Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 98 references

Development of FDD-ON: an Ontology for VAV HVAC System Fault Detection and Diagnostics

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read FDD-ON is an ontology for VAV HVAC systems that formally represents faults, symptoms, impacts, and their causal relations so that FDD tools, digital twins, and maintenance systems can share a machine-interpretable diagnostic language.

desk verdict A solid ontology for HVAC FDD that extends the authors' earlier taxonomy; worth reviewing once the artifact is made available and the count inconsistency is fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.29657 v1 pith:5OBPY324 submitted 2026-07-31 cs.AI

Yimin Chen , Brian Fricke , Bo Shen , Jamie Lian , Mingkan Zhang , James Lo , Yun Zhang , Shi Ye
show 5 more authors
Jiajing Huang Han Hu Chujie Lu Rui Tang George Zhuang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords ontologyfaultdetectionanddiagnosticsvariableairvolume(VAV)HVACsemanticmodellibrarysymptomfault-symptom-impactrelationscontrolledvocabulary
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a single formal ontology, FDD-ON, can capture the knowledge a building's fault detection and diagnosis (FDD) system needs about variable-air-volume (VAV) HVAC systems: what faults exist, how they appear as symptoms, what consequences they cause, and why they happen. It claims to do this through a four-level semantic model (symptom detection, fault diagnosis, contributing-cause identification, fault impact analysis) and through large open libraries — 469 fault types, 468 symptom statuses, and 447 impact types — linked by explicit contributing cause-fault-symptom-impact relations. If this works, FDD tools and maintenance systems can share a common vocabulary, query diagnostic knowledge automatically, and translate each other's outputs regardless of vendor. A sympathetic reader would care because the current lack of such shared structure keeps FDD results in silos and slows progress toward digital-twin and AI-driven maintenance.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing structure is the class-and-property graph of FDD-ON, implemented with standard semantic-web ontology languages. Classes taxonomize equipment, components, fault attributes (behavior metrics, component categories, contributing causes, lifecycle stages), symptom attributes (patterns and data types), and impact types, while object properties such as hasContributingCause, hasSymptom, and hasImpact tie individuals together. The controlled vocabularies fix the allowed terms for fault mode and symptom status, and the quadrinomial naming convention makes every fault and symptom name parseable. This machinery does the work of turning scattered diagnostic outputs into queryable, unambi

What would settle it

Inject a specific fault, such as a bias in a VAV terminal unit's airflow sensor, into a testbed or real VAV system and record which measurements deviate. If the ten measurements the ontology lists for that fault do not show the expected symptom statuses, or if other measurements deviate instead, that fault's relations in the ontology are incorrect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that FDD knowledge for VAV HVAC systems can be organized as an ontology in which every fault type, symptom status, and impact type is a named individual with structured attributes, and where the causal chain 'contributing cause → fault → symptom → impact' is encoded as object properties. The ontology supplies controlled vocabularies — 20 fault modes (bias, drift, stuck, hunting, etc.) and 11 symptom statuses (high, low, oscillation, mismatch, etc.) — and a quadrinomial naming convention (equipment-location-component-mode) so fault and symptom names carry machine-readable meaning. The authors report that the resulting libraries cover 469 fault types and 468 symptom status

Load-bearing premise

The hand-authored relations linking contributing causes to faults to symptoms to impacts are correct; they were checked for logical consistency, not against independent ground-truth fault data, so if a listed symptom does not actually accompany a fault, the ontology's queries will mislead FDD applications.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A developer can query the ontology to retrieve, for a given fault, the measurements that should show symptoms and the impacts that should follow, then use that structure to build rule-based or Bayesian diagnostic models.
  • FDD tools producing heterogeneous outputs can map their results to the standard quadrinomial names, making cross-tool comparison and benchmarking feasible.
  • Digital-twin and AI-driven maintenance applications can consume the same structured relations, since the ontology provides a machine-interpretable data format.
  • New fault types discovered in practice can be added to the evolving libraries, letting the ontology grow without redesigning the underlying model.
  • Coverage checks against public VAV HVAC datasets indicate that the current fault library already spans the commonly tested fault types in those datasets.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The ontology's causal content is only as good as the hand-authored relations; a natural next step is fault-injection experiments that verify whether the listed symptoms actually appear for each fault and at what magnitude.
  • Because the model separates faults, symptoms, and impacts, it invites extensions such as cross-equipment fault propagation — a fault in one component as a contributing cause of another — which the paper itself flags as a limitation.
  • One could build an automatic FDD baseline constructor from the ontology: given a measurement's data type, the symptom-pattern classification suggests which anomaly patterns to check; adding quantitative thresholds would make this directly deployable.
  • The ontology's long-term usefulness will depend on how the controlled vocabulary is maintained; without a clear update and governance process, future versions could drift into incompatible dialects.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces FDD-ON, an OWL/RDFS ontology for fault detection and diagnostics in VAV HVAC systems, organized around a four-level causal model (contributing cause → fault → symptom → impact). It defines controlled vocabularies, a quadrinomial naming convention, taxonomies of fault and symptom attributes, and three libraries claimed to contain 469 fault types, 468 symptom statuses, and 447 impact types across chiller plant, boiler plant, AHU, RTU, and VAV ATU equipment. Evaluation consists of ontology metrics, a DL consistency check with Pellet, a completeness mapping against public FDD datasets, and a demonstration using the Drexel-Nesbitt building dataset. The paper concludes that FDD-ON provides a foundational semantic framework for scalable, transparent, and interoperable FDD solutions.

