷ 100 0 ÷ 100 0 ÷ 100 28/07/2020
3 26 50 25.3 ÷ 32.0 50 50 0 ÷ 100 0 ÷ 100 0 ÷ 100 23/07/2020
4 26 50 28.6 ÷ 35.3 50 50 0 ÷ 100 0 ÷ 100 0 ÷ 100 21/07/2020
5 (fault1) 26 50 30.4 ÷ 34.9 50 20 0 ÷ 100 0 ÷ 100 0 ÷ 100 31/07/2020
6 (fault2) 26 50 32.1 ÷ 38.8 20 50 0 ÷ 100 0 ÷ 100 0 ÷ 100 03/08/2020
7 (fault3) 26 50 33.8 ÷ 38.4 50 50 0 0 ÷ 100 0 ÷ 100 16/09/2020
8 (fault4) 26 50 29.4 ÷ 35.8 50 50 0 ÷ 100 0 0 ÷ 100 16/09/2020
9 (fault5) 26 50 28.7 ÷ 38.2 50 50 0 ÷ 100 0 ÷ 100 0 18/09/2020
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 9 of 42
Table 5. Operating conditions of the experimental tests under fault free (tests 10–13) and faulty operation (test 14–18)
during winter.
TSP,Room RHSP,Room OLRAF OLSAF OPV_PostHC OPV_CC OPV_HUM

Test n. TOA (°C) Date (dd/mm/yyyy)
(°C) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
10 20 50 10.3 ÷ 15.0 50 50 0 ÷ 100 0 ÷ 100 0 ÷ 100 23/12/2020
11 20 50 13.2 ÷ 15.4 50 50 0 ÷ 100 0 ÷ 100 0 ÷ 100 28/12/2020
12 20 50 12.7 ÷ 18.6 50 50 0 ÷ 100 0 ÷ 100 0 ÷ 100 29/12/2020
13 20 50 8.0 ÷ 13.5 50 50 0 ÷ 100 0 ÷ 100 0 ÷ 100 05/01/2021
14 (fault1) 20 50 12.3 ÷ 20.0 50 20 0 ÷ 100 0 ÷ 100 0 ÷ 100 12/01/2021
15 (fault2) 20 50 5.6 ÷ 12.2 20 50 0 ÷ 100 0 ÷ 100 0 ÷ 100 14/01/2021
16 (fault3) 20 50 10.5 ÷ 15.9 50 50 0 0 ÷ 100 0 ÷ 100 28/01/2021
17 (fault4) 20 50 7.8 ÷ 16.8 50 50 0 ÷ 100 0 0 ÷ 100 15/02/2021
18 (fault5) 20 50 9.2 ÷ 13.3 50 50 0 ÷ 100 0 ÷ 100 0 12/02/2021
During all the tests, a number of system parameters have been kept constant: DBT =
1 °C, DBRH = 5%, OPDRA = 100%, OPDOA = 20%, OPDEA = 20%, and OPDHRS = 100. In more
detail, 8 tests have been performed under fault free conditions (tests n. 1, 2, 3, 4 in Table 4
carried out during summer and tests n. 10, 11, 12, 13 in Table 5 carried out during winter).
The remaining 10 tests have been carried out while artificially introducing specific faults
(tests n. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 in Table 4 carried out during summer and tests n. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 in
Table 5 carried out during winter). The experiments have been performed by measuring
every minute all the parameters indicated in Table 2. In this study, the recording time step
of measured data has been defined according to the experimental approaches adopted in
similar works available in the scientific literature. For example, the ASHRAE RP-1312 data
set [24] developed for AFDD purposes consists of experimental data recorded every mi-
nute from a facility comprising two AHUs; recently, Piscitelli et al. [5], Yun et al. [27], as
well as Fan et al. [28] proposed novel methodologies for performing AFDD analyses of
AHUs based on this ASHRAE RP-1312 database [24]; Cheng et al. [40] developed a new
AFDD method for AHUs using experimental data measured every minute. Therefore, a
measurement time step of one minute could be reasonably assumed as acceptable in order
to take into account the response time of HVAC components.
Only during the faulty tests, the operation of specific AHU components has been
forced to assure user-specified positions in order to artificially simulate the following 5
specific typical faults (named fault 1, 2, 3, 4, 5):
• Fault 1 has been implemented during both the tests n. 5 and n. 14, i.e., the velocity of
the supply air fan has been kept at 20% (instead of the nominal value of 50%);
• Fault 2 has been implemented during both the tests n. 6 and n. 15, i.e., the velocity of
the return air fan has been kept at 20% (instead of the nominal value of 50%);
• Fault 3 has been implemented during both the tests n. 7 and 16, i.e., the valve man-
aging the flow rate entering the post-heating coil has always been kept closed (in-
stead of allowing its normal operation with an opening percentage in the range 0 ÷
100% according to the AHU automatic control logic);
• Fault 4 has been implemented during both the tests n. 8 and n. 17, i.e., the valve man-
aging the flow rate entering the cooling coil has always been kept closed (instead of
allowing its normal operation with an opening percentage in the range 0 ÷ 100% ac-
cording to the AHU automatic control logic);
• Fault 5 has been implemented during both the tests n. 9 and n. 18, i.e., opening per-
centage of the valve managing the flow rate entering the steam humidifier has always
been kept closed (instead of allowing its normal operation with an opening percent-
age in the range 0 ÷ 100% according to the AHU automatic control logic).
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 10 of 42
In this study, the above-mentioned faults have been introduced at the beginning of
the faulty tests and maintained during the entire duration of the experiments (what hap-
pens in the case of the faults are shorter has not been investigated).
During the tests n. 1–4 and n. 10–13 (fault free tests), the AHU’s components have
been operated without any artificial faults.
In both Tables 4 and 5, the parameters characterizing the corresponding faults have
been highlighted in red.
Figures 2a–d and 3a–e highlight the experimental trends of return air temperature
TRA, supply air temperature TSA, outside air temperature TOA, air temperature around the
test room TBEA, return air relative humidity RHRA, supply air relative humidity RHSA, and
air relative humidity around the test room RHBEA recorded during the fault free and faulty
tests, respectively, performed under summer conditions (detailed in Table 4).
42 100 42 100
a) b)
39 90 39 90
36 80 36 80
Relative humidity (%)

33 70 33 70
Temperature (°C)
Temperature (°C)
30 60 30 60
27 50 27 50
24 40 24 40
21 30 21 30
18 20 18 20
15 10 15 10
T
TRA
RA TSA
TSA T
TOA
OA TT_BEA
BEA RH
RHRA
RA RH
RHSA
SA RH
RH_BEA
BEA T
TRA T
TSA
SA
T
TOA
OA TT_BEA
BEA RH
RHRA
RA RH
RHSA RH
RH_BEA
RA SA BEA
12 0 12 0
29 May-13:26 29 May-13:55 29 May-14:24 29 May-14:52 29 May-15:21 29 May-15:50 29 May-16:19 28 Jul-9:57 28 Jul-10:12 28 Jul-10:26 28 Jul-10:40 28 Jul-10:55 28 Jul-11:09 28 Jul-11:24
42 100 42 100
c) d)
39 90 39 90
36 80 36 80

33 70 33 70
Temperature (°C)
Temperature (°C)
30 60 30 60
27 50 27 50
24 40 24 40
21 30 21 30
18 20 18 20
15 10 15 10
T
TRA
RA TSA
TSA T
TOA
OA T
T_BEA
BEA
RH
RHRA
RA RH
RHSA
SA RH
RH_BEA
BEA T
TRA
RA T
TSA
SA TOA
TOA T
T_BEA
BEA RHRA
RHRA RH
RHSA
SA RH
RH_BEA
BEA
12 0 12 0
23 Jul-15:14 23 Jul-15:45 23 Jul-16:16 23 Jul-16:47 23 Jul-17:19 23 Jul-17:50 23 Jul-18:21 21 Jul-9:28 21 Jul-9:55 21 Jul-10:23 21 Jul-10:50 21 Jul-11:17 21 Jul-11:44 21 Jul-12:11
Figure 2. Experimental data measured during the fault free tests under summer conditions: test n. 1 (a), test n. 2 (b), test
n. 3 (c), and test n. 4 (d).
42 100 42 100
a) b)
39 90 39 90
36 80 36 80
33 70 33 70
Temperature (°C)
Temperature (°C)
30 60 30 60
27 50 27 50
24 40 24 40
21 30 21 30
18 20 18 20
15 10 15 10
T
TRA
RA T
TSA
SA
SA T
TOA
OA
OA TT_BEA
BEA
BEA RH
RHRA RH
RHSA
SA RH
RH_BEA T
TRA
RA T
TSA
SA
T
TOA
OA TBEA
T_BEA RH
RHRA
RA RH
RHSA RH
RH_BEA
BEA
RA RA BEA SA
12 0 12 0
31 Jul-9:53 31 Jul-10:44 31 Jul-11:36 31 Jul-12:28 31 Jul-13:19 31 Jul-14:11 31 Jul-15:02 03 Aug-10:48 03 Aug-11:29 03 Aug-12:11 03 Aug-12:52 03 Aug-13:34 03 Aug-14:15 03 Aug-14:57
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 11 of 42
42 100 42 100
c) d)
39 90 39 90
36 80 36 80

33 70 33 70
Temperature (°C)
Temperature (°C)
30 60 30 60
27 50 27 50
24 40 24 40
21 30 21 30
18 20 18 20
15 10 15 10
T
TRA
RA T
TSA
SA T
TOA
OA T
T_BEA
BEA
RH
RHRA
RA RH
RHSA
SA
RH_BEA
RH T
TRA
RA TSA
TSA T
TOA
OA T
T_BEA
BEA RH
RHRA
RA RHSA
RHSA RH
RH_BEA
BEA
BEA 12 0
12 0
16 Sep-12:15 16 Sep-12:39 16 Sep-13:02 16 Sep-13:26 16 Sep-13:49 16 Sep-14:13 16 Sep-14:36 16 Sep-15:28 16 Sep-15:58 16 Sep-16:28 16 Sep-16:58 16 Sep-17:27 16 Sep-17:57 16 Sep-18:27
42 100
e)
39 90
36 80

33 70
Temperature (°C)
30 60
27 50
24 40
21 30
18 20
15 10
T
TRA
RA T
TSA
SA
TOA
T OA T
T_BEA
BEA RH
RHRA
RA RH
RHSA
SA RH
RH_BEA
BEA
12 0
18 Sep-9:56 18 Sep-10:26 18 Sep-10:56 18 Sep-11:26 18 Sep-11:56 18 Sep-12:26 18 Sep-12:56
Figure 3. Experimental data measured during the faulty tests under summer conditions: test n. 5 (a), test n. 6 (b), test n. 7
(c), test n. 8 (d), and test n. 9 (e).
Figure 2a reports the experimental trends of TRA, TSA, TOA, TBEA, RHRA, RHSA, RHBEA
during the fault free test n.1; Figure 2b shows the measured parameters TRA, TSA, TOA, TBEA,
RHRA, RHSA, RHBEA during the fault free test n.2; Figure 2c indicates the measured data
associated to TRA, TSA, TOA, TBEA, RHRA, RHSA, RHBEA during the fault free test n.3; Figure 2d
highlights the temporal variation of TRA, TSA, TOA, TBEA, RHRA, RHSA, RHBEA during the fault
free test n.4.
during the faulty test n.5; Figure 3b shows the measured parameters TRA, TSA, TOA, TBEA,
RHRA, RHSA, RHBEA during the faulty test n.6; Figure 3c indicates the measured data asso-
ciated to TRA, TSA, TOA, TBEA, RHRA, RHSA, RHBEA during the faulty test n.7; Figure 3d high-
light the temporal variation of TRA, TSA, TOA, TBEA, RHRA, RHSA, RHBEA during the faulty test
n.8; the values of TRA, TSA, TOA, TBEA, RHRA, RHSA, RHBEA recorded during the faulty test n.9
are depicted in Figure 3e.
Figures 4a–d and 5a–e report the experimental trends of TRA, TSA, TOA, TBEA, RHRA,
RHSA, RHBEA recorded during the fault free and faulty tests, respectively, performed under
winter conditions (detailed in Table 5).
40 100 40 100
a) b)
36 90 36 90
32 80 32 80
28 70 28 70
Temperature (°C)
Temperature (°C)
24 60 24 60
20 50 20 50
16 40 16 40
12 30 12 30
8 20 8 20
4 10 4 10
T
TRA
RA TSA
TSA T
TOA
OA TT_BEA
BEA RH
RHRA
RA RH
RHSA
SA RH
RH_BEA
BEA T
TRA
RA TSA
TSA T
TOA
OA TT_BEA
BEA RH
RHRA
RA RH
RHSA RH
RH_BEA
0 0 SA BEA
0 0
23 Dec-9:30 23 Dec-10:29 23 Dec-11:28 23 Dec-12:27 23 Dec-13:26 23 Dec-14:25 23 Dec-15:24 28 Dec-9:59 28 Dec-11:03 28 Dec-12:08 28 Dec-13:13 28 Dec-14:18 28 Dec-15:23 28 Dec-16:27
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 12 of 42
40 100 40 100
c) d)
36 90 36 90
32 80 32 80

28 70 28 70
Temperature (°C)
Temperature (°C)
24 60 24 60
20 50 20 50
16 40 16 40
12 30 12 30
8 20 8 20
4 10 4 10
T
TRA
RA TSA
TSA T
TOA
OA TT_BEA
BEA RH
RHRA
RA RH
RHSA
SA RH
RH_BEA
BEA
T
TRA
RA TSA
TSA T
TOA
OA TT_BEA
BEA RH
RHRA
RA RH
RHSA
SA RH
RH_BEA
BEA
0 0 0 0
29 Dec-9:34 29 Dec-10:39 29 Dec-11:43 29 Dec-12:48 29 Dec-13:52 29 Dec-14:57 29 Dec-16:01 05 Jan-9:46 05 Jan-10:49 05 Jan-11:52 05 Jan-12:56 05 Jan-13:59 05 Jan-15:02 05 Jan-16:06
Figure 4. Experimental data measured during the fault free tests under winter conditions: test n. 10 (a), test n. 11 (b), test
n. 12 (c), and test n. 13 (d).
40 100 40 100
a) b)
36 90 36 90
32 80 32 80

28 70 28 70
Temperature (°C)
Temperature (°C)
24 60 24 60
20 50 20 50
16 40 16 40
12 30 12 30
8 20 8 20
4 10 4 10
T
TRA
RA T
TSA T
TOA TT_BEA
BEA RH
RHRA
RA RH
RHSA
SA RH
RH_BEA TRA
TRA T
TSA
SA TOA
TOA TBEA
T_BEA RH
RHRA
RA RH
RHSA
SA
RH
RH_BEA
BEA
SA OA BEA 0 0
0 0
12 Jan-9:18 12 Jan-10:30 12 Jan-11:42 12 Jan-12:53 12 Jan-14:05 12 Jan-15:17 12 Jan-16:29 14 Jan-9:15 14 Jan-10:43 14 Jan-12:10 14 Jan-13:37 14 Jan-15:05 14 Jan-16:32 14 Jan-17:59
40 100 40 100
c) d)
36 90 36 90
32 80 32 80

