The present disclosure pertains to energy usage and particularly to an apparatus and approach for displaying energy-related information.
The disclosure reveals a system and approach for diagnostic visualizations of, for example, building control systems data. A focus may be on a similarity metric for comparing operations among sites relative to energy consumption. Normalizing factors may be used across sites with varying equipment consumption levels to be compared automatically. There may also be a high level overview of an enterprise of sites. For instance, consumption totals of the sites may be normalized by site size and length of time of a billing period to identify such things as outlier sites. One may use a main view of geographic distribution dynamically linked to subviews showing distribution by size, by aggregated climate, and so on. With these views, one may quickly drill through the enterprise and identify sites of interest for further investigation. A key metric may be intensity which invokes viewing virtually all sites by normalized consumption for a unit amount of time.
a and 10b are tables of alpha and beta calculations, respectively, for various sites;
c is a table of distances of other sites nearby a noted site of interest in
a and 11b are diagrams of alpha calculations for various sites for roof top units and lights, respectively;
As shown in
Memory 106 may be coupled to the processor 104. The memory 106 may be used to store instructions and data used, generated, or collected by the processor 104. The memory 106 may, for example, store the energy-related data collected and analyzed by the processor 104 and analysis results generated by the processor 104. The memory 106 may represent a suitable volatile and/or non-volatile storage and retrieval device or devices.
The network interface 108 may support communication with external components, such as an external database or external sensors. The network interface 108 may, for example, receive temperature readings from sensors, energy usage readings from meters, or any other or additional energy-related data. The network interface 108 may incorporate virtually any suitable structure for facilitating communications over one or more networks, such as an Ethernet interface or a wireless transceiver. Other connections may be accomplished with an external connections module 116.
At least one item or display 110 may be coupled to the processing system 102. The display 110 can present various kinds of information to one or more users. For example, the display 110 could present one or more graphical user interfaces containing graphs and/or other information related to energy usage. This may allow, for example, energy analysts or other personnel to review the analysis results and identify energy-related issues with an enterprise or other entity. Item 110 may represent any suitable display device, such as a liquid crystal display (LCD), cathode ray tube (CRT) display, light emitting diode (LED) display, or other type of visual information providing mechanism.
In the present examples, the processor 104 may perform various functions for supporting the collection and analysis of energy-related data. For example, the processor 104 may support data input/output (I/O) functions with a data I/O module 114 to support communication with other components, such as input devices (like a mouse or keyboard) at a user interface 117 and output devices (such as display 110). Processor 104 may also perform collection functions with collection module 112 and detection mechanism 115 to collect data related to the energy usage of one or more enterprises. Processor 104 may further perform operations and functions at an analysis module 113 to analyze collected data, such as cost-savings calculations and normalization functions, and perform other analyses and calculations. In addition, processor 104 may perform graphical user interface generation functions at GUI generation module 111 to generate one or more graphical user interfaces for presentation to one or more users. The contents of the generated graphical user interfaces may depend, at least in part, on the analysis performed by various portions of the processor 104. Example graphical user interfaces, graphs, tables, maps and the like are illustrated herein. Each of these graphical presentations, visualizations, dashboards, and the like may be implemented using any suitable hardware, software, firmware, or combination thereof, shown in
The apparatus 100 shown in
In one aspect of operation, the apparatus 100 may analyze energy-related data and provide graphical interfaces and presentations based on the analyses to energy analysts or other personnel. For instance, apparatus 100 may receive and analyze data associated with various enterprises, such as for an entity having multiple individual locations or sites. Also, apparatus 100 may be used to analyze any suitable energy-related aspects of that domain, such as energy financial costs, parameters, and so forth as indicated herein.
In some illustrative examples, apparatus 100 may provide improved data visualizations (graphical displays) for energy analysts or other users, which may be useful in detecting and diagnosing issues in energy use. For instance, a visualization may integrate reports and graphs used by a user into a single interactive display. Depending on an implementation, such visualization may involve an integration of different displays, linking of symbols to detailed information for specific sites (areas, shapes, colors, shades, symbols, and so on associated with energy usage), integration of histories, linking of views, and providing time-based views. Shades may be instances of a grayscale or variants of an intensity of a displayed color such as a grey.