Significance. If the library contents and the hand-authored causal relations are reliable, FDD-ON is a potentially valuable community resource. It addresses a genuine gap: few HVAC FDD ontologies ship open fault, symptom, and impact libraries with standardized naming and explicit relations. The four-level semantic model and the separation of fault, symptom, and impact are conceptual improvements over prior taxonomies that conflate these categories. The DL consistency check with Pellet is a concrete, machine-checked verification of logical coherence, and the SPARQL demonstration shows a plausible route to using the ontology in rule-based or Bayesian diagnostic construction. However, the value of the resource depends on the correctness of the asserted contributing-cause-fault-symptom-impact edges and on the accuracy of the reported counts; the current internal inconsistencies and the evaluative design leave that value in question.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table 15, §3.3.2, Abstract] The headline counts are internally inconsistent. Table 15 lists 537 fault types for VAV ATU, but the total row and the text report 469 fault types; the column sums to 953, not 469. If the intended value is 53, the table and all dependent statements in the Abstract and §3.3.2 must be corrected. Because the quantitative size of the libraries is one of the paper's main contributions, this is a load-bearing error rather than a cosmetic typo.
  2. [§4.1.2, §4.2, §4.4] The completeness evaluation reports 100% fault-type coverage for the public datasets in Table 17, but this is a coverage mapping, not a validation of the asserted causal relations. The ontology vocabulary was developed from the same literature and dataset family, including the authors' prior fault taxonomy and the very datasets used in the evaluation (refs [37,38,69,95–97]), so the mapping is partly self-referential. The DL consistency check in §4.2 verifies logical coherence, not physical correctness. A single erroneous contributing-cause-fault-symptom-impact edge will propagate through SPARQL queries and mislead downstream FDD tools even if the ontology is consistent. The paper should either add independent validation, such as fault-injection ground truth from a dataset not used during development, or explicitly reframe the contribution as a curated hypothesis whose causal content stil
  3. [§3.2.7, Figure 6] The flagship example of the ontology's relational content is internally inconsistent. The text says that VAVATU airflow-sensor faults cause symptoms on 'ten measurements,' but the immediately following list contains eleven items, one of which is 'VAVATU-SupplyDischargeAir-Temperture' (typo and seemingly redundant with 'VAVATU-DischargeAir-Temperature'). In addition, the text refers to a fault mode 'error location,' while the controlled vocabulary in Table 3 defines 'Location error.' If the paper's main illustrative example cannot be stated precisely, it is difficult to trust the correctness of the 469-type library. The authors should correct the count and names and provide the actual OWL artifact so these assertions can be checked mechanically.
  4. [§1, §3.3, §4.5] The manuscript repeatedly describes FDD-ON as an 'open source' ontology with evolving libraries, but it provides no repository URL, no version IRI, and no download mechanism for the OWL file. The Version label '2026B' is mentioned without an address. For an ontology paper, the artifact is the primary contribution; without a public, versioned artifact, the reported metrics, the DL consistency check, and the data-mapping results cannot be reproduced. Please provide the repository link or, if the artifact is not yet public, state clearly that it will be released upon publication.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.2.7, Figure 6] Typos and naming inconsistencies: 'PowerConsumptojn' should be 'PowerConsumption'; 'DesignManfacturingCause' should be 'DesignManufacturingCause'; 'HardwareDegradationAageFatigueCause' should be 'HardwareDegradationAgeFatigueCause'; 'PowerCause' and 'CommunicationNetworkCause' do not match the controlled vocabulary names in Table 7 ('Power supply cause' and 'Communication and network cause').
  2. [§3.2.7, Figure 6] The phrase 'the fault subclass has all four types of fault behavior metric as defined in Table 5' is confusing. The listed fault types (bias, drift, freeze, location error) are fault modes, not behavior metrics. Clarify whether the figure displays behavior-metric attributes or something else.
  3. [§3.2.7, Figure 7] The statement 'The symptoms can be caused by 26 classes of faults in the VAVATUs' is not supported by any table, figure, or query result. Add the supporting evidence or remove the unsubstantiated number.
  4. [§3.3.1, Table 14] The caption says 'Illustration of a standardized symptom naming convention,' but the example describes an impact type (AHU-SupplyAir-FanMotor-PowerConsumption). The caption should say 'impact naming convention.'
  5. [§3.2.2] The paragraph following the annotation property description ends with the incomplete sentence 'The annotation properties have' with no continuation. Complete the sentence or remove it.
  6. [Table 17] The Drexel-Nesbitt VAV ATU row contains only 'NA' entries for component types and fault types, with measurements mapped. It is unclear whether the dataset includes no ATU faults or whether the mapping was not performed; please clarify.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

FDD-ON's completeness evaluation is self-referential (the library was built from the same datasets and the authors' own taxonomy), but the core ontology construction is not a derived prediction and retains independent application content.