28 70 28 70
Temperature (°C)
Temperature (°C)
24 60 24 60
20 50 20 50
16 40 16 40
12 30 12 30
8 20 8 20
4 10 4 10
T
TRA
RA T
TSA
SA T
TOA
OA T
T_BEA
BEA RH
RHRA
RA RH
RHSA
SA RH
RH_BEA
BEA T
TRA
RA TSA
TSA T
TOA T
T_BEA RH
RHRA
RA RH
RHSA RH
RH_BEA
0 0 OA BEA SA BEA
0 0
28 Jan-9:51 28 Jan-10:59 28 Jan-12:06 28 Jan-13:13 28 Jan-14:20 28 Jan-15:28 28 Jan-16:35 15 Feb-9:40 15 Feb-10:54 15 Feb-12:09 15 Feb-13:24 15 Feb-14:38 15 Feb-15:53 15 Feb-17:08
40 100
e)
36 90
32 80
28 70
Temperature (°C)
24 60
20 50
16 40
12 30
8 20
4 10
T
TRA
RA TSA
TSA T
TOA
OA T
T_BEA
BEA RH
RHRA
RA RH
RHSA
SA RH
RH_BEA
BEA
0 0
12 Feb-9:47 12 Feb-10:58 12 Feb-12:08 12 Feb-13:19 12 Feb-14:29 12 Feb-15:40 12 Feb-16:50
Figure 5. Experimental data measured during the faulty tests under winter conditions: test n. 14 (a), test n. 15 (b), test n.
16 (c), test n. 17 (d), and test n. 18 (e).
during the fault free test n.10; Figure 4b shows the measured parameters TRA, TSA, TOA,
TBEA, RHRA, RHSA, RHBEA during the fault free test n.11; Figure 4c indicates the measured
data associated to TRA, TSA, TOA, TBEA, RHRA, RHSA, RHBEA during the fault free test n.12;
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 13 of 42
Figure 4d highlights the temporal variation of TRA, TSA, TOA, TBEA, RHRA, RHSA, RHBEA dur-
ing the fault free test n.13.
during the faulty test n.14; Figure 5b shows the measured parameters TRA, TSA, TOA, TBEA,
RHRA, RHSA, RHBEA during the faulty test n.15; Figure 5c indicates the measured data as-
sociated to TRA, TSA, TOA, TBEA, RHRA, RHSA, RHBEA during the faulty test n.16; Figure 5d
highlight the temporal variation of TRA, TSA, TOA, TBEA, RHRA, RHSA, RHBEA during the faulty
test n.17; the values of TRA, TSA, TOA, TBEA, RHRA, RHSA, RHBEA recorded during the faulty
test n.18 are depicted in Figure 5e.
3.1. Analysis of Experimental Trends

The data acquired during normal and faulty operation tests (and reported in previ-
ous section) highlight that the percentages of time with values of indoor air temperature
within the given deadband (1 °C) around the user-defined target (setpoint 26/20 °C for
summer/winter season) are equal to 69.8%, 57.0%, 71.3%, 69.1%, 0%, 36.1%, 13.4%,
0%,86.6%, 68.3%, 69.6%, 72.5%, 71.4%, 75.4%, 68.7%, 0.0%, 15.7%, and 64.9% for the tests
1–18, respectively. Furthermore, the percentages of time with values of air relative humid-
ity inside the test room within the deadband (5%) around the target (50%) are equal to
98.4%, 84.9%, 83.5%, 88.3%, 16.2%, 80.6%, 88.1%, 90.6%, 65.4%, 84.7%, 80.7%, 87.3%, 81.2%,
49.4%, 82.3%, 99.6%, 80.5%, and 76.0%, during the tests 1–18, respectively. The results of
calculation highlight a good capability of the HVAC unit under healthy operation (tests
n. 1–4 and 10–13) to accurately control indoor conditions. The previously mentioned per-
centages are lower than 100% because (a) the initial values of return air temperature and
return air relative humidity are in some cases far from target values and (b) during the
start-up phases the AHU operates under transient conditions trying to approach the
steady-state conditions to achieve the desired targets.
In more detail, Figure 3a–e (associated to the faulty tests performed during summer)
highlights the different trends/patterns associated to key operating parameters with re-
spect to the scenarios without faults:
• In Figure 3a (corresponding to the fault 1, i.e., velocity of the supply air fan reduced
at 20%), supply air temperature and supply air relative humidity are in a much nar-
rower range as it would expected in the case of reduced supply air flow; in this case,
TSA drops to about 18.4 °C and then it remains below 20.5 °C (out of the desired ther-
mal comfort range) during the remaining part of the test, while RHSA is in the range
of 51% to 61% with a larger number of oscillations; in addition, it can be noticed that
both return air temperature TRA and return air relative humidity RHRA vary much
more slowly as a function of time;
• Figure 3b (corresponding to the fault 2, i.e., velocity of the return air fan reduced at
20%) indicates that, as supposed, supply air temperature varies in a smaller range (in
this case between 15.5 °C and 21.0 °C) when return air flow rate is reduced;
• In Figure 3c (corresponding to the fault 3, i.e., post-heating coil valve kept fully
closed), supply air temperature TSA assumes lower average values, ranging in a nar-
rower interval (in this case between 14.5 °C and 23.0 °C) due to the fact that post-
heating coil is not active; as a consequence, return air temperature, after the initial
drop from ~28.5 °C down to ~24.0 °C, remains almost constant during the remaining
part of the test (with a value smaller than its lower deadband and, therefore, out of
desired thermal comfort range); in addition, it should be underlined that average
values of supply air relative humidity are greater;
• In Figure 3d (corresponding to the fault 4, i.e., cooling coil valve kept fully closed),
supply air temperature is characterized by much larger average values (as it would
be expected due to the missing contribution of the cooling coil), with a narrower var-
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 14 of 42
iation range (in this case between 30.0 °C and 34.0 °C); return air temperature is sub-
stantially constant, assuming a value larger than its upper deadband (in this case
equal to ~28.5 °C) and, therefore, out of the desired thermal comfort range;
• In Figure 3e (corresponding to the fault 5, i.e., steam humidifier valve kept fully
closed), return air relative humidity varies in a narrower range (in this case between
43.0% and 55.5%), highlighting a significantly reduced number of oscillations (as it
would be presumed in the case of the humidifier is not active).
Figure 5a–e (associated to the faulty tests performed during winter) allows to under-
line the different trends/patterns of key operating parameters with respect to the cases
without faults:
• In Figure 5a (corresponding to the fault 1, i.e., velocity of the supply air fan reduced
at 20%), the supply air temperature and supply air relative humidity are in a wider
range, with a much lower number of oscillations; similar trends can be recognized
for both return air temperature and return air relative humidity;
• Figure 5b (corresponding to the fault 2, i.e., velocity of the return air fan reduced at
20%) indicates that the impact of a reduced return ai flow rate is almost negligible in
terms of supply and return air temperature as well as supply and return air relative
humidity;
• In Figure 5c (corresponding to the fault 3, i.e., post-heating coil valve kept fully
closed), supply air temperature assumes lower average values (as post-heating coil
is not active); in particular, TSA is almost constant (and equal to ~12.0 °C in this case).
As a consequence, return air temperature remains almost constant during the test,
assuming a value much smaller than its lower deadband and, therefore, out of the
desired thermal comfort range. In addition, it should be underlined that average val-
ues of supply air relative humidity are greater and included in a narrower range
(without significant oscillations); return air relative humidity is almost constant (and
equal to about 47% in this case);
• In Figure 5d (corresponding to the fault 4, i.e., cooling coil valve kept fully closed),
supply air temperature is characterized by lower average values (as it would be pre-
sumed due to the missing contribution of the cooling coil), with a narrower variation
range (approximately 19.0–24.0 °C in this case); return air temperature is substan-
tially constant, assuming a value out of desired thermal comfort range (slightly larger
than its upper deadband and equal to about 22.0 °C in this case);
• In Figure 5e (corresponding to the fault 5, i.e., steam humidifier valve kept fully
closed), return air relative humidity varies in a slightly narrower range (as it would
be expected in the case of the humidifier is not active).
4. Simulation Model
In this paper, an artificial neural network (ANN)-based model has been developed
in the MATLAB environment. The aim was to predict (i) the supply air temperature, (ii)
the supply air relative humidity, (iii) the opening percentage of the valve supplying the
post-heating coil, (iv) the opening percentage of cooling coil valve, and (v) the opening
percentage of the steam humidifier valve. This ANN has been first validated with meas-
ured data and then coupled with a dynamic simulation model developed in TRNSYS en-
vironment in order to simulate (i) the return air temperature; (ii) the return air relative
humidity; as well as (iii) the electric energy consumptions (not measured) of the heat
pump, the refrigerating system, the steam humidifier, the supply air fan, and the return
air fan with the aim of rating the effects of the selected faults on both energy consumption
as well occupant indoor thermo-hygrometric comfort. The artificial neural network-based
model is described in Sections 4.1, 4.1.1., 4.1.2., and 4.1.3., while the description of the
TRNSYS model is reported in Section 4.2.
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 15 of 42
4.1. Artificial Neural Network-Based Model

In this section, the ANN-based models developed with the aim of simulating the per-
formance of the test room-integrated HVAC system under both normal and faulty scenar-
ios are described.
4.1.1. Artificial Neural Networks’ Architecture

ANNs usually consist of three parts: one input layer; one or more hidden layers, and
one output layer. All layers include neurons, and each neuron in a given layer is linked to
the neurons of previous as well as successive layers. Each link between two neurons is
characterized by an adaptable synaptic weight and bias. Three main different functional
operations occur in ANNs:
• all the inputs are multiplied by their weights;
• the weighted values are added to the bias in order to form the net inputs;
• the net inputs are passed by means of the transfer function, which generates the out-
puts.
ANNs are trained by means of a suitable learning method in order to obtain a specific
target output from a particular input by regulating the weights and biases. The training
process is stopped only when the error between the desired target and the corresponding
network output is lower than a given tolerance value or when the maximum number of
epochs (given number of iterations) is achieved. A transfer function is a mathematical
representation of the relation between inputs and outputs. Transfer functions generally
have a sigmoid shape, but they may also assume the form of piecewise linear functions,
nonlinear functions, or step functions. One of the most commonly adopted transfer func-
tions for multilayer networks is the hyperbolic tangent sigmoid transfer function (tansig)
[32] generating outputs between −1 and 1.
Performance of artificial neural networks is sensitive to both the number of hidden
layers as well as the number of neurons in their hidden layers [32]. In particular, networks
with more hidden layers require a larger computation time, but their use gives the net-
work more flexibility and could result in resolving challenging tasks more efficiently [32].
Larger numbers of neurons allow the network to figure out more difficult issues; however,
they require more computation and they can play a part to “overfitting” (in that case the
fitting curve fluctuates wildly among training points, even if these points are well fitted);
on the other hand, few neurons can reduce the computation time, but they could also lead
to “underfitting”.
The MATLAB (The MathWorks Inc.) Neural Network Toolbox [32] has been used in
this work in order to develop and analyze 22 artificial neural network-based simulation
models (ANN1-ANN22) of the HVAC system. All the artificial neural networks have been
configured with 10 inputs and 5 outputs, varying the number of hidden layers and neu-
rons in each hidden layer. One of the most common issues to be addressed in configuring
the architecture of ANNs is connected to the ANNs topology allowing to achieve the re-
quested accuracy and/or minimize the computation time. Several studies [41–46] have de-
termined the number of hidden layers and the number of neurons in the hidden layers by
trial and error, employing a grid search technique to find them. A sensitivity analysis has
been performed in this study in order to find out the optimal number of hidden layers
and neurons in each hidden layer according to the information and approaches reported
in the current literature. In particular, several scientific papers investigated the application
of ANNs for HVAC systems’ modeling [41–43], adopting a number of hidden layers var-
ying from a minimum of 1 [41] up to a maximum of 5 [41–43]. In addition, several formulas
are available in the scientific literature [44–46] in order to provide a starting point for de-
termining the optimal number of neurons in each hidden layer of ANNs as a function of
(i) number of inputs [44–46], (ii) number of outputs [44], (iii) number of hidden layers [45],
and (iv) number of training examples [45,46]; these formulas suggest a number of neurons
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 16 of 42
per hidden layer in the range of 7 to 83 when applied to the ANNs investigated in this
paper.
4.1.2. Sensitivity Analysis of Artificial Neural Networks

Table 6 describes the architectures of the 22 ANN-based models investigated in this
paper, highlighting both number of hidden layers as well as number of neurons in each
hidden layer.
Table 6. Architectures of the investigated ANNs.
ANN ID Number of Hidden Layers Number of Neurons in Each Hidden Layer

ANN1 1 10
ANN2 1 20
ANN3 1 30
ANN4 1 40
ANN5 1 50
ANN6 1 60
ANN7 1 70
ANN8 2 10
ANN9 2 20
ANN10 2 30
ANN11 2 40
ANN12 2 50
ANN13 3 10
ANN14 3 20
ANN15 3 30
ANN16 3 40
ANN17 4 10
ANN18 4 20
ANN19 4 30
ANN20 5 10
ANN21 5 20
ANN22 5 30
The following 10 variables have been set as inputs of all ANNs:

1. difference between current return air temperature and related target (ΔT)
2. difference between current return air relative humidity and related target (ΔRH)
3. supply air temperature at previous minute (TSA-1)
4. supply air relative humidity at previous minute (RHSA-1)
5. outside air temperature (TOA)
6. opening percentage of the valve managing the flow entering the post-heating coil at
previous minute (OPV_PostHC-1)
7. opening percentage of the valve managing the flow entering the cooling coil at pre-
vious minute (OPV_CC-1)
8. opening percentage of the valve managing the flow entering the steam humidifier at
previous minute (OPV_HUM-1)
9. supply air fan velocity (OLSAF)
10. return air fan velocity (OLRAF).
The following five parameters have been set as outputs of all ANNs:
1. supply air temperature (TSA)
2. supply air relative humidity (RHSA)
3. opening percentage of the post-heating coil valve (OPV_PostHC)
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 17 of 42
4. opening percentage of the cooling coil valve (OPV_CC)

5. opening percentage of the steam humidifier valve (OPV_HUM).
Table 7 summarizes the inputs and the outputs used in the artificial neural networks.
Each ANN has 1 input layer with 10 neurons and 1 output layer with 5 neurons.
Table 7. Inputs and outputs of the ANNs.
Number of Inputs Input ID Number of Outputs Outputs ID

1 ΔT
1 TSA
2 ΔRH
3 TSA-1
2 RHSA
4 RHSA-1
5 TOA
3 OPV_PostHC
6 OPV_PostHC-1
7 OPV_CC-1
4 OPV_CC
8 OPV_HUM-1
9 OLSAF
5 OPV_HUM
10 OLRAF
The hyperbolic tangent sigmoid transfer function (tansig) has been adopted in the
hidden and output layers of each ANN. Levenberg–Marquart back-propagation training
algorithms (trainlm) have been selected as training function with the aim of updating the
weights and biases.
4.1.3. Training, Testing and Validation of ANNs

The experimental data measured during the tests described in Section 3 have been
used for training, testing, and validating the ANNs. Two different datasets have been ran-
domly extracted from the entire database (5352 data points in total): the first dataset (3746
points) has been utilized for training purposes, while the second one (1606 points) has
been considered for testing and validating the networks. The predictions of the ANN-
based models have been compared with the whole experimental dataset (containing all
training, testing, and validation points) to evaluate the reliability of the ANNs by means
of the metrics reported below (the average error ε̅, the average absolute error |ε̅|, the
mean square error MSE, the root mean square error RMSE, and the coefficient of determi-
nation R2):
εi = g pred,i - gexp,i (1)
N
ε =  εi /N (2)
i=1
N
ε =  εi /N (3)
i=1
MSE =
1 N
 ε -ε
N i=1 i
( ) (4)
(ε -ε)
2
N
 (5)
i
RMSE =
i=1 N
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 18 of 42
 
( )
2
 N g exp,i − g pred,i 
R = 1 - 
2
2  (6)
 (
 i =1 g exp,i − g pred,i ) 

where N is the total number of experimental points, while gpred,i, gexp,I, and g̅ pred are, re-
spectively, the predictions at time step i, the measurements at time step i, and the arith-
metic mean of the predicted values. Table 8 reports the calculated values of ε̅, |ε̅|, MSE,
RMSE, and R2 associated with the performance of all the ANNs developed in this study,
highlighting in green and red, respectively, the best and worst results.
Table 8. Errors between predictions of ANN-based models and measurements.