Apparatus 100 may also use a set of performance metrics in the data visualizations, where the metrics serve to highlight potential energy use issues at a site or other place. A user may be able to select one of those measures, which may then be used to drive an integrated display of charts. These metrics can be applied to analyze energy performance over a user-selectable period of time.
Although
Various Figures herein illustrate example graphical user interfaces, visualizations and dashboards for displaying energy-related information according to the present disclosure. Other kinds of graphical user interfaces, visualizations and dashboards may be used.
Energy analysis services may be provided for customers that have multiple sites located across the country. There may be an effort to provide recommendations on how to better operate these sites, using a combination of utility bill data, electric or other utility meter data, control system operational data, and weather conditions. A challenge in providing these services may be in sifting through a massive amount of data to identify actionable recommendations that can be implemented at the customer's site, and to perform this activity in a cost effective manner.
Diagnostic visualizations for building control systems data may be noted. A present approach may address analyzing the HVAC and lighting systems at an individual site, and comparing their performance against other sites and/or comparing them over time at the same site.
A focus of the approach may be on a development of a similarity metric to compare operations between sites, and visualizations to support an energy analyst in quickly identifying sources with issues in the HVAC and lighting systems.
The present approach may have a definition of normalizing factors across sites, so that sites with varying equipment levels can be compared automatically. These normalizing factors may be called alpha and beta, and be defined on a per site basis. There may be an approach for visualizing the normalizing factors.
There may be a use of HVAC and lighting data for a single site in a calendar view. This view may allow an analyst to quickly assess performance over time, and compare same day performance for the same site. This view may facilitate an assessment of whether an issue is persistent or sporadic. Other approaches may look at individual trend plots.
There may be an incorporation of HVAC and lighting data into a “birthday cake” view for each day. This view may allow an analyst to develop a characteristic profile for a site, and use this characteristic profile as a comparison within sites and between sites.
In the present disclosure, one may have an approach to normalize HVAC and lighting operations between sites. Essentially, one may define a factor, called an alpha (α) factor, for each stage of lighting or HVAC equipment, and for each piece of equipment at the site. This may require that data be available in a form that separates the pieces of equipment and stages of operation. Then, for each of these stages and pieces of equipment, one may define a daily period of operation, such as unoccupied hours; and an aggregation period, such as one month. The alpha factor may then be used to calculate the percentage of those operation and aggregation periods where this stage of equipment/lighting was activated.
Another step or stage of normalization may invoke collecting virtually all of the alpha factors for a single site, and then normalizing them by a number of pieces of equipment at that site. The normalization may be referred to as a beta (β) factor. For example, one may have alpha factors for eight rooftop HVAC units at one site, and six rooftop HVAC units at another site. To normalize between sites, one may sum the alpha factors and divide by the number of units at each site. Thus, the beta factor may be the fraction of time that that total site capacity was activated during the aggregation period.
An example of a calculation for alpha and beta factors, and an example of a visualization of alpha calculations across sites, are shown herein.
The alpha and beta factors may be intended to either provide an automated metric for comparison, or to assist the analyst in identifying sites that are candidates for a further drill down.
Once a site is selected for the further drill down, the analyst may need views to support rapid identification of specific issues in the HVAC and lighting systems.
Eventually, a daily detail view may be used as a bottom level drill down into the data. As noted herein,
One approach may involve a monthly site review. One may find n outlier sites via meter data, utility bill data, or a “big three report”. For each of these outliers, the following items may be done. 1) One may find m “similar” reference sites. A similarity metric may currently be a distance between postal codes. One may also incorporate a number of RTUs, total RTU tonnage, square footage. 2) The similarity metric may be precomputed and stored in a file in prototype, which could be a table in the warehouse or other place. 3) The RTU data may be pulled up for the comparison site, and for the m reference sites. For instance, total run time may be evaluated during unoccupied periods, total run time may be evaluated for all RTUs during occupied periods, and/or the metric may be computed on an unoccupied comparison vs. reference and/or occupied comparison vs. reference. 4) Lighting data may be pulled up for the comparison site, and for the m reference sites. A similar evaluation may be done as for the RTUs. 5) The results may be comparison metrics, such as RTU run time (occupied, unoccupied), LIGHTS run time (occupied, unoccupied) for each site, and so forth. An approach may incorporate examining how the total run times for this site compare to the reference sites. 6) Visualization of a comparison and selected reference site may be shown. An approach here may incorporate examining how the total run times for this site compare to those of the reference sites. Examples may pertain to RTU stages (heat & cool), fan status, lighting status, and so forth. RTU may be referred to a rooftop unit associated with an HVAC system.