  1. other [Section 3.1.3 and Section 4.1.2 (Table 17)]
    "we conducted extensive research work in several directions in the HVAC FDD area, including fault impact analysis [3,67], fault model development and fault data curation [51,68,69]... It can be seen that 100% fault types in each FDD data set were mapped in the fault library of the FDD-ON."

    The 'completeness' result is an inventory check rather than an independent evaluation: the fault library was populated from the same datasets and dataset family that Table 17 uses as the test set (Drexel-Nesbitt [69], LBNL [68,95,96], ORNL [97]) and from the same authors' prior taxonomy [37]. Thus 100% fault-type mapping is expected by construction. It does not independently establish that FDD-ON covers unknown faults or that the hand-authored fault-symptom-impact edges are physically correct; it only confirms that inputs were encoded.

full rationale

FDD-ON is an authored knowledge model, not a derived prediction: there are no equations, fitted parameters, or first-principles outputs that are recycled as inputs. The main circular element is the completeness evaluation in Table 17. The ontology library and controlled vocabulary were curated from the same literature/dataset family used in the evaluation (e.g., [68,69]) and from the authors' own prior taxonomy [37], so the reported 100% fault coverage is a consistency check with the construction corpus rather than an independent benchmark. The Pellet DL consistency check is machine-checked logical consistency, which is real but does not validate the physical correctness of fault-symptom-impact relations. The SPARQL demonstration on the Drexel dataset provides some independent application evidence, although the queried relations are still hand-authored. The internal sum inconsistency in Table 15 (fault-type column totals 953, not 469) is a correctness concern but not a circularity. Overall, no derivation chain reduces to itself; the score reflects the self-referential coverage evaluation and heavy reuse of the authors' own taxonomy, while the central artifact still has independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted: FDD-ON is a conceptual artifact, not a mathematical model. The listed axioms are domain-modeling commitments that the paper assumes; none is proven by the public datasets. No physical entities are introduced, so the invented-entities ledger is empty.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption A four-level causal chain (contributing cause -> fault -> symptom -> impact) is the correct decomposition of FDD knowledge.
    Section 3.2.1 establishes this as the conceptual basis for the semantic model; if this decomposition is wrong, the ontology's core relations are misplaced.
  • domain assumption The 20 fault modes and 11 symptom statuses in the controlled vocabulary are sufficient to name all relevant VAV HVAC faults and symptoms.
    Tables 3 and 4 define the vocabulary; completeness of that vocabulary is asserted, not derived from a reproducible corpus.
  • domain assumption Quadrinomial nomenclature (equipment-location-component/measure-status) is sufficient for unambiguous machine-interpretable fault and symptom names.
    Section 3.3.1 adopts this naming structure from [37]; it is a design choice with no formal guarantee of uniqueness or coverage.
  • domain assumption The taxonomy of fault attributes (behavior metric, component category, contributing cause, lifecycle stage) and symptom attributes (pattern, data type) is complete enough for FDD applications.
    Sections 3.2.4-3.2.5 enumerate these classes; the paper itself acknowledges a one-level contributing-cause taxonomy as a limitation (Section 4.4).
  • domain assumption Fault-symptom and fault-impact relations authored in the libraries are domain-true.
    Figures 6-7 and SPARQL examples rely on these relations; Section 4.2 only checks description-logic consistency, not truth against independent fault-injection data.
  • domain assumption Public FDD datasets used in Section 4.1.2 are representative of the full space of VAV HVAC faults.
    Mapping percentages are computed against ASHRAE RP1312, LBNL, ORNL, and Drexel datasets; there is no evidence these cover the whole fault space.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Development of FDD-ON: an Ontology for VAV HVAC System Fault Detection and Diagnostics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5OBPY324

@misc{pith2026260729657,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Development of FDD-ON: an Ontology for VAV HVAC System Fault Detection and Diagnostics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5OBPY324}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29657}
}
read the original abstract

Fault detection and diagnosis (FDD) technology is essential for improving HVAC system reliability, energy efficiency, and maintenance effectiveness. However, effective deployment of FDD solutions in buildings requires structured domain knowledge that can bridge heterogeneous data sources, diverse equipment types, and varied diagnostic outputs. Limited data interpretability and interoperability within the FDD domain have led to fragmented information silos, hindering the implementation of FDD and related applications, such as the digital twin-enabled FDD frameworks and artificial intelligence (AI)-driven maintenance decision-making systems. This paper presents an FDD Ontology (FDD-ON), a modular and extensible ontology to formally represent variable air volume (VAV) HVAC system components, fault types, symptom statuses, fault impacts and associated attributes. FDD-ON integrates HVAC system FDD semantics to provide comprehensive representations of fault and symptom attributes, supported by the well-defined controlled vocabulary. Additionally, FDD-ON offers comprehensive fault, symptom, and impact libraries to capture a broad spectrum of operational abnormalities and their consequences in VAV HVAC systems. Through explicit contributing cause-fault-symptom-impact relations, FDD-ON serves as a machine-interpretable basis for querying diagnostic knowledge, mapping heterogeneous FDD outputs, and developing interoperable FDD-related applications. FDD-ON is evaluated using publicly available VAV HVAC system datasets and demonstrated through FDD development applications. Results indicate that FDD-ON provides a foundational semantic framework for advancing scalable, transparent, and interoperable FDD solutions across various applications.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    González-Torres, L