ANN Outputs
ANN10
ANN11
ANN12
ANN13
ANN14
ANN15
ANN16
ANN17
ANN18
ANN19
ANN20
ANN21
ANN22
ANN1
ANN2
ANN3
ANN4
ANN5
ANN6
ANN7
ANN8
ANN9
Errors
TSA (°C) −0.11 −0.03 0.00 −0.01 −0.01 −0.01 −0.01 0.00 −0.01 0.00 0.05 −0.01 −0.09 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.04 −0.02 0.02 10.71 −0.01
RHSA (%) 0.22 −0.02 0.10 0.08 0.04 −0.06 0.04 −0.03 0.06 −0.02 −0.24 0.06 0.18 0.05 0.00 −0.01 −0.04 0.02 −0.05 −0.02 0.01 0.01
OPV_PostHC (%) 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 −0.01 −0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 −0.01 −0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 −0.01 0.00 3.66 −0.01
𝛆
OPV_CC (%) 0.00 −0.02 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.04 0.01 −0.02 0.01 0.02 −0.02 −0.01 −0.03 0.00 0.02 0.01 −0.03 0.01 −2.48 0.00 0.02 0.01
OPV_HUM (%) 0.01 0.00 −0.03 0.04 −0.01 −0.02 −0.02 0.01 −0.01 −0.02 −0.02 −0.02 0.03 −0.03 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.03 −0.02 0.01
TSA (°C) 0.72 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.31 0.26 0.25 0.62 0.41 0.42 0.44 0.34 0.70 0.47 0.43 0.27 0.72 0.46 0.45 0.69 10.71 0.36
RHSA (%) 2.80 2.00 2.00 1.95 1.80 1.67 1.75 2.32 2.02 1.98 1.99 1.77 2.46 2.13 1.94 1.62 2.26 2.00 1.88 2.57 2.00 1.83
|𝛆|
OPV_PostHC (%) 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.19 0.12 0.10 0.12 0.06 0.06 0.20 0.13 0.11 0.07 0.10 0.13 0.06 0.05 0.11 0.07 0.10 3.66 0.05
OPV_CC (%) 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.15 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.14 0.09 0.10 0.07 0.08 0.11 0.07 0.09 0.08 2.48 0.09 0.12 0.05
OPV_HUM (%) 0.19 0.13 0.15 0.20 0.15 0.13 0.17 0.13 0.12 0.23 0.15 0.18 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.11 0.16 0.15 0.13 0.16 0.16 0.11
TSA (°C) 0.81 0.26 0.26 0.28 0.21 0.16 0.14 0.77 0.35 0.38 0.36 0.24 0.94 0.50 0.40 0.16 1.15 0.50 0.44 1.04 6.01 0.27
RHSA (%) 16.59 10.00 9.86 10.14 9.18 8.05 8.60 13.07 10.13 10.48 9.74 8.73 13.77 11.16 10.17 7.69 13.30 10.17 8.93 15.38 9.48 8.31
MSE
OPV_PostHC (%) 0.49 0.35 0.43 0.82 0.50 0.38 0.51 0.37 0.32 0.81 0.51 0.51 0.42 0.43 0.49 0.36 0.32 0.52 0.38 0.47 36.62 0.28
OPV_CC (%) 0.41 0.48 0.28 0.75 0.40 0.65 0.39 0.57 0.28 0.57 0.49 0.46 0.59 0.39 0.37 0.41 0.61 0.41 24.83 0.47 0.80 0.33
OPV_HUM (%) 1.10 0.79 0.82 1.12 0.71 0.72 1.17 0.94 0.68 1.03 0.74 0.75 1.12 0.88 0.94 0.77 1.21 0.75 0.72 1.11 0.78 0.68
TSA (°C) 0.89 0.51 0.51 0.53 0.46 0.40 0.38 0.88 0.59 0.61 0.60 0.49 0.97 0.71 0.63 0.40 1.07 0.71 0.66 1.02 7.17 0.52
RHSA 4.07 3.16 3.14 3.18 3.03 2.84 2.93 3.62 3.18 3.24 3.11 2.95 3.71 3.34 3.19 2.77 3.65 3.19 2.99 3.92 3.08 2.88
RMSE
OPV_PostHC (%) 0.70 0.59 0.66 0.90 0.71 0.62 0.71 0.60 0.57 0.90 0.71 0.72 0.65 0.66 0.70 0.60 0.56 0.72 0.62 0.69 4.82 0.53
OPV_CC (%) 0.64 0.69 0.53 0.86 0.63 0.80 0.63 0.75 0.53 0.75 0.70 0.68 0.76 0.62 0.61 0.64 0.78 0.64 4.32 0.68 0.89 0.57
OPV_HUM (%) 1.05 0.89 0.90 1.06 0.84 0.85 1.08 0.97 0.83 1.01 0.86 0.86 1.06 0.94 0.97 0.88 1.10 0.87 0.85 1.06 0.88 0.83
TSA (°C) 0.985 0.995 0.994 0.994 0.996 0.996 0.997 0.980 0.991 0.990 0.991 0.996 0.976 0.987 0.990 0.996 0.967 0.988 0.989 0.978 0.118 0.994
RHSA (%) 0.955 0.975 0.976 0.975 0.978 0.981 0.979 0.957 0.972 0.974 0.977 0.977 0.963 0.967 0.974 0.982 0.964 0.973 0.976 0.956 0.976 0.980
R2
OPV_PostHC (%) 0.979 0.989 0.982 0.981 0.982 0.988 0.990 0.987 0.987 0.985 0.980 0.978 0.982 0.981 0.987 0.982 0.987 0.984 0.978 0.984 0.140 0.993
OPV_CC (%) 0.981 0.986 0.985 0.976 0.975 0.980 0.983 0.979 0.983 0.969 0.984 0.968 0.974 0.977 0.986 0.973 0.962 0.981 0.131 0.971 0.974 0.983
OPV_HUM (%) 0.965 0.975 0.978 0.972 0.982 0.973 0.977 0.970 0.977 0.957 0.977 0.981 0.961 0.965 0.969 0.970 0.975 0.975 0.966 0.969 0.990 0.981
For each line of Table 8 the green shade has been assigned to the cell corresponding
to the best performance (the readers can find more green cells for each line in the cases of
more ANNs achieve the same best performance), while the worst results have been high-
lighted by red shades.
The results reported in this table highlight that:
• the overall minimum value of ε (−2.48%) is obtained in the case of the ANN19 for
the parameter OPV_CC; the overall maximum value of ε (10.71 °C) is obtained in the
case of the ANN21 for the parameter TSA;
• the overall minimum value of |ε| (0.05%) is achieved by the ANN22 for the param-
eters OPV_PostHC and OPV_CC as well as in the case of the ANN17 for the parameter
OPV_PostHC; the overall worst value of |ε| (10.71 °C) is obtained in the case of the
ANN21 for the parameter TSA;
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 19 of 42
• the overall minimum value of MSE (0.14 °C) is obtained in the case of the ANN7 for
the parameter TSA; the overall maximum value of MSE (36.62%) is obtained in the
case of the ANN21 for the parameter OPV_PostHC;
• the overall minimum value of RMSE (0.38 °C) is achieved by the ANN7 for the pa-
rameter TSA; the overall worst value of RMSE (7.17 °C) is obtained by the ANN21 for
the parameter TSA;
• with reference to all the ANNs, average values of coefficient of determination R2 in
predicting supply air temperature, supply air relative humidity, opening percentage
of the post-heating coil valve, opening percentage of the cooling coil valve, and open-
ing percentage of the humidifier valve are very close to 1 and, respectively, equal to
0.95 °C, 0.97%, 0.95%, 0.94%, and 0.97%; the overall worst value of R2 (0.118) is ob-
tained in the case of the ANN21 for the parameter TSA; the overall best value of R2
(0.997) is achieved by the ANN7 for the parameter TSA;
• the ANN22 is characterized by 8 green cells in Table 8, i.e., it works better than the
other ANNs with reference to 8 lines of this table; the ANNs 3, 9, and 16 denote 5
green cells, while a lower number of green cells can be recognized for the other
ANNs; the ANN4 has no green cells, while the ANN with the largest number of red
cells (denoting the worst performance) is the ANN21;
• whatever the metric is, the ANN16 is characterized by greater performance in com-
parison to the ANN22 with reference to the predictions of both supply air tempera-
ture and supply air relative humidity. The percentage difference between the ANN16
and the ANN22 in predicting TSA is 27% in terms of |ε|, 40% in terms of MSE, 22% in
terms of RMSE, and 0.21% in terms of R2. The percentage difference between the
ANN16 and the ANN22 in predicting RHSA is 11% in terms of |ε|, 7% in terms of
MSE, 4% in terms of RMSE, and 0.21% in terms of R2;
• ANN22 provides better results than ANN16 in predicting the opening percentages
of the post-heating coil valve, the cooling coil valve as well as the humidifier valve.
The maximum percentage difference in terms of |ε| between the ANN22 and the
ANN16 in predicting OPV_PostHC, OPV_CC and OPV_HUM is 26%; the maximum percentage
difference in terms of MSE between the ANN22 and the ANN16 in predicting
OPV_PostHC, OPV_CC, and OPV_HUM is 21%; the maximum percentage difference in terms
of RMSE between the ANN22 and the ANN16 in predicting OPV_PostHC, OPV_CC and
OPV_HUM is 11%; the maximum difference in terms of R2 between the ANN22 and the
ANN16 in predicting OPV_PostHC, OPV_CC, and OPV_HUM is 1.13%.
Even if the ANN22 performs better than the ANN16 in predicting the opening per-
centages of the valves, in this paper the ANN16 has been selected in order to obtain im-
proved predictions in terms of supply air temperature as well as supply air relative hu-
midity (that represent the fundamental outputs of AHU operation), while maintaining an
adequate accuracy in forecasting the valves operation. The errors reported in Table 8
demonstrate how the ANN16 can be effectively used to generate operation data for assist-
ing further research in fault detection and diagnosis of HVAC units.
Figures 6–9 report the instantaneous errors between the values predicted by the
ANN16 and the measured data in terms of (i) supply air temperature (TSA), (ii) supply air
relative humidity (RHSA), (iii) opening percentage of the post-heating coil valve
(OPV_PostHC), (iv) opening percentage of the cooling coil valve (OPV_CC), and (v) opening
percentage of the humidifier valve (OPV_HUM) as a function of time.
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 20 of 42
4.0 20.0 4.0 20.0

3.5
a) ΔT
TSA [°C]
SA ΔRH
RHSA [%]
SA ΔOP
OPV_PostHC [-]
V_PostHC ΔOP
OPV_CC [-]
V_CC ΔOP
OPV_Hum [-]
V_HUM 17.5 b) ΔT
TSA [°C]
SA ΔRH
RHSA [%]
SA ΔOPV_PostHC
OPV_PostHC [-]
ΔOP
OPV_CC [-]
V_CC ΔOP
OPV_Hum [-]
V_HUM
3.5 17.5
3.0 15.0 3.0 15.0
2.5 12.5 2.5 12.5
2.0 10.0 2.0 10.0
1.5 7.5 1.5 7.5
ΔRH (%), ΔOP (-)

ΔRH (%), ΔOP (-)
1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0
0.5 2.5 0.5 2.5
ΔT (°C)
ΔT (°C)
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

−0.5 −2.5 −0.5 −2.5
−1.0 −5.0 −1.0 −5.0
−1.5 −7.5 −1.5 −7.5
−2.0 −10.0 −2.0 −10.0
−2.5 −12.5 −2.5 −12.5
−3.0 −15.0 −3.0 −15.0
−3.5 −17.5 −3.5 −17.5
−4.0 −20.0 −4.0 −20.0
29 May-13:26 29 May-13:55 29 May-14:24 29 May-14:52 29 May-15:21 29 May-15:50 29 May-16:19 28 Jul-9:57 28 Jul-10:12 28 Jul-10:26 28 Jul-10:40 28 Jul-10:55 28 Jul-11:09 28 Jul-11:24
4.0 20.0 4.0 20.0

3.5
c) ΔT
TSA [°C]
SA ΔRH
RHSA [%]
SA ΔOP
OPV_PostHC [-]
V_PostHC ΔOP
OPV_CC [-]
V_CC ΔOP
OPV_Hum [-]
V_HUM 17.5
d) ΔT
TSA [°C]
SA ΔRH
RHSA [%]
SA ΔOP
OPV_PostHC [-]
V_PostHC ΔOP
OPV_CC [-]
V_CC ΔOP
OPV_Hum [-]
V_HUM
3.5 17.5
3.0 15.0 3.0 15.0
2.5 12.5 2.5 12.5
2.0 10.0 2.0 10.0
1.5 7.5 1.5 7.5
ΔRH (%), ΔOP (-)

ΔRH (%), ΔOP (-)
1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0
0.5 2.5 0.5 2.5
ΔT (°C)
ΔT (°C)
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
−0.5 −2.5 −0.5 −2.5
−1.0 −5.0 −1.0 −5.0
−1.5 −7.5 −1.5 −7.5
−2.0 −10.0 −2.0 −10.0
−2.5 −12.5 −2.5 −12.5
−3.0 −15.0 −3.0 −15.0
−3.5 −17.5 −3.5 −17.5
−4.0 −20.0 −4.0 −20.0
23 Jul-15:14 23 Jul-15:45 23 Jul-16:16 23 Jul-16:47 23 Jul-17:18 23 Jul-17:49 23 Jul-18:20 21 Jul-9:28 21 Jul-9:55 21 Jul-10:22 21 Jul-10:50 21 Jul-11:17 21 Jul-11:44 21 Jul-12:11
Figure 6. Comparison between ANN16 predicted values and experimental data under fault free tests during summer: test
n. 1 (a), test n. 2 (b), test n. 3 (c), and test n. 4 (d).
4.0 20.0 4.0 20.0

a) ΔT
TSA [°C] ΔRH
RHSA [%] ΔOP
OPV_PostHC [-]
ΔOP
OPV_CC [-] ΔOP
OPV_Hum [-] b) ΔT
TSA [°C]
SA ΔRH
RHSA [%]
SA ΔOP
OPV_PostHC [-]
V_PostHC ΔOP
OPV_CC [-]
V_CC ΔOP
OPV_Hum [-]
V_HUM
3.5 SA SA V_PostHC V_CC V_HUM 17.5 3.5 17.5
3.0 15.0 3.0 15.0
2.5 12.5 2.5 12.5
2.0 10.0 2.0 10.0
1.5 7.5 1.5 7.5
ΔRH (%), ΔOP (-)