An approach for normalizing RTU log data may be noted. A way to normalize the RTU data may be needed, so that one can compare across stores. This approach may be done in two stages: 1) Normalizing at the equipment/unit level; and 2) Normalizing by total site capacity. An assumption may be to work with a single point for each normalized calculation, e.g., COOL 1. One may define αi,j,k=sum of run time for site i, stage j, RTU k, in percent, across a specified time of day and date range for a specific RTU divided by 100 percent*n hours*n days according to a formula 11 in
One may define βi,j=the sum of all αi,j,k for a site divided by the total number of RTUs at this site. A formula 13 for the beta (β) calculation is shown in
An example an alpha “α” calculation and view may be considered. In
An approach for normalizing lighting log data may be considered. As with the RTU data, there may be a need for a way to normalize the lighting data, so that one can make a comparison across stores. One may assume to work with a single point for each lighting category, such as, for example, employee lights. One may define αi,j=sum of run time for site i and lighting category j, in percent, across a specified time of day and date range for a specific lighting category divided by 100 percent*nhours*ndays as shown in the formula 12 of
Matlab™ may be used to calculate alpha (α) and beta (β) for the various sites as shown in
a and 11b are views 23 and 24 of α calculations for various sites for RTU alpha and lighting alpha, respectively. For instance, site 2507 is shown at portion 25 of
An approach may address a first step in identifying actionable recommendations—using the available data most effectively to identify and drill down to specific sites with energy conservation opportunities, with
The approach may provide a high level overview of the enterprise, based on a key metric selected by an analyst. An analyst may use monthly consumption totals normalized by site size and number of days in the billing period to identify outlier sites using a linked view. The main view may show the enterprise locations mapped geographically, with the key metric and site size mapped to a color or shade, and a shape of the icon representing each site. The main view may also be dynamically linked to multiple subviews that allow the user to simultaneously view the metric of interest cast onto multiple dimensions, such as size group, the climate group, and an overall histogram of the key metric.
With the multiple linked views, the analyst can quickly drill through an enterprise, and identify sites of interest for further investigation. Other approaches may use multiple static tables to rank sites, and the present approach may be differentiated from the others by both the geographic view and the linking of multiple subviews for an additional dimension.
Normalized by square footage, a number of days in the billing period, and so forth, may result in kWh/SF/Day as a key metric. For the main view and virtually all subviews, the key metric may be encoded to a color or shade scale shown in the upper right hand corner of each of the
One may scope out climate and consumption zones by several steps as in the following. There may be prioritization shown in
A mouseover in virtually any window may give site details (location, size, details on consumption & billing period)
The following may be a recap. There may be automated anomaly detection based on normalization (alpha and beta), along with drill down to HVAC/lighting details. There may be a dual layer approach to normalization across sites, using logical data to build the normalization. This may incorporate the alpha and beta factors as defined herein, and this act to normalize for multiple instances of equipment within a site (e.g., multiple rooftop units).
The alpha factor may be used to normalize against “expected” operation. The alpha factor may aggregates equipment run time during a specified condition (e.g., unoccupied) over a specified period (e.g., one month).
The beta factor may aggregates for virtually all equipment on the site and normalizing based on total site capacity. The beta factor may provide an approach to compare sites against one another, by normalizing the aggregated alpha factors by a count of equipment.
The normalization may be based generally only on the content of the data, not other external factors. Alpha and beta factors may be operational measures driven by the content of the HVAC and lighting data, intended to evaluate abnormalities in operational procedures across a large enterprise.
Visualization may be to support rapid identification of specific problems by a human user. The visualization may be used with or without the alpha/beta factors. In the case where alpha/beta factors are available, the alpha/beta factors may be used in several ways. First, the alpha/beta factors may be used to drive the user to a specific site of interest, and automatically generate views of the highest priority site. Second, the alpha/beta factors may be used to supplement the raw HVAC/lighting information and provide an approach for a human user to quickly compare a single site against other similar sites.
A specific element of the visualization may be a link to a calendar view for comparison across days of week and weeks of the month and weeks of the year. The content of the calendar view may be lighting data, HVAC data, or a combination of both. The calendar view may also include weather data. The calendar view may have scrolling and selection capability to support quick navigation through time and across sites.