    M. González-Torres, L. Pérez-Lombard, J.F. Coronel, I.R. Maestre, D. Yan, A review on buildings energy information: Trends, end-uses, fuels and drivers, Energy Rep. 8 (2022) 626–637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.11.280

    doi:10.1016/j.egyr.2021.11.280 2022

  2. [2]

    https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/hvac-maintenance-services-market- report (accessed January 1, 2026)

    Grand View Research, HVAC Maintenance Services Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report (2024 – 2030), 2025. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/hvac-maintenance-services-market- report (accessed January 1, 2026)

    2024

  3. [3]

    Y. Chen, Y. Hu, G. Lin, Y. Zhang, S. Ye, B. Shen, Evaluation of HVAC & refrigeration system fault behaviors and impacts: A systematic review, J. Build. Eng. (2025) 113609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2025.113609

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Katipamula, M.R

    S. Katipamula, M.R. Brambley, Methods for Fault Detection, Diagnostics, and Prognostics for Building Systems—A Review, Part I, HVACR Res. 11 (2005) 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10789669.2005.10391123

    arXiv 2005

  5. [5]

    Y. Chen, Z. Chen, G. Lin, J. Wen, J. Granderson, A Simulation-Based Method to Analyze Fan Coil Unit Fault Impacts, in: ASHRAE Trans., ASHRAE, Toronto, Canada, 2022: p. 210. https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/ashrae-transactions

    2022

  6. [6]

    Katipamula, R.M

    S. Katipamula, R.M. Underhill, N. Fernandez, W. Kim, R.G. Lutes, D. Taasevigen, Prevalence of typical operational problems and energy savings opportunities in U.S. commercial buildings, Energy Build. 253 (2021) 111544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111544

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Crowe, Y

    E. Crowe, Y. Chen, H. Reeve, D. Yuill, A. Ebrahimifakhar, Y. Chen, L. Troup, A. Smith, J. Granderson, Empirical analysis of the prevalence of HVAC faults in commercial buildings, Sci. Technol. Built Environ. 29 (2023) 1027–1038. https://doi.org/10.1080/23744731.2023.2263324

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Z. Chen, Z. O’Neill, J. Wen, O. Pradhan, T. Yang, X. Lu, G. Lin, S. Miyata, S. Lee, C. Shen, R. Chiosa, M.S. Piscitelli, A. Capozzoli, F. Hengel, A. Kührer, M. Pritoni, W. Liu, J. Clauß, Y. Chen, T. Herr, A review of data-driven fault detection and diagnostics for building HVAC systems, Appl. Energy 339 (2023) 121030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.20...

    arXiv 2023

Show all 98 references
  1. [9]

    Y. Yu, D. Woradechjumroen, D. Yu, A review of fault detection and diagnosis methodologies on air - handling units, Energy Build. 82 (2014) 550–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.06.042

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    W. Kim, S. Katipamula, A review of fault detection and diagnostics methods for building systems, Sci. Technol. Built Environ. 24 (2018) 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/23744731.2017.1318008

    2018

  3. [11]

    Z. Shi, W. O’Brien, Development and implementation of automated fault detection and diagnostics for building systems: A review, Autom. Constr. 104 (2019) 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.04.002

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    J. Bi, K. Yan, Y. Du, End-to-end residual learning embedded ACWGAN for AHU FDD with limited fault data, Build. Environ. 270 (2025) 112529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.112529

    2025

  5. [13]

    Schein, S.T

    J. Schein, S.T. Bushby, N.S. Castro, J.M. House, A rule-based fault detection method for air handling units, Energy Build. 38 (2006) 1485–1492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2006.04.014

    2006 doi

  6. [14]

    T. Li, Y. Zhao, C. Zhang, J. Luo, X. Zhang, A knowledge-guided and data-driven method for building HVAC systems fault diagnosis, Build. Environ. 198 (2021) 107850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107850

    2021

  7. [15]

    Frank, G

    S. Frank, G. Lin, X. Jin, R. Singla, A. Farthing, J. Granderson, A performance evaluation framework for building fault detection and diagnosis algorithms, Energy Build. 192 (2019) 84 –92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.03.024

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    Y. Chen, E. Crowe, G. Lin, J. Granderson, Integration of FDD data to aid HVAC system maintenance, in: Proc. 9th ACM Int. Conf. Syst. Energy-Effic. Build. Cities Transp., Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2022: pp. 492–495. https://doi.org/10.1145/3563357.3567405

    2022

  9. [17]

    Newman, BACnet: The Global Standard for Building Automation and Control Networks, Momentum Press, 2013

    H.M. Newman, BACnet: The Global Standard for Building Automation and Control Networks, Momentum Press, 2013

    2013

  10. [18]

    Kruis, T

    N. Kruis, T. McDowell, C. S. Barnaby, T. Mankad, ASHRAE Standard 205P: Progress towards representation of performance data for HVAC&R equipment, in: IBPSA, 2021: pp. 1349 –1356. https://doi.org/10.26868/25222708.2021.30280

    2021

  11. [19]