ΔRH (%), ΔOP (-)
1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0

0.5 2.5 0.5 2.5
ΔT (°C)
ΔT (°C)
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

−0.5 −2.5 −0.5 −2.5
−1.0 −5.0 −1.0 −5.0
−1.5 −7.5 −1.5 −7.5
−2.0 −10.0 −2.0 −10.0
−2.5 −12.5 −2.5 −12.5
−3.0 −15.0 −3.0 −15.0
−3.5 −17.5 −3.5 −17.5
−4.0 −20.0 −4.0 −20.0
31 Jul-9:56 31 Jul-10:46 31 Jul-11:36 31 Jul-12:27 31 Jul-13:17 31 Jul-14:08 31 Jul-14:58 03 Aug-10:48 03 Aug-11:28 03 Aug-12:08 03 Aug-12:48 03 Aug-13:29 03 Aug-14:09 03 Aug-14:49
4.0 20.0 4.0 20.0

c) ΔT
TSA [°C] ΔRH
RHSA [%] ΔOPV_PostHC
OPV_PostHC [-]
ΔOPV_CC
OPV_CC [-] ΔOP
OPV_Hum [-] d) ΔT
TSA [°C]
SA ΔRH
RHSA [%]
SA ΔOP
OPV_PostHC [-]
V_PostHC ΔOP
OPV_CC [-]
V_CC ΔOPV_HUM
OPV_Hum [-]
3.5 SA SA V_HUM 17.5 3.5 17.5
3.0 15.0 3.0 15.0
2.5 12.5 2.5 12.5
2.0 10.0 2.0 10.0
1.5 7.5 1.5 7.5
ΔRH (%), ΔOP (-)
ΔRH (%), ΔOP (-)
1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0

0.5 2.5 0.5 2.5
ΔT (°C)
ΔT (°C)
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

−0.5 −2.5 −0.5 −2.5
−1.0 −5.0 −1.0 −5.0
−1.5 −7.5 −1.5 −7.5
−2.0 −10.0 −2.0 −10.0
−2.5 −12.5 −2.5 −12.5
−3.0 −15.0 −3.0 −15.0
−3.5 −17.5 −3.5 −17.5
−4.0 −20.0 −4.0 −20.0
16 Sep-12:15 16 Sep-12:38 16 Sep-13:01 16 Sep-13:24 16 Sep-13:48 16 Sep-14:11 16 Sep-14:34 16 Sep-15:28 16 Sep-15:58 16 Sep-16:28 16 Sep-16:58 16 Sep-17:27 16 Sep-17:57 16 Sep-18:27
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 21 of 42
4.0 20.0
e) ΔT
TSA [°C]
SA ΔRHSA
RHSA [%] ΔOP
OPV_PostHC [-]
V_PostHC ΔOP
OPV_CC [-]
V_CC ΔOP
OPV_Hum [-]
V_HUM
3.5 17.5
3.0 15.0
2.5 12.5
2.0 10.0
1.5 7.5
ΔRH (%), ΔOP (-)

1.0 5.0
0.5 2.5
ΔT (°C)
0.0 0.0
−0.5 −2.5
−1.0 −5.0
−1.5 −7.5
−2.0 −10.0
−2.5 −12.5
−3.0 −15.0
−3.5 −17.5
−4.0 −20.0
18 Sep-9:56 18 Sep-10:26 18 Sep-10:56 18 Sep-11:26 18 Sep-11:57 18 Sep-12:27 18 Sep-12:57
Figure 7. Comparison between ANN16 predicted values and experimental data under faulty tests during summer: test n.
5 (a), test n. 6 (b), test n. 7 (c), test n. 8 (d), and test n. 9 (e).
4.0 20.0 4.0 20.0

3.5
a) ΔT
TSA [°C]
SA ΔRH
RHSA [%]
SA ΔOP
OPV_PostHC [-]
V_PostHC ΔOP
OPV_CC [-]
V_CC ΔOP
OPV_Hum [-]
V_HUM 17.5
b) ΔT
TSA [°C]
SA ΔRH
RHSA [%]
SA ΔOP
OPV_PostHC [-]
V_PostHC ΔOP
OPV_CC [-]
V_CC ΔOPV_HUM
OPV_Hum [-]
3.5 17.5
3.0 15.0 3.0 15.0
2.5 12.5 2.5 12.5
2.0 10.0 2.0 10.0
1.5 7.5 1.5 7.5
ΔRH (%), ΔOP (-)
ΔRH (%), ΔOP (-)

1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0
ΔT (°C)
0.5 2.5 0.5 2.5

ΔT (°C)
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

−0.5 −2.5 −0.5 −2.5
−1.0 −5.0 −1.0 −5.0
−1.5 −7.5 −1.5 −7.5
−2.0 −10.0 −2.0 −10.0
−2.5 −12.5 −2.5 −12.5
−3.0 −15.0 −3.0 −15.0
−3.5 −17.5 −3.5 −17.5
−4.0 −20.0 −4.0 −20.0
23 Dec-9:31 23 Dec-10:30 23 Dec-11:29 23 Dec-12:27 23 Dec-13:26 23 Dec-14:25 23 Dec-15:24 28 Dec-10:00 28 Dec-11:05 28 Dec-12:10 28 Dec-13:14 28 Dec-14:19 28 Dec-15:24 28 Dec-16:29
4.0 20.0 4.0 20.0

c) ΔT
TSA [°C]
SA ΔRH
RHSA [%]
SA ΔOP
OPV_PostHC [-]
V_PostHC ΔOP
OPV_CC [-]
V_CC ΔOP
OPV_Hum [-]
V_HUM 3.5
d) ΔT
TSA [°C]
SA ΔRH
RHSA [%]
SA ΔOP
OPV_PostHC [-]
V_PostHC ΔOP
OPV_CC [-]
V_CC ΔOP
OPV_Hum [-]
V_HUM 17.5
3.5 17.5
3.0 15.0 3.0 15.0
2.5 12.5 2.5 12.5
2.0 10.0 2.0 10.0
1.5 7.5 1.5 7.5
ΔRH (%), ΔOP (-)

ΔRH (%), ΔOP (-)
1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0

0.5 2.5 0.5 2.5
ΔT (°C)
ΔT (°C)
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

−0.5 −2.5 −0.5 −2.5
−1.0 −5.0 −1.0 −5.0
−1.5 −7.5 −1.5 −7.5
−2.0 −10.0 −2.0 −10.0
−2.5 −12.5 −2.5 −12.5
−3.0 −15.0 −3.0 −15.0
−3.5 −17.5 −3.5 −17.5
−4.0 −20.0 −4.0 −20.0
29 Dec-9:34 29 Dec-10:39 29 Dec-11:43 29 Dec-12:48 29 Dec-13:52 29 Dec-14:57 29 Dec-16:01 05 Jan-9:47 05 Jan-10:50 05 Jan-11:53 05 Jan-12:56 05 Jan-13:59 05 Jan-15:02 05 Jan-16:05
Figure 8. Comparison between ANN16 predicted values and experimental data under fault free tests during winter: test
n. 10 (a), test n. 11 (b), test n. 12 (c), and test n. 13 (d).
4.0 20.0 4.0 20.0

a) ΔT
TSA [°C]
SA ΔRH
RHSA [%]
SA ΔOP
OPV_PostHC [-]
V_PostHC ΔOP
OPV_CC [-]
V_CC ΔOP
OPV_Hum [-]
V_HUM 3.5
b) ΔTSA
TSA [°C] ΔRH
RHSA [%]
SA ΔOP
OPV_PostHC [-]
V_PostHC ΔOP
OPV_CC [-]
V_CC ΔOP
OPV_Hum [-]
V_HUM 17.5
3.5 17.5
3.0 15.0 3.0 15.0
2.5 12.5 2.5 12.5
2.0 10.0 2.0 10.0
1.5 7.5 1.5 7.5
ΔRH (%), ΔOP (-)
ΔRH (%), ΔOP (-)
1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0

0.5 2.5 0.5 2.5
ΔT (°C)
ΔT (°C)
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

−0.5 −2.5 −0.5 −2.5
−1.0 −5.0 −1.0 −5.0
−1.5 −7.5 −1.5 −7.5
−2.0 −10.0 −2.0 −10.0
−2.5 −12.5 −2.5 −12.5
−3.0 −15.0 −3.0 −15.0
−3.5 −17.5 −3.5 −17.5
−4.0 −20.0 −4.0 −20.0
12 Jan-9:20 12 Jan-10:31 12 Jan-11:43 12 Jan-12:54 12 Jan-14:05 12 Jan-15:17 12 Jan-16:28 14 Jan-9:17 14 Jan-10:44 14 Jan-12:11 14 Jan-13:39 14 Jan-15:06 14 Jan-16:33 14 Jan-18:00
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 22 of 42
4.0 20.0 4.0 20.0

3.5
c) ΔT
TSA [°C]
SA ΔRH
RHSA [%]
SA ΔOP
OPV_PostHC [-]
V_PostHC ΔOP
OPV_CC [-]
V_CC ΔOP
OPV_Hum [-]
V_HUM 17.5
d) ΔT
TSA [°C]
SA ΔRH
RHSA [%]
SA ΔOP
OPV_PostHC [-]
V_PostHC ΔOP
OPV_CC [-]
V_CC ΔOP
OPV_Hum [-]
V_HUM
3.5 17.5
3.0 15.0 3.0 15.0
2.5 12.5 2.5 12.5
2.0 10.0 2.0 10.0
1.5 7.5 1.5 7.5
ΔRH (%), ΔOP (-)

ΔRH (%), ΔOP (-)
1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0
0.5 2.5 0.5 2.5
ΔT (°C)
ΔT (°C)
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

−0.5 −2.5 −0.5 −2.5
−1.0 −5.0 −1.0 −5.0
−1.5 −7.5 −1.5 −7.5
−2.0 −10.0 −2.0 −10.0
−2.5 −12.5 −2.5 −12.5
−3.0 −15.0 −3.0 −15.0
−3.5 −17.5 −3.5 −17.5
−4.0 −20.0 −4.0 −20.0
28 Jan-9:54 28 Jan-11:01 28 Jan-12:08 28 Jan-13:14 28 Jan-14:21 28 Jan-15:28 28 Jan-16:34 15 Feb-9:43 15 Feb-10:57 15 Feb-12:11 15 Feb-13:26 15 Feb-14:40 15 Feb-15:54 15 Feb-17:09
4.0 20.0
e) ΔT
TSA [°C]
SA ΔRH
RHSA [%]
SA ΔOP
OPV_PostHC [-]
V_PostHC ΔOP
OPV_CC [-]
V_CC ΔOPV_HUM
OPV_Hum [-]
3.5 17.5
3.0 15.0
2.5 12.5
2.0 10.0
1.5 7.5
ΔRH (%), ΔOP (-)