Another specific element of the visualization may be a link to a detailed daily profile view for analysis of the operation of specific pieces of equipment at the site level. This view may incorporate a simultaneous overview of lighting and HVAC data for grouped lighting functions and for specific HVAC units. The view may highlight individual operating stages for each piece of HVAC equipment over a daily period. The view may incorporate a capability to scroll through time for a specified site.
An intensity map may be noted. A dashboard may be for viewing multiple energy consuming sites where an energy consumption metric is presented on a geographic map and the energy consumption metric is coded via shape and/or size and/or color to identify largest deviations in the metric. The dashboard may also incorporate one or more linking views that provide the user with contextual information, such as geographic distribution, distribution by size, distribution by aggregated climate zone, distribution across all sites to show consumption in the overall context of the enterprise.
The dashboard may also provide an ability to make selections in any window and have that selection linked across all windows. Mouseovers in virtually all windows may provide additional contextual details for each site relevant to energy consumption, such as location, size, details on energy consumption and the associated billing period.
A relevant document may be U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/259,959, filed Oct. 28, 2008, and entitled “Apparatus and Method for Displaying Energy-Related Information.” U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/259,959, filed Oct. 28, 2008, is hereby incorporated by reference. A relevant document may be U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/483,433, filed Jun. 12, 2009, and entitled “Method and System for Providing an Integrated Building Summary Dashboard”. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/483,433, filed Jun. 12, 2009, is hereby incorporated by reference.
In the present specification, some of the matter may be of a hypothetical or prophetic nature although stated in another manner or tense.
Although the present system and/or approach has been described with respect to at least one illustrative example, many variations and modifications will become apparent to those skilled in the art upon reading the specification. It is therefore the intention that the appended claims be interpreted as broadly as possible in view of the prior art to include all such variations and modifications.
This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/336,789, filed Jan. 27, 2010, and entitled “Integrated Multi-Site Energy Dashboard”. U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/336,789, filed Jan. 27, 2010, is hereby incorporated by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4918615 | Suzuki et al. | Apr 1990 | A |
4939922 | Smalley et al. | Jul 1990 | A |
5566084 | Cmar | Oct 1996 | A |
5745126 | Jain et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5751916 | Kon et al. | May 1998 | A |
5777598 | Gowda et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
6065842 | Fink | May 2000 | A |
6139177 | Venkatraman et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6144993 | Fukunaga et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6157943 | Meyer et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6229429 | Horon | May 2001 | B1 |
6334211 | Kojima et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6353853 | Gravlin | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6369695 | Horon | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6429868 | Dehner, Jr. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6473084 | Phillips et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6487457 | Hull et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6580950 | Johnson et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6598056 | Hull et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6619555 | Rosen | Sep 2003 | B2 |
6704012 | Lefave | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6741915 | Poth | May 2004 | B2 |
6796896 | Laiti | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6801199 | Wallman | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6816878 | Zimmers et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6876951 | Skidmore | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6904385 | Budike, Jr. | Jun 2005 | B1 |
6907387 | Reardon | Jun 2005 | B1 |
6993403 | Dadebo et al. | Jan 2006 | B1 |
6993417 | Osann, Jr. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
7023440 | Havekost et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
7031880 | Seem et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
7062722 | Carlin et al. | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7110843 | Pagnano et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7139685 | Bascle et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7164972 | Imhof et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7183899 | Behnke | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7200639 | Yoshida | Apr 2007 | B1 |
7222800 | Wruck | May 2007 | B2 |
7257397 | Shamoon et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7280030 | Monaco | Oct 2007 | B1 |
7292908 | Borne et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7308388 | Beverina et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7313447 | Hsiung et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7346433 | Budike, Jr. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7356548 | Culp et al. | Apr 2008 | B1 |
7379782 | Cocco | May 2008 | B1 |