    Representation of Performance Data for HVAC&R and Other Facility Equipment, (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    ASHRAE Standard 232: Common Content and Specifications for Building Data Schemas, (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    https://www.gbxml.org (accessed January 1, 2026)

    gbXML, GbXML, (n.d.). https://www.gbxml.org (accessed January 1, 2026)

    2026

  14. [22]

    Pauwels, G

    P. Pauwels, G. Fierro, A Reference Architecture for Data-Driven Smart Buildings Using Brick and LBD 33 Ontologies, CLIMA 2022 Conf. (2022). https://doi.org/10.34641/clima.2022.425

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    Pritoni, D

    M. Pritoni, D. Paine, G. Fierro, C. Mosiman, M. Poplawski, A. Saha, J. Bender, J. Granderson, Metadata Schemas and Ontologies for Building Energy Applications: A Critical Review and Use Case Analysis, Energies 14 (2021) 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14072024

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    ISO 16739-1:2018—Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) for Data Sharing in the Construction and Facility Management Industries—Part 1: Data Schema, (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    Balaji, A

    B. Balaji, A. Bhattacharya, G. Fierro, J. Gao, J. Gluck, D. Hong, A. Johansen, J. Koh, J. Ploennigs, Y. Agarwal, M. Bergés, D. Culler, R.K. Gupta, M.B. Kjærgaard, M. Srivastava, K. Whitehouse, Brick : Metadata schema for portable smart building applications, Appl. Energy 226 (...

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    N. Luo, G. Fierro, Y. Liu, B. Dong, T. Hong, Extending the Brick schema to represent metadata of occupants, Autom. Constr. 139 (2022) 104307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104307

    2022

  19. [27]

    Ploennigs, A

    J. Ploennigs, A. Ba, P. Palmes, Extending Brick for automated comfort diagnosis, Automatisierungstechnik 65 (2017) 620–629

    2017

  20. [28]

    K. Chia, M. Ben-Ayed, S.H. Eshwar, C. Zhang, E. Chen, Y. Gu, J. Kleissl, A. Khurram, J. Wolf, A. Van Sant, K. Trenbath, Brick Schema Standardized Plug Load Control Strategies for Load Reduction: Preprint, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO (United States),...

    2024

  21. [29]

    X. Jia, Y. Pan, R. Yin, Semantic Modeling and Rule-Based Evaluation of Building Chiller Plant Operation Using Brick Ontology, in: Proc. 12th ACM Int. Conf. Syst. Energy-Effic. Build. Cities Transp., Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2025: pp. 431–434. htt...

    2025

  22. [30]

    “Jack” M

    J.J. “Jack” M. Gowan, Project Haystack Data Standards, in: Energy Anal., River Publishers, 2015

    2015

  23. [31]

    H. Li, T. Hong, A semantic ontology for representing and quantifying energy flexibility of buildings, Adv. Appl. Energy 8 (2022) 100113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adapen.2022.100113

    2022

  24. [32]

    Schneider, P

    G.F. Schneider, P. Pauwels, S. Steiger, Ontology-Based Modeling of Control Logic in Building Automation Systems, IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 13 (2017) 3350–3360. https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2017.2743221

    2017

  25. [33]

    Qiu, G.F

    H. Qiu, G.F. Schneider, T. Kauppinen, S. Rudolph, S. Steiger, Reasoning on human experiences of indoor environments using semantic web technologies, in: Proc. 35th Int. Symp. Autom. Robot. Constr. ISARC 2018 Berl. Ger. July 20-25 2018, International Association on Automation a...

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    Rasmussen, M

    M.H. Rasmussen, M. Lefrançois, G.F. Schneider, P. Pauwels, BOT: The building topology ontology of the W3C linked building data group, Semantic Web 12 (2020) 143–161. https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-200385

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    Tomašević, M.Č

    N.M. Tomašević, M.Č. Batić, L.M. Blanes, M.M. Keane, S. Vraneš, Ontology -based facility data model for energy management, Adv. Eng. Inform. 29 (2015) 971–984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2015.09.003

    2015 doi

  28. [36]

    Fernández del Amo, J.A

    I. Fernández del Amo, J.A. Erkoyuncu, D. Bułka, M. Farsi, D. Ariansyah, S. Khan, S. Wilding, Advancing Fault Diagnosis Through Ontology-Based Knowledge Capture and Application, IEEE Access 12 (2024) 144599–144620. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3433412

    2024

  29. [37]

    Y. Chen, G. Lin, E. Crowe, J. Granderson, Development of a Unified Taxonomy for HVAC System Faults, Energies 14 (2021) 5581. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14175581

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    Y. Chen, E. Crowe, G. Lin, J. Granderson, What’s in a Name? Developing a Standardized Taxonomy for HVAC System Faults, (2022). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/351568bv (accessed March 1, 2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Hwang, B

    M.Y. Hwang, B. Akinci, M. Berges, FSBrick: An information model for representing fault -symptom relationships in HVAC systems, in: Proc. 10th ACM Int. Conf. Syst. Energy -Effic. Build. Cities Transp., Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2023: pp. 69–78. htt...