1.0 5.0
0.5 2.5
ΔT (°C)
0.0 0.0
−0.5 −2.5
−1.0 −5.0
−1.5 −7.5
−2.0 −10.0
−2.5 −12.5
−3.0 −15.0
−3.5 −17.5
−4.0 −20.0
12 Feb-9:48 12 Feb-10:59 12 Feb-12:09 12 Feb-13:19 12 Feb-14:30 12 Feb-15:40 12 Feb-16:50
Figure 9. Comparison between ANN16 predicted values and experimental data under faulty tests during winter: test n.
14 (a), test n. 15 (b), test n. 16 (c), test n. 17 (d), and test n. 18 (e).
In more detail, the following parameters are showed in Figures 6–9:
ΔTSA = TSA,pred - TSA,exp (7)
ΔRHSA = RHSA,pred - RHSA,exp (8)
ΔOPV_PostHC = OPV_PostHC,pred - OPV_PostHC,exp (9)
ΔOPV_CC = OPV_CC,pred - OPV_CC,exp (10)
ΔOPV_HUM = OPV_HUM,pred - OPV_HUM,exp (11)
where TSA, pred, RHSA, pred, OPV_PostHC, pred, OPV_CC, pred, and OPV_HUM, pred are, respectively, the
values predicted by the ANN16, while TSA, exp, RHSA, exp, OPV_PostHC, exp, OPV_CC, exp, and
OPV_HUM, exp represent the experimental values.
Figures 6–9 highlight that:
• the minimum value of ∆T is −3.41 °C (test n.1), while its maximum value is 3.80
°C (test n.1);
• the values of ∆RH range from −19.20% (test n. 17) up to 17.03% (test n. 17);
• the parameter ∆OP _ is in the range −10.05% ÷ 10.12%, where the minimum is
achieved during the test n. 4, while the maximum refers to the test n. 2;
• the values of ∆OP _ vary from −10.03% (test n. 18) up to 10.09% (test n. 9);
• the values of ∆OP _ range between −9.97% (test n. 4) and 10.11% (test n.17).
In order to better point out the results of comparisons between predicted and exper-
imental values reported in Figures 6–9, the values of the metrics defined by the Equations
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 23 of 42
(1)–(6), calculated for the parameters specified by the Equations (7)–(11), have been sum-
marized in Table 9. For each line of this table, the green shade has been assigned to the
cells corresponding to the best performance, while the worst results have been highlighted
by red shades.
Table 9. Errors between the ANN16-based model predictions and experimental points.
Fault Free Tests Faulty Tests Fault Free Tests Faulty Tests
during Summer during Summer during Winter during Winter
Test n. Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test n. Test Test Test Test n. Test Test Test Test
Errors Parameters
1 n. 2 n. 3 n. 4 n. 5 n. 6 n. 7 n. 8 n. 9 10 n. 11 n. 12 n. 13 14 n. 15 n. 16 n. 17 n. 18
∆TSA (°C) −0.10 0.09 0.22 0.17 0.06 0.09 −0.04 0.21 0.01 0.11 −0.01 −0.02 0.07 −0.02 −0.11 0.01 0.22 0.16
∆RHSA (%) −0.18 0.04 0.28 −0.88 −0.87 0.11 0.01 0.33 −0.05 −0.24 −0.43 −0.03 −0.36 −0.08 −0.61 −0.22 −0.02 −0.39
𝛆 ∆OPV_PostHC (%) 0.06 0.11 0.02 −0.06 0.00 −0.01 −0.07 0.00 −0.11 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.02 −0.03 0.05 −0.10 0.00 0.05
∆OPV_CC (%) −0.12 0.03 −0.05 −0.01 0.00 0.01 0.03 −0.10 0.06 −0.06 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.02 −0.01 −0.31
∆OPV_HUM (%) 0.12 0.00 −0.04 −0.10 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.12 −0.03 −0.07 −0.03 −0.16 0.11 −0.01 −0.04 0.00 −0.01 −0.16
∆TSA (°C) 0.55 0.46 0.60 0.56 0.19 0.38 0.53 0.44 0.43 0.47 0.38 0.48 0.43 0.41 0.47 0.30 0.45 0.46
∆RHSA (%) 1.97 2.19 2.57 2.40 1.21 11.09 2.12 1.47 1.99 2.24 2.04 2.49 2.32 1.18 2.26 0.70 2.84 1.69
|𝛆| ∆OPV_PostHC (%) 0.06 0.11 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.11 0.24 0.23 0.26 0.30 0.09 0.12 0.10 0.00 0.25
∆OPV_CC (%) 0.12 0.03 0.11 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.10 0.07 0.18 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.12 0.02 0.01 0.36
∆OPV_HUM (%) 0.12 0.00 0.05 0.13 0.00 0.37 0.07 0.21 0.03 0.19 0.20 0.26 0.22 0.02 0.15 0.00 0.45 0.16
∆TSA (°C) 0.71 0.51 0.58 0.51 0.07 0.38 0.52 0.36 0.47 0.36 0.27 0.42 0.32 0.28 0.38 0.14 0.34 0.32
∆RHSA (%) 8.59 7.44 11.13 10.23 2.48 11.09 10.08 4.85 6.15 10.50 9.12 11.06 12.27 2.73 13.25 1.08 22.41 5.19
MSE ∆OPV_PostHC (%) 0.58 1.15 0.09 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 1.18 0.74 0.73 0.99 0.95 0.40 0.43 0.31 0.00 0.87
∆OPV_CC (%) 1.16 0.03 0.60 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.07 0.60 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.40 0.00 0.00 3.00
∆OPV_HUM (%) 1.16 0.00 0.10 0.95 0.00 0.37 0.42 1.12 0.03 0.85 0.79 1.10 1.38 0.05 0.78 0.00 2.63 0.29
∆TSA (°C) 0.84 0.71 0.73 0.70 0.25 0.61 0.72 0.57 0.67 0.59 0.52 0.65 0.56 0.53 0.61 0.37 0.54 0.54
∆RHSA (%) 2.93 2.74 3.34 3.09 1.32 3.34 3.19 2.18 2.42 3.24 2.99 3.33 3.49 1.65 3.59 1.02 4.74 2.25
RMSE ∆OPV_PostHC (%) 0.76 1.07 0.30 0.79 0.00 0.01 0.46 0.01 1.05 0.86 0.85 1.00 0.98 0.63 0.65 0.55 0.01 0.93
∆OPV_CC (%) 1.08 0.17 0.78 0.35 0.00 0.01 0.68 0.25 0.75 1.15 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.61 0.63 0.04 0.07 1.71
∆OPV_HUM (%) 1.07 0.00 0.32 0.97 0.03 0.61 0.65 1.05 0.17 0.92 0.89 1.04 1.17 0.21 0.89 0.01 1.62 0.51
∆TSA (°C) 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.85 0.96 0.92 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.60 0.85 0.99
∆RHSA (%) 0.97 0.76 0.97 0.96 0.89 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.97 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.77 0.87 0.98
R2 ∆OPV_PostHC (%) 0.95 0.49 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.98 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.96
∆OPV_CC (%) 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.88
∆OPV_HUM (%) 0.94 1.00 0.99 0.94 1.00 0.98 0.98 0.92 1.00 0.93 0.95 0.92 0.86 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.87 1.00
This table underlines that the ANN16 is able to carefully predict the experimental
data measured during summer and winter under both normal and faulty conditions and
it provides a rigorous representation of the HVAC system’s steady-state and transient op-
eration taking into account that:
• with reference to all the tests, the average values of R2 in predicting TSA, RHSA,
OPV_PostHC, OPV_CC and OPV_HUM are, respectively, 0.95 °C, 0.93%, 0.95%, 0.97%, and
0.96%;
• with reference to the tests n. 1–4 (performed without faults during summer), the val-
ues of R2 are always larger than 0.9 for all the parameters, except the cases of ∆RHSA
and ∆OPV_PostHC for the test n.2;
• with reference to the tests n. 5–9 (performed with faults during summer), the coeffi-
cient of determination is always greater than 0.9 for all the parameters, except the
cases of ∆RHSA for the test n.5 (with fault 1) and ∆TSA for the test n.6 (with fault 2);
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 24 of 42
• with reference to the tests n. 10–13 (performed without faults during winter), the val-
ues of R2 are always larger than 0.9 for all the parameters, except the case of ∆OPV_HUM
for the test n.13;
• with reference to the tests n. 14–18 (performed with faults during winter), the coeffi-
cient of determination is always greater than 0.9 for all the parameters, except (i) the
cases of both ∆TSA and ∆RHSA for both the tests n.16 (fault 3) and n.17 (fault 4), (ii) the
cases of both ∆OPV_PostHC and ∆OPV_CC for the test n.15 (fault 2), (iii) the case of ∆OPV_CC
for the test n.18 (fault 5) as well as (iv) the case of ∆OPHUM for the test n.17 (fault 4);
• whatever the test is, the values of |ε|̅ for the parameter ∆TSA are always lower than
0.8 °C (that is the accuracy of the sensor used for measuring TSA), with a minimum of
0.19 °C (test n.5) up to a maximum of 0.60 °C (test. n.3);
• the values of |ε|̅ for the parameter ∆RHSA range between a minimum of 0.7% up to
a maximum of 11.1% and, therefore, they are always smaller than 3% (that is the ac-
curacy of the sensor used for measuring RHSA), except the only case of the test n.6
(performed with fault 2 during summer);
• the maximum values of MSE and RMSE with reference to the parameter ∆TSA are,
respectively, not larger than 0.71 °C and 0.84 °C (obtained for the test n.1 performed
without faults during summer);
• the maximum values of MSE and RMSE with reference to the parameter ∆RHSA are,
respectively, not larger than 22.4% and 4.74% (achieved for the test n.17 performed
with fault 4 during winter);
• the maximum value of MSE with reference to the parameters ∆OPV_PostHC, ∆OPV_CC
and ∆OPV_HUM is 3.0%, obtained in the case of the test n.18 performed with fault 5
during winter;
• the maximum value of RMSE with reference to the parameters ∆OPV_PostHC, ∆OPV_CC
and ∆OPV_HUM is 1.7%, achieved in the case of the test n.18 performed with fault 5
during winter.
4.2. TRNSYS Model

In the dynamic simulation software TRNSYS (version 17) [33], the whole system is
first broken up into specific models (named “Types”) of each single system component,
where each “Type” is represented by a FORTRAN code. The users can assemble the TRN-
SYS Types by connecting component outputs with component inputs and then specifying
the corresponding components’ performance parameters. Finally, the software solves the
corresponding equations in order to characterize the component/system operation every
time step.
In this study, a detailed model in TRNSYS environment has been developed to sim-
ulate, using a time step of 1 min (according to the time step of experimental data utilized
in this work for training, testing, and validating the ANN-based model), (i) the return air
temperature (TRA); (ii) the return air relative humidity (RHRA); as well as the electric energy
consumptions (not measured) of (iii) the heat pump (HP), (iv) the refrigerating system
(RS), (v) the humidifier (HUM), (vi) the supply air fan (SAF), and (vii) the return air fan
(RAF). With reference to the several performance parameters to be specified in the TRN-
SYS Types used into the simulation model, it can be noticed that, in this study, some of
the parameters have been directly identified or calculated based on catalog data; the re-
maining parameters have been defined based on field measurements.
Table 10 lists the main modeled components and the corresponding TRNSYS Types
used in the simulation model.
Figure 10 depicts a screenshot of the TRNSYS model, highlighting the main circuits
with different colors. In particular, the circuit of cold fluid supplied by the refrigerating
system to the cooling coil is depicted in blue; the circuit of hot fluid supplied by the heat
pump to the post-heating coil is indicated in red; finally, the inputs and outputs of the
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 25 of 42
ANN-based model are highlighted in light blue. The other connections of TRNSYS Types
are pointed out by dashed black lines.
Table 10. Main simulated components and corresponding types of TRNSYS software.
Simulated Component TRNSYS Type/Model

Test room 56
Heat pump/Refrigerating system 941
Hot and cold tanks 534
Humidifier 641
HP/RS pump 654
Diverting/mixing valves 647/649
On/Off differential controllers 2
Moist air properties 33e
Integrated test room 56
Figure 10. Screenshot of the TRNSYS model.
The TRNSYS model has been coupled with the artificial neural network ANN16 (de-
scribed in the previous section) via the TRNSYS Type 155.
The ANN16 uses as inputs the 10 variables indicated in the previous section and pro-
vides as outputs the 5 parameters specified in the same section.
The Type 155 links ANN16 with both the Type 56 as well as the Type 661. In partic-
ular, the Type 155 provides two of the outputs of the ANN16, i.e., the supply air temper-
ature and relative humidity, as inputs to the Type 56. In addition, the Type 155 provides
as inputs to the Type 661 all the outputs of the ANN16, i.e., the supply air temperature,
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 26 of 42
the supply air relative humidity, as well as the opening percentages of the valves supply-
ing the humidifier, the pre-heating coil, and the cooling coil. The Type 661 models a
“sticky” controller with its outputs assumed equal to the inputs at the earlier time step;
the outputs of the Type 661 are then provided as inputs to the Type 155.
A dynamic model of the “building” corresponding to the integrated test room has
been developed by means of the Type 56. This model allows calculation of the return air
temperature and relative humidity (then assigned as inputs to the Type 661) according to
the geometry, thermo-physical properties of walls’ layers, air infiltration rate, as well as
internal loads/gains. In particular, the geometry and walls’ layers have been characterized
according to the content of the previous section, while air infiltration rate as well as inter-
nal loads/gains are kept equal to zero according to the experimental conditions.
The Type 941 has been considered for simulating the operation of both the refriger-
ating unit (RS) and the heat pump (HP) of the experimental setup. This Type allows to
obtain as outputs (a) the absorbed power and (b) the exiting fluid temperature in the case
of (i) the outside air temperature, (ii) the entering fluid temperature, (iii) the fluid flow
rate, as well as (iv) the performance maps of the devices are provided as inputs. In this
study, the outside temperature has been assumed to be equal to the measured values (the
Type 9a has been used for reading data from an external file and making them available
to the TRNSYS Types 941), the fluid mass flow rate is set to 2310 kg/h for the refrigerating
system and 2410 kg/h for the heat pump according to the manufacturer datasheet [36],
and the performance maps suggested by the manufacturer [36] and reported in Figure
A2a,b of Appendix A have been provided. In particular, Figure A2a,b, respectively, indi-
cates the coefficient of performance COP of the heap pump (useful thermal power output
divided by required electric power input) and the energy efficiency ratio EER of the re-
frigerating system (useful cooling power output divided by required electric power input)
depending on supply fluid temperature and outside air temperature.
Both the heat pump and the refrigerating system are coupled with a 75 L tank that is
devoted to storing the hot and cold fluids, respectively. The operations of both hot and
cold tanks have been simulated with the Type 534. This Type models a cylindrical vertical
tank; it divides the tanks into 10 isothermal temperature layers in order to carefully con-
sider thermal stratification (where the layer n. 1 is positioned on the uppermost portion
of the tank and the layer n. 10 is positioned on the lowest part of the tank).
With reference to the modeling of the fans, a specifically devoted data set was gath-
ered from a calibration activity performed by adjusting and maintaining the supply and
return fans at various speeds from 10% to 100%. Figure A3 in Appendix A shows the air
volumetric flow rate QV measured at SENS i-Lab and the power consumption Pel sug-
gested by the manufacturer as a function of the fan’ velocity OL. In particular, Figure A3a
refers to the supply air fan, while Figure A3b is related to the return air fan.
The following equations, interpolating the values reported in Figures A3a,b, have
been derived to calculate both the air volumetric flow rate QV as well as the power con-
sumption Pel of both supply and return air fans as a function of fans’ velocity:
QVSAF = −0.00001∙OLSAF3 + 0.0634∙OLSAF2 + 5.1789∙OLSAF + 8.7704 (12)
PelSAF = 0.0003∙OLSAF3 + 0.1068∙OLSAF2 + 0.7383∙OLSAF + 4.9372 (13)
QVRAF = 14.491∙ OLRAF + 12.352 (14)
PelRAF = 0.001∙OLRAF3 – 0.078∙OLRAF2 + 3.120∙OLRAF − 2.102 (15)
Equations (12)–(15) have been included in the TRNSYS project via the Type 9a (ex-
ternal file data reader) for calculating the fans’ power consumption according to the fans’
velocity.
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 27 of 42
The operation of the adiabatic steam humidifier has been modeled via the Type 641;
this model permits the humidifier not to respond instantaneously to the control signal,
but to get the steady-state values of both power consumption and gain rate exponentially.
In the TRNSYS project, the control signal associated to the opening percentage of the hu-
midifier valve is provided as input to the Type 641 by the ANN16 through the Type 155.
Based on catalog data, the humidifier power consumption has been considered equal to
the nominal value of 3.7 kW, while the humidifier is activated taking into account that it
has been experimentally verified that water flow rate supplied by the humidifier increases
from the minimum to the maximum value (5 kg/h) almost instantaneously.
The Type 654 has been used for modeling the single-speed pumps maintaining a con-
stant fluid flow exiting/entering the heat pump and the refrigerating system.
The Type 647 has been used to model the diverting valves that split a liquid inlet flow
into two fractional outlet flows, while the Type 649 is adopted to simulate the mixing
valves that combine two individual liquid streams into a single outlet.
The moist air properties have been evaluated by means of the Type 33e; this Type
takes as inputs the air relative humidity and the air dry bulb temperature and generate
the other corresponding air properties as outputs.
In this paper, the Type 2 has been adopted for simulating on/off differential control-
lers. These devises generate a value in the range between 0 and 1 that is used to deactivate
or activate the refrigerating system or the heat pump. In particular, this Type activates the
component generating a signal equal to 1 when the observed parameter becomes lower
than the user-defined setpoint by a certain value (upper deadband), while it is switched
off in the case of the observed parameter approaches the user-defined setpoint within a
given limit (lower deadband). The successive value generated by the differential control-
ler is also affected by the value assumed by the control signal used as input at the earlier
time step. In this work, the differential controller is operated by connecting the input and
output signals in order to give a hysteresis effect. In greater detail, the temperature at node
2 of the tank storing the cold fluid has been assumed as the observed temperature for
activating/deactivating the refrigeration unit; with reference to the hot tank, the tempera-
ture at node 8 has been adopted as the watched temperature for operating the heat pump.
A target temperature of 45 °C was assumed for activating the heap pump, with a turn-on
temperature difference of 1 °C and a turn-off temperature difference of −1 °C. A target
temperature of 7 °C was defined for activating the refrigeration unit, with a turn-on tem-
perature difference of 1 °C and a turn-off temperature difference of −1 °C. The hot/cold
heat carrier fluid is moved by the pumps into the post-heating/cooling coil according to
the opening percentage of the corresponding valves defined by the related outputs of the
ANN16 via the Type 155. The temperature of the hot heat carrier fluid is assumed to be
reduced by 5 °C when flowing into the post-heating coil (before entering the hot tank),
while the temperature of the cold heat carrier fluid is assumed as increased by 5 °C when
flowing into the cooling coil (before entering the cold tank).
5. Assessment of Faults’ Impact