7383148 | Ahmed | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7434742 | Mueller et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7496472 | Seem | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7512450 | Ahmed | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7516490 | Riordan et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7548833 | Ahmed | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7557729 | Hubbard et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7567844 | Thomas et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7596473 | Hansen et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7610910 | Ahmed | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7626507 | LaCasse | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7664574 | Imhof et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7702421 | Sullivan et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7729882 | Seem | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7774227 | Srivastava | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7797188 | Srivastava | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7856370 | Katta et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7986323 | Kobayashi et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
8024666 | Thompson | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8086047 | Penke et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
20020111698 | Graziano et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020130868 | Smith | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20030028269 | Spriggs et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030030637 | Grinstein et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030046862 | Wolf et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030071814 | Jou et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030083957 | Olefson | May 2003 | A1 |
20030103075 | Rosselot | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030171851 | Brickfield et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030214400 | Mizutani et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030233432 | Davis et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040064260 | Padmanabhan et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040143474 | Haeberle et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040168115 | Bauernschmidt et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040233192 | Hopper | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040260411 | Cannon | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050010460 | Mizoguchi et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050143863 | Ruane et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050267900 | Ahmed et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060004841 | Heikkonen et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060009862 | Imhof et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060017547 | Buckingham et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060020177 | Seo | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060028471 | Kincaid | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060029256 | Miyoshi et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060058900 | Johanson et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060077255 | Cheng | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060184326 | McNally et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060265664 | Simons et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060279630 | Aggarwal et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070016955 | Goldberg et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070055760 | McCoy et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070088534 | MacArthur et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070090951 | Chan et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070091091 | Gardiner et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070114295 | Jenkins | May 2007 | A1 |
20070120652 | Behnke | May 2007 | A1 |
20070139208 | Kates | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070216682 | Navratil et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070268122 | Kow et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20080027885 | van Putten et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080036593 | Rose-Pehrsson et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080062167 | Boggs et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080144885 | Zucherman et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080183424 | Seem | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080198231 | Ozdemir et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080224862 | Cirker | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080306985 | Murray et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080320552 | Kumar et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090001181 | Siddaramanna et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090083120 | Strichman et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090096791 | Abshear et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090125825 | Rye et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090144023 | Seem | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090157744 | McConnell | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090160673 | Cirker | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20100048167 | Chow et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100064001 | Daily | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100156628 | Ainsbury et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100156630 | Ainsbury | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100223198 | Noureldin et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100249955 | Sitton | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100318200 | Foslien et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110077754 | Jones et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110077779 | Fuller et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110083094 | Laycock et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20120262472 | Garr et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20130055132 | Foslien | Feb 2013 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2538139 | Mar 2005 | CA |