    2023

  32. [40]

    Hwang, B

    M.Y. Hwang, B. Akinci, M. Bergés, FSBrick: an information model for representing fault -symptom relationships in heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, Data-Centric Eng. 5 (2024) e33. https://doi.org/10.1017/dce.2024.26

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    Blechmann, H

    S. Blechmann, H. Görigk, R. Streblow, D. Müller, Ontology-based approach for fault detection and diagnosis and fault location assessment in air handling units, in: 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Hosseini Gourabpasi, M

    A. Hosseini Gourabpasi, M. Nik-Bakht, An ontology for automated fault detection & diagnostics of HVAC using BIM and machine learning concepts, Sci. Technol. Built Environ. 30 (2024) 972 –988. https://doi.org/10.1080/23744731.2024.2363104

    2024

  35. [43]

    Ploennigs, M

    J. Ploennigs, M. Maghella, A. Schumann, B. Chen, Semantic Diagnosis Approach for Buildings, IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 13 (2017) 3399–3410. https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2017.2726001. 34

    2017

  36. [44]

    Mallak, A

    A. Mallak, A. Behravan, C. Weber, M. Fathi, R. Obermaisser, A Graph -Based Sensor Fault Detection and Diagnosis for Demand-Controlled Ventilation Systems Extracted from a Semantic Ontology, in: 2018 IEEE 22nd Int. Conf. Intell. Eng. Syst. INES, 2018: pp. 000377–000382. https:/...

    2018

  37. [45]

    T. Li, Y. Zhao, C. Zhang, K. Zhou, X. Zhang, A semantic model-based fault detection approach for building energy systems, Build. Environ. 207 (2022) 108548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108548

    2022

  38. [46]

    Cristani, R

    M. Cristani, R. Cuel, A Survey on Ontology Creation Methodologies, Int. J. Semantic Web Inf. Syst. IJSWIS 1 (2005) 49–69. https://doi.org/10.4018/jswis.2005040103

    2005 doi

  39. [47]

    Aminu, I.O

    E.F. Aminu, I.O. Oyefolahan, M.B. Abdullahi, M.T. Salaudeen, A Review on Ontology Development Methodologies for Developing Ontological Knowledge Representation Systems for various Domains, (2020). https://doi.org/10.5815/ijieeb.2020.02.05

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    Alfaifi, Ontology Development Methodology: A Systematic Review and Case Study, in: 2022 2nd Int

    Y. Alfaifi, Ontology Development Methodology: A Systematic Review and Case Study, in: 2022 2nd Int. Conf. Comput. Inf. Technol. ICCIT, 2022: pp. 446–450. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCIT52419.2022.9711664

    2022

  41. [49]

    Gruninger, S.F

    M. Gruninger, S.F. Mark, Methodology for the design and evaluation of ontologies, Proc IJCAI95 Workshop Basic Ontol. Issues Knowl. Shar. (1995)

    1995

  42. [50]

    Y. Li, Z. O’Neill, A critical review of fault modeling of HVAC systems in buildings, Build. Simul. 11 (2018) 953–975. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-018-0458-4

    2018 doi

  43. [51]

    Casillas, Y

    A. Casillas, Y. Chen, J. Granderson, G. Lin, Z. Chen, J. Wen, S. Huang, Development of high -fidelity air handling unit fault models for FDD innovation: lessons learned and recommendations, J. Build. Perform. Simul. 0 (n.d.) 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/19401493.2024.2382757

    2024

  44. [52]

    Y. Hu, D.P. Yuill, S.A. Rooholghodos, A. Ebrahimifakhar, Y. Chen, Impacts of simultaneous operating faults on cooling performance of a high efficiency residential heat pump, Energy Build. 242 (2021) 110975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.110975

    2021

  45. [54]

    Chen, Data-Driven Whole Building Fault Detection and Diagnosis, Ph.D., Drexel University, 2019

    Y. Chen, Data-Driven Whole Building Fault Detection and Diagnosis, Ph.D., Drexel University, 2019. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2275119448/abstract/A8D5FCEB15DC48CAPQ/1 (accessed August 16, 2023)

    2019

  46. [55]

    C. Lu, Z. Wang, M. Mosteiro-Romero, L. Itard, Diagnostic Bayesian network in building energy systems: Current insights, practical challenges, and future trends, Energy Build. 341 (2025) 115845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2025.115845

    2025

  47. [56]

    Amin, K.M

    A.A. Amin, K.M. Hasan, A review of Fault Tolerant Control Systems: Advancements and applications, Measurement 143 (2019) 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2019.04.083

    2019 doi

  48. [57]

    Isermann, Fault-Diagnosis Systems: An Introduction from Fault Detection to Fault Tolerance, Springer Science & Business Media, 2005

    R. Isermann, Fault-Diagnosis Systems: An Introduction from Fault Detection to Fault Tolerance, Springer Science & Business Media, 2005

    2005

  49. [59]

    Zhang, J

    Y. Zhang, J. Jiang, Bibliographical review on reconfigurable fault-tolerant control systems, Annu. Rev. Control 32 (2008) 229–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcontrol.2008.03.008

    2008 doi

  50. [60]

    Bengea, P

    S.C. Bengea, P. Li, S. Sarkar, S. Vichik, V. Adetola, K. Kang, T. Lovett, F. Leonardi, A.D. Kelman, Fault - tolerant optimal control of a building HVAC system, Sci. Technol. Built Environ. 21 (2015) 734 –751. https://doi.org/10.1080/23744731.2015.1057085