In this section, the experimental performances of the HVAC system operating under
faulty conditions (summer tests n. 5–9 of Table 4 and winter tests n. 14–18 of Table 5) have
been compared with those predicted by the artificial neural network ANN16 (described
in Section 4a), coupled with the TRNSYS model (described in Section 4b), in the cases of
the HVAC system is operating under the same boundary conditions without faults. In
more detail, the following inputs have been provided to the ANN16 in order to simulate
the HVAC performance without faults: (i) return air temperature calculated by the TRN-
SYS Type 56 as well as target of indoor air temperature equal to 26 °C; (ii) return air rela-
tive humidity calculated by the TRNSYS Type 56 as well as target of indoor air relative
humidity equal to 50%; (iii) supply air temperature calculated by the ANN16 itself at pre-
vious time step; (iv) supply air relative humidity calculated by the ANN16 itself at previ-
ous time step; (v) experimental value of outside air temperature; (vi) opening percentage
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 28 of 42
of the valve supplying the post-heating coil calculated by the ANN16 itself at previous
time step; (vii) opening percentage of the valve supplying the cooling coil calculated by
the ANN16 itself at previous time step; (viii) opening percentage of the valve supplying
the humidifier calculated by the ANN16 itself at previous time step; (ix) velocity of supply
air fan equal to the nominal value of 50%; and (x) velocity of return air fan equal to the
nominal value of 50%.This means that:
• The experimental tests n. 5 and n.14 (with the fault 1, i.e., with the velocity of the
supply air fan kept at 20%) have been compared with the simulation cases where the
velocity of supply air fan has been kept at the nominal value of 50%;
• The experimental tests n. 6 and n. 15 (with the fault 2, i.e., the velocity of the return
air fan kept at 20%) have been compared with the simulation cases where the velocity
of return air fan has been kept at the nominal value of 50%;
• The experimental tests n. 7 and n. 16 (with the fault 3, i.e., the post-heating coil valve
kept always closed) have been compared with the simulation cases where the values
of OPV_PostHC can vary according to the automatic control logic in the range of 0 to 100;
• The experimental tests n. 8 and n. 17 (with the fault 4, i.e., the cooling coil valve kept
always closed) have been compared with the simulation cases where the values of
OPV_CC can vary according to the automatic control logic in the range of 0 to 100;
• The experimental tests n. 9 and n. 18 (with the fault 5, i.e., the opening percentage of
the steam humidifier valve kept always closed) have been compared with the simu-
lation cases where the values of OPV_HUM can vary according to the automatic control
logic in the range of 0 to 100.
Figures 11 and 12 highlight the values of return air temperature (TRA) and return air
relative humidity (RHRA) over time, for the cases without faults (predicted values repre-
sented by solid lines) and the cases when only one of the 5 above-mentioned faults is oc-
curred (experimental values indicated by dashed lines) with the aim of helping the con-
trast between normal and faulty scenarios. In particular, Figure 11 refers to the summer
tests, while Figure 12 corresponds to the winter tests.
33 100 33 100
a) TTRA_exp
RA,exp,fault1 T
T_RA_°C
RA,pred,w/o_fault RH
RHRA_exp
RA,exp,fault1 RHRA,pred,w/o_fault
RH_RA_%
b) T
TRA_exp
RA,exp,fault2 TRA,pred,w/o_fault
T_RA_°C RH
RHRA_exp
RH_RA_%
32 95 32 95
31 90 31 90
30 85 30 85

29 80 29 80
Temperature (°C)
Temperature (°C)
28 75 28 75
27 70 27 70
26 65 26 65
25 60 25 60
24 55 24 55
23 50 23 50
22 45 22 45
21 40 21 40
31-Jul - 9.56 31-Jul - 11.09 31-Jul - 12.23 31-Jul - 13.36 31-Jul - 14.49 03-Aug - 10.46 03-Aug - 11.45 03-Aug - 12.44 03-Aug - 13.44 03-Aug - 14.43
33 100 33 100
c) TTRA_exp
T_RA_°C RH
RHRA_exp
RA,exp,fault3 RH
RH_RA_%
RA,pred,w/o_fault d) T
TRA_exp
RA,exp,fault4 T
T_RA_°C
RHRA_exp
RH_RA_%
32 95 32 95
31 90 31 90
30 85 30 85
29 80 29 80
Temperature (°C)
Temperature (°C)
28 75 28 75
27 70 27 70
26 65 26 65
25 60 25 60
24 55 24 55
23 50 23 50
22 45 22 45
21 40 21 40
16-Sep - 12.15 16-Sep - 12.49 16-Sep - 13.23 16-Sep - 13.57 16-Sep - 14.31 16-Sep - 15.28 16-Sep - 16.12 16-Sep - 16.55 16-Sep - 17.38 16-Sep - 18.21
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 29 of 42
33 100
e) TTRA_exp
RA,exp, fault5 T
T_RA_°C
RHRA_exp
RA,exp,fault5
RH
RH_RA_%
RA,pred,w/o_fault
32 95
31 90
30 85

29 80
Temperature (°C)
28 75
27 70
26 65
25 60
24 55
23 50
22 45
21 40
18-Sep - 9.56 18-Sep - 10.39 18-Sep - 11.22 18-Sep - 12.05 18-Sep - 12.48
Figure 11. Comparison between experimental faulty operation (dashed lines) and predicted normal operation tests (solid
lines) during summer in terms of TRA and RHRA: test n. 5 (a), test n. 6 (b), test n. 7 (c), test n. 8 (d), and test n. 9 (e).
25 90 25 90
a) TTRA_exp
RA,exp,fault1 T
T_RA_°C
RHRA_exp
RA,exp,fault1 RH
RH_RA_%
RA,pred,w/o_fault b) T
TRA_exp
T_RA_°C RH
RHRA_exp
RH_RA_%
24 85 24 85
23 80 23 80
22 75 22 75

21 70 21 70
Temperature (°C)
Temperature (°C)
20 65 20 65
19 60 19 60
18 55 18 55
17 50 17 50
16 45 16 45
15 40 15 40
14 35 14 35
12-Jan - 9.20 12-Jan - 10.39 12-Jan - 11.58 12-Jan - 13.17 12-Jan - 14.36 12-Jan - 15.56 14-Jan - 9.17 14-Jan - 10.43 14-Jan - 12.10 14-Jan - 13.36 14-Jan - 15.02 14-Jan - 16.29 14-Jan - 17.55
25 90 25 90
c) T
TRA_exp
T_RA_°C RH
RHRA_exp
RA,exp,fault3 RH
RH_RA_%
RA,pred,w/o_fault d) T
TRA_exp
RA,exp,fault4 T
T_RA_°C
RHRA_exp
RH_RA_%
24 85 24 85
23 80 23 80
22 75 22 75

21 70 21 70
Temperature (°C)
Temperature (°C)
20 65 20 65
19 60 19 60
18 55 18 55
17 50 17 50
16 45 16 45
15 40 15 40
14 35 14 35
28-Jan - 9.53 28-Jan - 11.05 28-Jan - 12.17 28-Jan - 13.29 28-Jan - 14.41 28-Jan - 15.53 15-Feb - 9.40 15-Feb - 10.59 15-Feb - 12.18 15-Feb - 13.37 15-Feb - 14.57 15-Feb - 16.16
25 90
e) T
TRA_exp
RA,exp,fault5 T
T_RA_°C
RHRA_exp
RH_RA_%
24 85
23 80
22 75
21 70
Temperature (°C)
20 65
19 60
18 55
17 50
16 45
15 40
14 35
12-Feb - 9.46 12-Feb - 10.58 12-Feb - 12.10 12-Feb - 13.22 12-Feb - 14.34 12-Feb - 15.46
Figure 12. Comparison between experimental faulty operation (dashed lines) and predicted fault free operation tests dur-
ing winter in terms of TRA and RHRA: test n. 14 (a), test n. 15 (b), test n. 16 (c), test n. 17 (d), and test n. 18 (e).
These comparisons have been performed in order to assess the impact of each fault
on (i) the capability to achieve the desired indoor conditions, (ii) the arithmetic mean and
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 30 of 42
standard deviation of return air temperature and relative humidity, as well as (iii) the
electric energy consumptions. In particular, the effects of faults on occupant thermo-hy-
grometric comfort are reported in Section 5.1.; the faults’ impact associated with the trends
of return air temperature and relative humidity is described in Section 5.2.; the influence
of each fault on electric energy consumptions is indicated in Section 5.3. The discussion
about all the results is performed in last Section 5.4.
5.1. Results: Faults’ Impact on Thermo-Hygrometric Comfort

Table 11 compares the thermal/hygrometric comfort times (i.e., the percentage of
time during with values of indoor air temperature/relative humidity within the given
deadbands) of the simulation tests without faults with respect to those associated to the
corresponding experimental tests when only one of the five faults (described in the previ-
ous Section 3) is occurring.
Table 11. Thermal-hygrometric time with/without faults.
Thermal Com- Hygrometric

ID Test
fort Time (%) Comfort Time (%)
With fault 1 (experimental) 0.00 16.17
Test 5 Without fault (predicted) 65.79 86.84
Difference between faulty and healthy operation −65.79 −70.67
Summer tests Test 7 Without fault (predicted) 81.95 88.72
Difference between faulty and healthy operation 2.59 −15.78
Winter tests Test 16 Without fault (predicted) 69.75 86.25
Difference between faulty and healthy operation −69.75 13.50
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 31 of 42
5.2. Results: Faults’ Impact on Key Operating Parameters

Experimental data under faulty operation and predicted data under fault-free oper-
ation were compared by calculating the arithmetic mean μ and the standard deviation σ
of (1) return air temperature (TRA) and (2) return air relative humidity (RHRA). The arith-
metic mean μ and standard deviation σ have been calculated by means of the following
formulas:
N
di
μ=  (16)
i=1 N
 ( d -μ )
2
i
i=1
(17)
σ=
N
where N is the whole number of points, while di is the value at time step i of the above-
mentioned parameters. Table 12 compares the arithmetic mean μ and standard deviation
σ during tests 5–9 (summer tests) and 14–18 (winter tests).
Table 12. Differences between predicted fault free data and experimental faulty data in terms of TRA and RHRA.
TRA (°C) RHRA (%)

ID Test
μ σ μ σ
With fault 1 (experimental) 28.55 0.22 56.17 1.54
Test 5 Without fault (predicted) 26.20 1.28 48.58 3.36
%D 8.98% −82.73% 15.64% −54.25%
%D 2.07% −0.17% −1.30% 8.75%
Summer tests Test 7 Without fault (predicted) 26.12 0.84 48.42 3.22
%D −5.34% 42.68% 0.96% 10.46%
%D 7.24% −89.05% −4.69% 4.93%
%D −0.27% −3.48% −7.14% −10.79%
%D −1.85% −4.26% −8.93% −56.06%
%D −0.13% −1.35% 0.85% 17.23%
Winter tests Test 16 Without fault (predicted) 20.21 0.87 49.67 3.41
%D −22.25% −20.88% −4.94% −73.38%
%D 5.77% −44.25% −0.98% 43.17%
%D 0.25% 9.53% −5.07% −30.29%
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 32 of 42
Table 12 also shows the percentage difference (%D) between the values of arithmetic
mean and the standard deviation under faulty (predicted values) and fault free operation
(experimental values) for each of the above-mentioned parameters. The percentage differ-
ence %D has been calculated by means of the following formula:
%D =
(X fault,i
- Xw/o_fault,i ) × 100 (18)
Xw/o_fault,i
where X is the arithmetic mean μ or the standard deviation σ of TRA or RHRA.

Table 13 summarizes the comments described above; for each of five typical faults
considered and for each of four parameters, a performance index has been assigned with
the following signs: “+” indicates that the fault causes substantial positive changes
(greater than 20%) of %D; “−” indicates that the fault causes substantial negative changes
(greater than −20%) of %D; “0” indicates that the fault causes not substantial changes (be-
tween −20% and 20%) of %D.
Table 13. Summary of symptoms associated to the 5 typical faults on TRA and RHRA.
TRA RHRA
ID Fault
μ σ μ σ
Fault 1
0 - 0 -
(related to velocity of the supply air fan)
Fault 2
0 0 0 0
(related to velocity of the return air fan)
Fault 3
Summer tests 0 + 0 0
(related to the post-heating coil valve)
Fault 4
0 - 0 0
(related to the cooling coil valve)
Fault 5
0 0 0 0
(related to the humidifier valve)
Fault 1
0 0 0 -
(related to velocity of the supply air fan)
Fault 2
0 0 0 0
(related to velocity of the return air fan)
Fault 3
Winter tests - - 0 -
(related to the post-heating coil valve)
Fault 4
0 - 0 +
(related to the cooling coil valve)
Fault 5
0 0 0 -
(related to the humidifier valve)
5.3. Results: Faults’ Impact on Electric Energy Consumption

Table 14 shows the electric energy consumptions of: the heat pump (EEHP), the refrig-
erating system (EERS), the humidifier (EEHUM), the supply air fan (EESAF), the return air fan
(EERAF), and the total electric energy consumption (EETOT), with and without faults; in par-
ticular, the values associated to the faulty tests have been derived as outputs of the TRN-
SYS model by using the measured data as inputs, while the values associated to the fault
free tests have been predicted by the coupling of the ANN16 and the TRNSYS model.
Moreover, Table 14 reports the energy percentage difference (EPD) that has been valuated
as follows:
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 33 of 42
EEw/o_fault,i - EEfault,i
EPD = × 100 (19)
EEw/o_fault,i
where EEw/o_fault,i and EEfault,i are, respectively, the electric energy consumption of AHU
component for the case without faults and with one of the above-mentioned faults.
Table 14. Electric energy consumption with and without faults.
Electric Energy Consumption