    2015

  51. [61]

    Jr, HVAC Controls: Operation and Maintenance, CRC Press, 2001

    W.G. Jr, HVAC Controls: Operation and Maintenance, CRC Press, 2001

    2001

  52. [62]

    Es-sakali, M

    N. Es-sakali, M. Cherkaoui, M.O. Mghazli, Z. Naimi, Review of predictive maintenance algorithms applied to HVAC systems, Energy Rep. 8 (2022) 1003–1012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.07.130

    2022 doi

  53. [63]

    J. Kim, K. Trenbath, J. Granderson, Y. Chen, E. Crowe, H. Reeve, S. Newman, P. Ehrlich, Research challenges and directions in HVAC fault prevalence, Sci. Technol. Built Environ. 27 (2021) 624 –640. https://doi.org/10.1080/23744731.2021.1898243

    2021

  54. [64]

    Noy, C.D

    N.F. Noy, C.D. Hafner, The State of the Art in Ontology Design: A Survey and Comparative Review, AI Mag. 18 (1997) 53–53. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v18i3.1306

    1997 doi

  55. [65]

    Bezerra, F

    C. Bezerra, F. Freitas, F. Santana, Evaluating Ontologies with Competency Questions, in: 2013 IEEEWICACM Int. Jt. Conf. Web Intell. WI Intell. Agent Technol. IAT, 2013: pp. 284 –285. https://doi.org/10.1109/WI-IAT.2013.199

    2013 doi

  56. [66]

    Staab, R

    S. Staab, R. Studer, Handbook on Ontologies, Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    2013

  57. [67]

    Y. Chen, Z. Chen, G. Lin, Y. Zhang, S. Ye, A novel evaluation method of measurement sensitivities on 35 common faults in VAV HVAC systems, Build. Environ. 261 (2024) 111683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111683

    2024

  58. [68]

    Granderson, G

    J. Granderson, G. Lin, Y. Chen, A. Casillas, J. Wen, Z. Chen, P. Im, S. Huang, J. Ling, A labeled dataset for building HVAC systems operating in faulted and fault-free states, Sci. Data 10 (2023) 342. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02197-w

    2023 doi

  59. [69]

    Ghalamsiah, J

    N. Ghalamsiah, J. Wen, G. Li, Y. Chen, X. Lu, Y. Fu, M. Chu, Z. O’Neill, Labeled Datasets for Air Handling Units Operating in Faulted and Fault-free States, Sci. Data 13 (2026) 15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-06179-y

    2026 doi

  60. [70]

    G. Lin, J. House, Y. Chen, J. Granderson, W. Zhang, Active multi -mode data analysis to improve fault diagnosis in AHUs, Energy Build. 337 (2025) 115621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2025.115621

    2025

  61. [71]

    Y. Chen, J. Wen, L.J. Lo, Using Weather and Schedule based Pattern Matching and Feature based PCA for Whole Building Fault Detection — Part II Field Evaluation, ASME J. Eng. Sustain. Build. Cities (2021) 1–

    2021

  62. [72]

    https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4052730

    doi

  63. [73]

    Huang, H

    J. Huang, H. Yoon, O. Pradhan, T. Wu, J. Wen, Z. O’neill, K.S. Candan, A cosine -based correlation information entropy approach for building automatic fault detection baseline construction, Sci. Technol. Built Environ. 28 (2022) 1138–1149. https://doi.org/10.1080/23744731.2022.2080110

    2022

  64. [74]

    Huang, N

    J. Huang, N. Ghalamsiah, A. Patharkar, O. Pradhan, M. Chu, T. Wu, J. Wen, Z. O’Neill, K. Selcuk Candan, An entropy-based causality framework for cross-level faults diagnosis and isolation in building HVAC systems, Energy Build. 317 (2024) 114378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbu...

    2024

  65. [75]

    Huang, H

    J. Huang, H. Yoon, T. Wu, K.S. Candan, O. Pradhan, J. Wen, Z. O’Neill, Eigen -Entropy: A metric for multivariate sampling decisions, Inf. Sci. 619 (2023) 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2022.11.023

    2023 doi

  66. [76]

    Y. Chen, E. Crowe, J. Granderson, Development of Self-correction Algorithms for Thermostats Using OpenAPI Capabilities, in: Proceeding Int. High Perform. Build. Conf. Purdue, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 2024

    2024

  67. [77]

    G. Lin, M. Pritoni, Y. Chen, J. Granderson, Development and Implementation of Fault -Correction Algorithms in Fault Detection and Diagnostics Tools, Energies 13 (2020) 2598. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13102598

    2020 doi

  68. [78]

    S. Wan, M. Zhao, Y. Chen, S. Yang, D. Qiu, L.J. Lo, A novel data-driven relationship inference approach for automatic data tagging in building heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems, Build. Environ. 246 (2023) 110968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110968

    2023

  69. [79]

    Pritoni, G

    M. Pritoni, G. Lin, Y. Chen, J. House, E. Crowe, J. Granderson, Market Barriers and Drivers for the Next Generation Fault Detection and Diagnostic Tools, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States), 2022. https://doi.org/10.20357/B7801T

    2022 doi

  70. [80]