ID Test EEHP EERS EEHUM EESAF EERAF EETOT
(kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh)
With fault 1 (experimental) 0.28 19.37 0.00 0.17 0.43 20.25
Test 5 Without fault (predicted) 9.43 18.99 4.75 1.29 0.43 34.89
EPD +97% −2% +100% +87% 0% +42%
EPD +95% −20% −27% 0% +66% +2%
Summer
tests
EPD +95% −4% −13% 0% 0% +25%
EPD +96% +90% +50% 0% 0% +81%
EPD +32% +20% +100% 0% 0% +37%
EPD +19% +37% +32% +91% 0% +31%
EPD −39% +4% +9% 0% +66% −8%
Winter
tests
EPD +96% −33% +100% 0% 0% +57%
EPD +96% +98% +18% 0% 0% +75%
EPD +44% +34% +100% 0% 0% +56%
5.4. Discussion
With respect to the case without faults, Tables 11 and 14 indicate the effects of the
occurrence of fault 1 (velocity of supply air fan kept reduced at 20% instead of the nominal
value of 50%):
• During summer (test n. 5) it strongly reduces both the thermal comfort time (66%)
and the hygrometric comfort time (71%), while significantly lowering the overall
electric energy consumption (42%) thanks to reduced consumption of the heat pump
(97%), the steam humidifier (100%), and the supply air fan (87%);
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 34 of 42
• During winter (test n. 14) it decreases the hygrometric comfort time (38%), without
significant variation of the hygrometric comfort time (1%), while considerably low-
ering the total electric energy consumption (31%) thanks to reduced consumption of
the refrigerating system (37%), the heat pump (19%), the steam humidifier (32%), and
the supply air fan (91%).
With respect to the case without fault, Tables 11 and 14 demonstrate the effects of the
occurrence of fault 2 (velocity of return air fan kept reduced at 20% instead of the nominal
value of 50%):
• During summer (test n. 6) slightly decreases both the thermal comfort time (8%) and
the hygrometric comfort time (7%), while slightly reducing the overall electric energy
consumption (2%) because of the lower consumption of both the heat pump (95%)
and return air fan (66%);
• During winter (test n. 15) slightly decreases the hygrometric comfort time (4%), with-
out relevant variation of the hygrometric comfort time (1%), while increasing the
overall electric energy consumption (8%) due to greater consumption of heat pump
(39%).
With respect to the case without fault, Tables 11 and 14 show how the occurrence of
the fault 3 (the opening percentage of the valve regulating the flow to the post-hating coil
kept closed instead of allowing its normal operation in the range of 0 to 100 according to
the automatic control logic):
• During summer (test n. 7) strongly reduces the thermal comfort time (69%), without
significant variation of the hygrometric comfort time (1%), while lowering the overall
electric energy consumption (25%) because of the reduced consumption of the heat
pump (95%);
• During winter (test n. 16) strongly reduces the thermal comfort time (70%) and
slightly decreases the hygrometric comfort time (14%), while significantly lowering
the overall electric energy consumption (57%) because of the reduced consumption
of both the heat pump (96%), and the steam humidifier (100%).
With respect to the case without fault, Tables 11 and 14 highlight how the occurrence
of the fault 4 (the opening percentage of the valve regulating the flow to the cooling coil
kept closed instead of allowing its normal operation in the range of 0 to 100 according to
the automatic control logic):
• During summer (test 8) significantly decreases the thermal comfort time (63%) and
slightly reduces the hygrometric comfort time (4%), while greatly lowering the over-
all electric energy demand (81%) because of the reduced consumption of the heat
pump (96%), the refrigerating system (90%), and the steam humidifier (50%);
• During winter (test n. 17) significantly decreases the thermal comfort time (52%) and
slightly reduces the hygrometric comfort time (15%), while considerably lowering
the overall electric energy demand (75%) because of the reduced consumption of the
heat pump (96%), the refrigerating system (98%), and the steam humidifier (18%).
With respect to the case without fault, Tables 11 and 14 indicate how the occurrence
of the fault 5 (the opening percentage of the valve regulating the flow to the steam humid-
ifier kept closed instead of allowing its normal operation in the range of 0 to 100 according
to the automatic control logic):
• During summer (test n. 9) reduces the thermal comfort time by a slight amount (3%)
and decreases the hygrometric comfort time (16%), while decreasing the overall elec-
tric energy demand (37%) because of the lower consumption of the heat pump (32%),
the refrigerating system (20%), and the humidifier (100%);
• During winter (test n. 18) reduces the thermal comfort time by a slight amount (6%)
and significantly decreases the hygrometric comfort time (28%), while decreasing the
overall electric energy demand (56%) because of the lower consumption of the heat
pump (44%), the refrigerating system (34%), and the humidifier (100%).
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 35 of 42
Table 13 underlines that:

• The fault 1 significantly affects the values of σ for both TRA and RHRA under summer
conditions as well as the values of σ for RHRA only under winter conditions;
• The effects of the fault 2 are negligible with reference to the values of both σ and μ
for both TRA and RHRA under both summer and winter conditions;
• The fault 3 greatly affects the values of σ for TRA under summer conditions, the values
of both σ and μ for TRA under winter conditions, as well as the values of σ for RHRA
under winter conditions;
• The impact of the fault 4 is significant with reference to the values of σ for TRA under
summer conditions as well as the values of σ for both TRA and RHRA under winter
conditions;
• The fault 5 significantly affects only the values of σ associated to RHRA under winter
conditions.
6. Conclusions
In this study, a database consisting of experimental measurements of key operating
parameters during transient and steady-state operation of a typical HVAC system under
both normal and faulty conditions has been obtained with reference to a wide range of
summer and winter scenarios. In particular, five different typical faults (affecting the sup-
ply air fan, the return air fan, the post-heating coil valve, the cooling coil valve, and the
humidifier valve) have been artificially implemented in the HVAC system and analyzed.
An artificial neural network-based model of the HVAC system has also been devel-
oped in the MATLAB environment [32] and contrasted with measured data, highlighting
that it is able to provide a rigorous characterization of the HVAC system’s steady-state
and transient performance under both normal and faulty scenarios. In more detail, the
model is characterized by average values of coefficient of determination R2 in predicting
supply air temperature, supply air relative humidity, opening percentage of the post-heat-
ing coil valve, opening percentage of the cooling coil valve, and opening percentage of the
humidifier valve very close to the maximum values and, respectively, equal to 0.95 °C,
0.93%, 0.95%, 0.97%, and 0.96%.
The ANN-based model has also been coupled with a dynamic simulation model de-
veloped in TRNSYS environment [33] and then the experimental operation of the HVAC
unit without faults has been compared with the predicted performance of the same system
while operating with one of the five above-mentioned faults under the same boundary
conditions. The results of this analysis highlighted that:
• Fault 3 is associated with the valve supplying the post-heating coil (always kept
closed) is the one significantly affecting indoor thermal comfort, with a reduction of
about 68% (during summer) and 70% (during winter) with respect to the fault free
conditions;
• Fault 1 is associated with the supply air fan (kept at a reduced velocity of 20% instead
of the nominal value of 50%) is the one considerably influencing indoor hygrometric
comfort, with a reduction of about 71% (during summer) and 38% (during winter) in
comparison to the fault free tests;
• Fault 4 is associated with the valve supplying the cooling coil (always kept closed) is
the one causing important variation in terms of overall electric energy consumption
(81% during summer and 75% during winter) with reference to the fault free scenar-
ios.
In addition, the following results in terms of standard deviation σ and arithmetic
mean μ of return air temperature (TRA) and relative humidity (RHRA) have been obtained:
• The fault 1 significantly affects the values of σ for both TRA and RHRA under summer
conditions as well as the values of σ for RHRA only under winter conditions;
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 36 of 42
• The fault 3 greatly affects the values of σ for TRA under summer conditions, the values
of both σ and μ for TRA under winter conditions, as well as the values of σ for RHRA
under winter conditions;
• The impact of the fault 4 is significant with reference to the values of σ for TRA under
summer conditions as well as the values of σ for both TRA and RHRA under winter
conditions;
• The fault 5 significantly affects only the values of σ associated to RHRA under winter
conditions.
Both the labeled measured data as well as the developed simulation models (together
with their learning/validation datasets) will be uploaded in a public data repository and
utilization will be permitted to readers for institutional and research purposes. This will
allow AFDD developers, AFDD users, and research organizations to (i) explore the symp-
toms associated to the selected faults on the performance of a typical HVAC system, (ii)
exploit the experimentally validated simulation model in order to generate operational
data for assisting further research for AFDD of HVAC units, (iii) compare accuracy among
AFDD methods, and (iv) identify research gaps to be addressed and future AFDD devel-
opments.
The presented experimental database will be extended over time with the aim of in-
vestigating a broader range of boundary conditions as well as different fault types. In par-
ticular, in the future the authors would like to perform additional tests with the aim of
analyzing the effects associated to new faults regarding sensors (e.g., positive and nega-
tive offsets in measuring return air relative humidity and temperature), devices (e.g.,
blockage of air dampers and coil/humidifier valves at different levels), equipment (e.g.,
complete failure of fans), or controllers (e.g., frozen control signal for coils, dampers, or
fans). A measurement time step equal to 1 s will be used during future experiments in
order to more carefully take into account the response time of some HVAC components.
In addition, the authors will extend the present analysis (where the faults have been in-
troduced at the beginning of the faulty tests and maintained during the entire duration of
the experiments) by also considering (i) faults arising suddenly during HVAC operation
and remaining at a constant level after occurrence as well as (ii) shorter faulty scenarios
where a component is ‘sticky’ and takes more time to be moved/operated with respect to
normal operation. Finally, the authors in the future would like to (i) compare experimental
fault free operation against experimental faulty performance of the HVAC system work-
ing under same boundary conditions, (ii) refine and improve the simulation model, and
(iii) develop and test an innovative method for performing AFDD analyses based on su-
pervised data-driven methods customized on experimental results.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.R., F.G., E.E. and L.M.; methodology, A.R., F.G., M.M.,
E.E. and L.M.; software, A.R., F.G., S.S., M.M. and E.E.; validation, A.R. and F.G.; formal analysis,
A.R., F.G., S.S., M.M., E.E. and L.M.; investigation, A.R., F.G. and M.M.; resources, A.R., S.S., M.M.
and L.M.; data curation, A.R., F.G. and M.M.; writing—original draft preparation, A.R., F.G., S.S.,
M.M., E.E. and L.M.; writing—review and editing, A.R., F.G., S.S., M.M., E.E. and L.M.; visualiza-
tion, A.R., F.G., S.S., M.M., E.E. and L.M.; supervision, A.R., S.S., M.M., E.E. and L.M.; project ad-
ministration, A.R. and L.M.; funding acquisition, A.R., M.M. and L.M. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: This work was undertaken as part of the program “PON FSE-FESR Ricerca e
Innovazione 2014–2020” of the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research, Action I.1
“Dottorati Innovativi con caratterizzazione industriale”.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the
design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manu-
script; or in the decision to publish the results.
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 37 of 42
Appendix A
Table A1. Properties of walls of the test room.
Thermal Con-
Material Thermal Resistance Heat Transfer
Thickness (m) ductivity
(from Outside to Inside) (m2K/W) Area (m2)
(W/mK)
Plasterboard 0.0125 0.250 0.050
Ceiling Rock wool 0.0800 0.042 1.905 2.023 16.00
Polyurethane panel 0.0150 0.220 0.068
Subfloor 0.1000 1.350 0.074
Tiles 0.0500 2.100 0.024
Floor Polystyrene panel 0.0800 0.035 2.286 3.107 16.00
Galvanized steel slab 0.0020 52.000 0.000
Tiles 0.0100 1.050 0.010
Plasterboard 0.0125 0.250 0.050
West and East ori-
Rock wool 0.0800 0.042 1.905 2.005 14.40
ented vertical walls
Radiant panel 0.0150 0.300 0.050
South and North Plasterboard 0.0125 0.250 0.050
oriented vertical Rock wool 0.0800 0.042 1.905 1.998 14.40
walls Fiber-cement panel 0.0150 0.350 0.043
Door Soft wood 0.0500 0.140 0.357 0.357 1.68
Figure A1. Floor plan of the test room including the AHU.
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 38 of 42
Figure A2. (a) COP of the HP and (b) EER of the RS upon varying outside air temperature and supply fluid temperature.
1600 1600 1800 900

a) b) PelRAF = 0.001∙OLRAF3 − 0.078∙OLRAF2 + 3.120∙OLRAF − 2.102
PelSAF = 0.0003∙OLSAF3 + 0.1068∙OLSAF2 + 0.7383∙OLSAF + 4.9372 1600 800
1400 1400
Volumetric flow rate QVSAF (m3/h)
Power consumption PelSAF (W)
Volumetric flow rate QVRAF (m3/h)
1400 700
Power consumption PelRAF (W)

1200 1200
QVSAF = − 0.00001∙OLSAF3 + 0.0634∙OLSAF2 + 5.1789∙OLSAF + 8.7704
1200 600
1000 1000
1000 500
800 800 QVRAF = 14.491∙OLRAF + 12.352
800 400
600 600
600 300
400 400
400 200
200 200 200 100

Experimental
Portata… volumetric flow rate Experimental
Portata… volumetric flow rate
Power
Pel SAFconsumption
(W) from manufacturer Pel RAFconsumption
Power (W) from manufacturer
0 0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Supply air fan velocity (%) Return air fan velocity (%)
Figure A3. Experimental air volumetric flow rate and power consumption suggested by the manufacturer as a function of
fan velocity for the supply air fan (a) and the return air fan (b).
Nomenclature
AFDD Automatic fault detection and diagnosis
AHU Air handling unit
ANN Artificial neural network
CAV Constant air volume
CC Cooling coil
COP Coefficient of performance (-)
CT Cold tank
DBRH Deadband of RHSP,Room (%)
DBT Deadband of TSP,Room (°C)
DEA Exhaust air damper
DHRS Damper of heat recovery system
di Value at time step i
DOA Outside air damper
DRA Return air damper
EEfault,i Electric energy consumption of AHU component with fault (kWh)
EEHP Electric energy consumption of the HP (kWh)
EEHUM Electric energy consumption of the HUM (kWh)
EER Energy efficiency ratio (kWh)
EERAF Electric energy consumption of the RAF (kWh)
EERS Electric energy consumption of the RS (kWh)
EESAF Electric energy consumption of the SAF (kWh)
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 39 of 42
EETOT Overall electric energy consumption (kWh)

EEw/o_fault,i Electric energy consumption of AHU component without faults (kWh)
EPD Energy percentage difference (%)
gpred,i Predicted value at time step i
gexp,i Measured value at time step i
g̅ pred Arithmetic mean of predicted values
HP Heat pump
HRS Static cross-flow heat recovery system
HT Hot tank
HUM Humidifier
HVAC Heating, ventilation and air-conditioning
MSE Mean square error
N Number of points
OAD Outside air duct
OAFil Outside air filter
OLRAF Velocity of RAF (%)
OLSAF Velocity of SAF (%)
OPDEA Opening percentage of DEA (%)
OPDHRS Opening percentage of DHRS (%)
OPDOA Opening percentage of DOA (%)
OPDRA Opening percentage of DRA (%)
OPV_CC Opening percentage of valve regulating the flow entering CC (%)
Opening percentage of valve regulating the flow entering CC at previous mi-
OPV_CC−1
nute (%)
OPV_CC,pred Predicted opening percentage of valve regulating the flow entering CC (%)
OPV_CC,exp Experimental opening percentage of valve regulating the flow entering CC (%)
OPV_HUM Opening percentage of valve regulating the flow entering HUM (%)
Opening percentage of valve regulating the flow entering HUM at previous mi-
OPV_HUM-1
nute (%)
OPV_HUM,pred Predicted opening percentage of valve regulating the flow entering HUM (%)
Experimental opening percentage of valve regulating the flow entering HUM
OPV_HUM,exp
(%)
OPV_PostHC Opening percentage of valve regulating the flow entering PostHC (%)
Opening percentage of valve regulating the flow entering the PostHC at previ-
OPV_PostHC-1
ous minute (%)
OPV_PostHC,pre
Predicted opening percentage of valve regulating the flow entering PostHC (%)
d
Experimental opening percentage of valve regulating the flow entering PostHC

OPV_PostHC,exp
(%)
OPV_PreHC Opening percentage of valve regulating the flow entering PreHC (%)
PelRAF Power consumption of RAF (W)
PelSAF Power consumption of SAF (W)
PID Proportional-integral-derivative
PostHC Post-heating coil
PreHC Pre-heating coil
QVRAF Air volumetric flow rate of RAF (m3/h)
QVSAF Air volumetric flow rate of SAF (m3/h)
R2 Coefficient of determination (-)
RAD Return air duct
RAF Return air fan
RAFil Return air filter
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 40 of 42
RHBEA Air relative humidity outside the room (%)