    Zeller, Isolating cause-effect chains from computer programs, ACM SIGSOFT Softw

    A. Zeller, Isolating cause-effect chains from computer programs, ACM SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 27 (2002) 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/605466.605468

    2002

  71. [81]

    C. Lu, C. Struck, C. Miller, D. Saelens, L. Itard, Artificial Intelligence for HVAC Diagnostics: Towards the Era of Large Language Models, EHVA Eur. HVAC J. 2026(2) (n.d.) 59 –62

    2026

  72. [82]

    Y. Chen, J. Wen, A whole building fault detection using weather based pattern matching and feature based PCA method, in: 2017 IEEE Int. Conf. Big Data Big Data, 2017: pp. 4050 –4057. https://doi.org/10.1109/BigData.2017.8258421

    2017

  73. [83]

    Y. Chen, G. Lin, Z. Chen, J. Wen, J. Granderson, A simulation-based evaluation of fan coil unit fault effects, Energy Build. 263 (2022) 112041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.112041

    2022

  74. [84]

    Isermann, Model-based fault-detection and diagnosis – status and applications, Annu

    R. Isermann, Model-based fault-detection and diagnosis – status and applications, Annu. Rev. Control 29 (2005) 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcontrol.2004.12.002

    2005 doi

  75. [85]

    Y. Chen, J. Wen, T. Chen, O. Pradhan, Bayesian Networks for Whole Building Level Fault Diagnosis and Isolation, in: Int. High Perform. Build. Conf., West Lafayette, IN, 2018: pp. 1 –10. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/ihpbc/266

    2018

  76. [86]

    McBride, The Resource Description Framework (RDF) and its Vocabulary Description Language RDFS, in: S

    B. McBride, The Resource Description Framework (RDF) and its Vocabulary Description Language RDFS, in: S. Staab, R. Studer (Eds.), Handb. Ontol., Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2004: pp. 51 –65. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24750-0_3

    2004 doi

  77. [87]

    Antoniou, F

    G. Antoniou, F. van Harmelen, Web Ontology Language: OWL, in: S. Staab, R. Studer (Eds.), Handb. Ontol., Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009: pp. 91–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-92673-3_4

    2009 doi

  78. [88]

    H. Li, D. Yu, J.E. Braun, A review of virtual sensing technology and application in building systems, HVACR Res. 17 (2011) 619–645. https://doi.org/10.1080/10789669.2011.573051

    2011

  79. [89]

    Z. Zhao, X. Han, S. Yang, B. Yang, HVAC Equipment Monitoring, in: Comput. Vis. AI IndoorOutdoor Therm. Environ. Constr. Saf. HVAC Equip. Monit., CRC Press, 2026. 36

    2026

  80. [90]

    J. Gao, M. Bergés, A large-scale evaluation of automated metadata inference approaches on sensors from air handling units, Adv. Eng. Inform. 37 (2018) 14–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2018.04.010

    2018 doi

  81. [91]

    Noy, D.L

    N.F. Noy, D.L. McGuinness, Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology, (2001). https://corais.org/sites/default/files/ontology_development_101_aguide_to_creating_your_first_ontology.pdf (accessed May 1, 2025)

    2001

  82. [92]

    Jensen, N

    K. Jensen, N. Wirth, Pascal User Manual and Report: ISO Pascal Standard, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  83. [93]

    Gómez-Pérez, Ontology Evaluation, in: S

    A. Gómez-Pérez, Ontology Evaluation, in: S. Staab, R. Studer (Eds.), Handb. Ontol., Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2004: pp. 251–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24750-0_13

    2004 doi

  84. [94]

    Brank, M

    J. Brank, M. Grobelnik, D. Mladenić, A survey of ontology evaluation technique, in: Proc. Conf. Data Min. Data Wareh. SiKDD, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2005

    2005

  85. [95]

    J. Wen, S. Li, ASHRAE 1312-RP: Tools for Evaluating Fault Detection and Diagnostic Methods for Air- Handling Units—Final Report, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, 2011

    2011

  86. [96]

    Granderson, G

    J. Granderson, G. Lin, Y. Chen, A. Casillas, LBNL Fault Detection and Diagnostics Datasets, DOE Open Energy Data Initiative (OEDI); Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States),

  87. [97]

    S. Jung, Y. Yoon, P. Im, Datasets of Faults in Variable Air Volume Terminal Units in a Multi -Zone Commercial Building, Sci. Data 12 (2025) 763. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597 -025-05063-z

    2025 doi

  88. [100]

    DuCharme, Learning SPARQL: Querying and Updating with SPARQL 1.1, O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2013

    B. DuCharme, Learning SPARQL: Querying and Updating with SPARQL 1.1, O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2013. 37 Nomenclature Abbreviation FDD Fault detection and diagnostics FDD-ON Fault detection and diagnostics-Ontology CQ Competency question VAV Variable air volume HVAC Heating, ventil...

    2013

  89. [101]

    FDD-ON Model --Modeling approach Tag-based Tag-based Ontology- based Ontology- based Ontology- based Tag-based Ontology- based --Formal semantics Y Y Y Y Y Y Y --Query language Haxall / filters Haxall / filters SPARQL SPARQL SPARQL Python/Filters SPARQL --Controlled vocabulary...

  90. [2022]

    https://doi.org/10.25984/1881324

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.