RHRA Return air relative humidity (%)
RHRA,exp,fault Measured return air relative humidity under faulty conditions (%)
RHRA,pred,w/o_
Predicted return air relative humidity without faults (%)
fault
RHSA Supply air relative humidity (%)

RHSA-1 Supply air relative humidity at previous minute (%)
RHSP,Room Target of indoor air relative humidity (%)
RMSE Root mean square error
RS Refrigerating unit
SAD Supply air duct
SAF Supply air fan
SAFil Supply air filter
TA,out,CC Air temperature at CC outlet (°C)
TBEA Air temperature outside the room (°C)
TOA External air temperature (°C)
TRA Return air temperature (°C)
TRA,exp,fault Measured return air temperature under faulty conditions (°C)
TRA,pred,w/o_faul
Predicted return air temperature without faults (°C)
t
TSA Supply air temperature (°C)

TSA-1 Supply air temperature at previous minute (°C)
TSP,Room Target of indoor air temperature (°C)
VAV Variable air volume
VCC 3-way valve of CC
VHUM Valve of HUM
VPostHC 3-way valve of PostHC
VPreHC 3-way valve of PreHC
Xfault,i Arithmetic mean or standard deviation with fault
Xw/o_fault,i Arithmetic mean or standard deviation without faults
%D Percentage difference (%)
ΔRH Difference between current return air relative humidity and related target (%)
ΔT Difference between current return air temperature and related target (°C)
Instantaneous errors between the values predicted by the ANN16 and the
ΔOPV_CC
measured data in terms of OPV_CC (%)
ΔOPV_HUM
measured data in terms of OPV_HUM (%)
ΔOPV_PostHC
measured data in terms of OPV_PostHC (%)
ΔRHSA
measured data in terms of RHSA (%)
ΔTSA
measured data in terms of TSA (°C)
εi Instantaneous error
|εi | Instantaneous absolute error
ε̅ Average error
|ε̅| Average absolute error
μ Arithmetic mean
σ Standard deviation
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 41 of 42
References
1. Wang, H.; Chen, Y. A robust fault detection and diagnosis strategy for multiple faults of VAV air handling units. Energy Build.
2016, 127, 442–451, doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.06.013.
2. Lee, K.P.; Wu, B.H.; Peng, S.L. Deep-learning-based fault detection and diagnosis of air-handling units. Build. Environ. 2019,
157, 24–33, doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.04.029.
3. Schibuola, L.; Scarpa, M.; Tambani, C. Variable speed drive (VSD) technology applied to HVAC systems for energy saving: An
experimental investigation. Energy Procedia 2018, 148, 806–813, doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2018.08.117.
4. Tang, R.; Wang, S.; Shan, K. Optimal and near-optimal indoor temperature and humidity controls for direct load control and
proactive building demand response towards smart grids. Autom. Construct. 2018, 96, 250–261, doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2018.09.020.
5. Piscitelli, M.S.; Mazzarelli, D.M.; Capozzoli, A. Enhancing operational performance of AHUs through an advanced fault detec-
tion and diagnosis process based on temporal association and decision rules. Energy Build. 2020, 226, 110369,
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110369.
6. Yan, K.; Zhong, C.; Ji, Z.; Huang, J. Semi-supervised learning for early detection and diagnosis of various air handling unit
faults. Energy Build. 2018, 181, 75–83, doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.10.016.
7. Lin, G.; Kramer, H.; Granderson, J. Building fault detection and diagnostics: Achieved savings, and methods to evaluate algo-
rithm performance. Build Environ. 2020, 168, doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106505.
8. Au-Yong, C.P.; Ali, A.S.; Ahmad, F. Improving occupants’ satisfaction with effective maintenance management of HVAC sys-
tem in office buildings. Autom. Constr. 2014, 43, 43–31.
9. Rosato, A.; Guarino, F.; Filomena, V.; Sibilio, S.; Maffei, L. Experimental calibration and validation of a simulation model for
fault detection of HVAC systems and application to a case study. Energies 2020, 13, 3948, doi:10.3390/en13153948.
10. Granderson, J.; Lin, G.; Singla, R.; Mayhorn, E.; Ehrlich, P.; Vrabie, D.; Franck, S. Commercial Fault Detection and Diagnostics Tools:
What They Offer, How They Differ, and What’s Still Needed; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Berkeley, USA, 2018. Availa-
ble online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4j72k57p, doi:10.20357/B7V88H (accessed on 26 August 2021).
11. Entchev, E.; Yang, L.; Ghorab, M.; Rosato, A.; Sibilio, S. Energy, economic and environmental performance simulation of a
hybrid renewable microgeneration system with neural network predictive control. Alex. Eng. J. 2018, 57, 455–473,
doi:10.1016/j.aej.2016.09.001.
12. Kim, W.; Katipamula, S. A review of fault detection and diagnostics methods for building systems. Sci. Technol. Built Environ.
2018, 24, 3–21, doi:10.1080/23744731.2017.1318008.
13. Zhao, Y.; Li, T.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, C. Artificial intelligence-based fault detection and diagnosis methods for building energy
systems: Advantages, challenges and the future. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 109, 85–101, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2019.04.021.
14. Yu, Y.; Woradechjumroen, D.; Yu, D. A review of fault detection and diagnosis methodologies on air-handling units. Energy
Build. 2014, 82, 550–562, doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.06.042.
15. Beghi, A.; Brignoli, R.; Cecchinato, L.; Menegazzo, G.; Rampazzo, M.; Simmini, F. Data-driven Fault Detection and Diagnosis
for HVAC water chillers. Control Eng. Pract. 2016, 53, 79–91, doi:10.1016/j.conengprac.2016.04.018.
16. Dehestani, D.; Eftekhari, F.; Guo, Y.; Ling, S.; Su, S.; Nguyen, H. Online Support Vector Machine Application for Model Based
Fault Detection and Isolation of HVAC System. Int. J. Mach. Learn. Comput. 2011, 1, 66–72, doi:10.7763/IJMLC.2011.V1.53.
17. Zhao, Y.; Wen, J.; Xiao, F.; Yang, X.; Wang, S. Diagnostic Bayesian networks for diagnosing air handling units faults—part I:
Faults in dampers, fans, filters and sensors. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2017, 111, 1272–1286, doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.09.121.
18. Zhao, Y.; Wen, J.; Wang, S. Diagnostic Bayesian networks for diagnosing air handling units faults-Part II: Faults in coils and
sensors. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2015, 90, 145–157, doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.07.001.
19. Mulumba, T.; Afshari, A.; Yan, K.; Shen, W.; Norford, L.K. Robust model-based fault diagnosis for air handling units. Energy
20. Yan, R.; Ma, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Kokogiannakis, G. A decision tree based data-driven diagnostic strategy for air handling units. Energy
21. Mchugh, M.K. Data-Driven Leakage Detection in Air-Handling Units on a University Campus. In Proceedings of the ASHRAE
Annual Conference, Kansas City, MO, USA, 5 March 2019.
22. Du, Z.M.; Jin, X.Q. Detection and diagnosis for multiple faults in VAV systems. Energy Build. 2007, 39, 923–934,
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2006.09.015.
23. Hu, R.I.; Granderson, J.; Auslader, D.M.; Agogino, A. Design of machine learning models with domain experts for automated
sensor selection for energy fault detection. Appl. Energy 2019, 235, 117–128.
24. Wen, J.; Li, S. ASHRAE RP-1312 - Tools for evaluating fault detection and diagnostic methods for Air-Handling Units; American Society
of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, USA, 2012. Available online: https://www.tech-
street.com/ashrae/standards/rp-1312-tools-for-evaluating-fault-detection-and-diagnostic-methods-for-air-handling-units?gate-
way_code=ashrae&product_id=1833299 (accessed on 26 August 2021)..
25. Granderson, J.; Lin, G.; Harding, A.; Im, P.; Chen, Y. Building Fault Detection Data to Aid Diagnostic Algorithm Creation and
Performance Testing. Sci. Data 2020, 7. Available online: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0398-6.pdf (accessed on
14 August 2021).
Energies 2021, 14, 5362 42 of 42
26. Casillas, A.; Lin, G.; Granderson, J. Curation of Ground-Truth Validated Benchmarking Datasets for Fault Detection & Diagnostics
Tools; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Berkeley, USA, 2021. Available online: https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/de-
fault/files/curation_of_ground-truth_validated_benchmarking_datasets_for_fault_detection_acasillas_0.pdf (accessed on 14
August 2021).
27. Yun, W.S.; Hong, W.H.; Seo, H. A data-driven fault detection and diagnosis scheme for air handling units in building HVAC
systems considering undefined states. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 35, 102111.
28. Fan, C.; Liu, X.; Xue, P.; Wang, J. Statistical characterization of semi-supervised neural networks for fault detection and diagno-
sis of air handling units. Energy Build. 2021, 234, 110733.
29. Wang, L.; Greenberg, S.; Fiegel, J.; Rubalcava, A.; Earni, S.; Pang, X.; Yin, R.; Woodworth, S.; Hernandez-Maldonado, J. Moni-
toring-based HVAC commissioning of an existing office building for energy efficiency. Appl. Energy 2013, 102, 1382–1390.
30. Basarkar, M. Modeling and Simulation of Hvac Faults in Energyplus; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Berkeley, USA, 2011.
Available online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9ps43482 (accessed on 14 August 2021).
31. Zhang, R.; Hong, T. Modeling of HVAC operational faults in building performance simulation. Appl. Energy 2017, 202, 178–188.
32. MathWorks. Available online: https://it.mathworks.com/products/matlab.html (accessed on 21 July 2021).
33. TRNSYS—Transient System Simulation Tool. Available online: http://www.trnsys.com (accessed on 21 July 2021).
34. COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1253/2014 of 7 July 2014 Implementing Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council with Regard to Ecodesign Requirements for Ventilation Units. Available online: https://eur-lex.eu-
ropa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R1253&from=FR (accessed on 14 August 2021).
35. CAREL Humidifiers Datasheet. Available online: https://www.carel.com/documents/10191/0/%2B030220621/92fca658-a251-
49ee-9979-b8829fcba49f?version=1.0 (accessed on 21 July 2021).
36. AERMEC Reversible Air/Water Heat Pump Datasheet. Available online: https://download.aermec.com/docs/schede/ANL-021-
203-HP_Y_UN50_03.pdf?r=14395 (accessed on 21 July 2021).
37. SIEMENS Duct Sensors Datasheet. Available online: https://www.downloads.siemens.com/download-center/Down-
load.aspx?pos=download&fct=getasset&id1=24897 (accessed on 21 July 2021).
38. SIEMENS Duct Temperature Sensors Datasheet. Available online: https://www.downloads.siemens.com/download-cen-
ter/Download.aspx?pos=download&fct=getasset&id1=10859 (accessed on 21 July 2021).
39. TSI Q-TRAK Datasheet. Available online: https://tsi.com/getmedia/d2a8d1d1-7551-47fe-8a0f-
3c14b09b494b/7575_QTrak_A4_UK_5001356-web?ext=.pdf (accessed on 21 July 2021).
40. Cheng, F.; Cai, W.; Zhang, X.; Liao, H.; Cui, C. Fault detection and diagnosis for Air Handling Unit based on multiscale convo-
lutional neural networks. Energy Build. 2021, 236, 110795.
41. Lee, J.M.; Hong, S.H.; Seob, B.M.; Leec, K.H. Application of artificial neural networks for optimized AHU discharge air temper-
ature set-point and minimized cooling energy in VAV system. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2019, 153, 726–738.
42. Jang, J.; Baek, J.; Leigh, S.B. Prediction of optimum heating timing based on artificial neural network by utilizing BEMS data. J.
Build. Eng. 2019, 22, 66–74.
43. Elnour, M.; Meskin, N.; Al-Naemi, M. Sensor data validation and fault diagnosis using Auto-Associative Neural Network for
HVAC systems. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 27, 100935.
44. Shibata, K.; Ikeda, Y. Effect of number of hidden neurons on learning in large-scale layered neural networks. In Proceedings of
the ICROS-SICE International Joint Conference; Fukuoka, Japan, 2009, pp. 5008–5013.
45. Jinchuan, K.; Xinzhe, L. Empirical analysis of optimal hidden neurons in neural network modeling for stock prediction. In
Proceedings of the Pacific-Asia Workshop on Computational Intelligence and Industrial Application, Wuhan, China, 19–20
December 2008, pp. 828–832.
46. Xu, S.; Chen, L. A novel approach for determining the optimal number of hidden layer neurons for FNN's and its application
in data mining. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Information Technology and Applications, Cairns, Aus-
tralia, 23–26 June 2008, pp. 683–686.

Healthy and Faulty Experimental Performance of A T

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Healthy and Faulty Experimental Performance of A T

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Healthy and Faulty Experimental Performance of A T

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article

Healthy and Faulty Experimental Performance of a Typical

1 Department of Architecture and Industrial Design, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli,

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu- 1. Introduction

Energies 2021, 14, 5362. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14175362 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

1.2. Novelty and Structure of the Paper

2. Description of the Experimental Setup

Figure 1. Air handling unit scheme.

Table 1. Main AHU components’ characteristics.

Maximum number of revolutions per minute (rpm) 3640

Nominal air/fluid volumetric flow rate (m3/h) 600/0.860

Table 2. Measuring range and the accuracy of the AHU sensors.

Sensor Model Monitored Parameter Measuring Range Accuracy

Table 3. Activation criteria of the AHU’s components.

Component of AHU ON OFF

TSP,Room RHSP,Room OLRAF OLSAF OPV_CC OPV_HUM

TSP,Room RHSP,Room OLRAF OLSAF OPV_PostHC OPV_CC OPV_HUM

Relative humidity (%)

Relative humidity (%)

Relative humidity (%)

Relative humidity (%)

Relative humidity (%)

Relative humidity (%)

Relative humidity (%)

3.1. Analysis of Experimental Trends

4.1. Artificial Neural Network-Based Model

4.1.1. Artificial Neural Networks’ Architecture

4.1.2. Sensitivity Analysis of Artificial Neural Networks

Table 6. Architectures of the investigated ANNs.

ANN ID Number of Hidden Layers Number of Neurons in Each Hidden Layer

The following 10 variables have been set as inputs of all ANNs:

4. opening percentage of the cooling coil valve (OPV_CC)

Table 7. Inputs and outputs of the ANNs.

Number of Inputs Input ID Number of Outputs Outputs ID

4.1.3. Training, Testing and Validation of ANNs

εi = g pred,i - gexp,i (1)

Table 8. Errors between predictions of ANN-based models and measurements.

4.0 20.0 4.0 20.0

ΔRH (%), ΔOP (-)

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.0 20.0 4.0 20.0

ΔRH (%), ΔOP (-)

4.0 20.0 4.0 20.0

ΔRH (%), ΔOP (-)

1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.0 20.0 4.0 20.0

1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

ΔRH (%), ΔOP (-)

4.0 20.0 4.0 20.0

ΔRH (%), ΔOP (-)

0.5 2.5 0.5 2.5

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.0 20.0 4.0 20.0

ΔRH (%), ΔOP (-)

1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.0 20.0 4.0 20.0