1669912 | Jun 2006 | EP |
7085166 | Mar 1995 | JP |
11024735 | Jan 1999 | JP |
11317936 | Nov 1999 | JP |
2001356813 | Dec 2001 | JP |
2005242531 | Sep 2005 | JP |
2005311563 | Nov 2005 | JP |
9621264 | Nov 1996 | WO |
2004029518 | Apr 2004 | WO |
2005045715 | May 2005 | WO |
2008157755 | Dec 2008 | WO |
2009079648 | Jun 2009 | WO |
2010106474 | Sep 2010 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Narang, “WEBARC: Control and Monitoring of Building Systems Over the Web,” 53 pages, May 1999. |
Olken et al., “Object Lessons Learned from a Distributed System for Remote Building Monitoring and Operation,” ACM SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 33, No. 10, pp. 284-295, Oct. 1998. |
Proliphix, Inc., “Proliphix IP Devices: HTTP API,” 28 pp., Jan. 23, 2006. |
Proliphix, Inc., Remote Management User Guide, 12 pages, prior to Aug. 27, 2007. |
Richard Rogan et al., “Smart and Final Food Stores: A Case Study in Web Based Energy Information and Collection,” Web Based Energy Information and Control Systems: Case Studies and Application, Chapter 6, pg. 59-64, 2005. |
Sharp, “Actius AL3DU 3D LC Display High Performance 3D Visualization,” 2 pages, prior to Mar. 17, 2006. |
So et al., “Building Automation on the Information Superhighway,” ASHRAE (American Society of Heating Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning) Transactions, vol. 104, Part 2, pp. 176-191, 1998. |
So et al., “Building Automation Systems on the Internet,” Facilities vol. 15, No. 5/6, pp. 125-133, May/Jun. 1997. |
Talon, “Raptor Controller,” 6 pages, Oct. 2003. |
Talon, “Workstation Software,” 4 pages, Nov. 2002. |
Trane, “System Programming, Tracer Summit Version 14, BMTW-SVP01D-EN,” 623 pages, 2002. |
Lucid Design Group, Inc., “Building Dashboard,” 2 pages, Printed May 30, 2013. |
“ASHRAE Dashboard Research Project,” 29 pages, Aug. 28, 2008. |
“Energy Manager User Guide,” Release 3.2, Honeywell, 180 pages, 2008. |
“Fuzzy Logic Toolbox 2.1, Design and Stimulate Fuzzy Logic Systems,” The MathWorks, 2 pages, May 2004. |
“Junk Charts, Recycling Chartjunk as junk art,” 3 pages, Oct. 2, 2006. |
“Model Predictive Control Toolbox 2, Develop Internal Model-Based Controllers for Constrained Multivariable Processes,” The MathWorks, 4 pages, Mar. 2005. |
Honeywell, “Product Guide 2004,” XP-002472407, 127 pages, 2004. |
“Statistics Toolbox, for Use with Matlab,” User's Guide Version2, The MathWorks, 408 pages, Jan. 1999. |
“Vykon Energy Suite Student Guide,” Tridium Inc., 307 pages, Mar. 3, 2006. |
“Web Based Energy Information Systems for Energy Management and Demand Response in Commercial Buildings,” California Energy Commission, 80 pages, Oct. 2003. |
Andover Controls, Network News, vol. 2, No. 2, 8 pages, 1997. |
Andover Controls World, 4 pages, Spring 1997. |
Bell, Michael B. et al., “Early Event Detection-Results from a Prototype Implementation,” AICHE Spring National Meeting, 15 pages, Apr. 2005. |
Cadgraphics, “The Cadgraphics User's Guide,” 198 pages, 2003. |
Carrier Comfort Network CCN Web, “Web Browser User Interface to the Carrier Comfort Network,” 2 pages, 2002. |
Carrier Comfort Network CCN Web, Overview and Configuration Manual, 134 pages, Apr. 2006. |
Carrier Comfort Network CCN Web, Product Data, 2 pages, Apr. 2006. |
Carrier, “i-Vu Powerful and Intuitive Front End for Building Control,” 2 pages, Aug. 2005. |
Carrier, “i-Vu Web-Based Integrated Control System,” 3 pages, 2005. |
Carrier, Demo Screen Shots, 15 pages, prior to Aug. 27, 2007. |
Carrier, i-Vu CCN 4.0, Owner's Guide, 20 pages, Jul. 2007. |
Carrier, i-Vu CCN, 7 pages, 2007. |
Chan, “Rank Revealing QR Factorizations,” Linear Algebra and It's Applications, vol. 88-89, pg. 67-82, Apr. 1987. |
Circon, “i-Browse Web-Based Monitoring and Control for Facility Management,” 2 pages, prior to Aug. 27, 2007. |
Published Australian Application 2009904740, 28 pages, Application Filed on Sep. 29, 2009. |
Echelon, “Energy Control Solutions with the i.Lon SmartServer,” 4 pages, 2007. |
Echelon, “i.Lon 100e3 Internet Server Models 72101R-300, 72101R-308, 72102R-300, 72103-R300 . . .” 5 pages, copyright 2002-2007. |
Echelon, “i.Lon 100e3 Internet Server New Features,” 15 pages, Sep. 2006. |
Echelon, “i.Lon SmartServer,” 5 pages, 2007. |
Honeywell News Release, “Honeywell's New Sysnet Facilities Integration System for Boiler Plant and Combustion Safety Processes,” 4 pages, Dec. 15, 1995. |
Honeywell, “Excel Building Supervisor-Integrated R7044 and FS90 Ver. 2.0,” Operator Manual, 70 pages, Apr. 1995. |
Honeywell, “Introduction of the S7350A Honeywell WebPAD Information Appliance,” Home and Building Control Bulletin, 2 pages, Aug. 29, 2000; Picture of WebPad Device with touch screen, 1 page; and screen shots of WebPad Device, 4 pages. |
Honeywell, Excel 15B W7760B Building Manager Release 2.02.00, Installation Instructions, 28 pages, Dec. 2004. |
Honeywell, The RapidZone Solution, Excel 5000 Open System, Application Guide, 52 pages, Jan. 2004. |
http://pueblo.lbl.gov/˜olken..., “Remote Building Monitoring and Operations Home p.,” 5 pages, prior to Aug. 27, 2007. |
http://www.commercial.carrier.com/commercial/hvac/productdescription..., “Carrier: i-Vu CCN,” 1 page, printed Mar. 11, 2008. |
http://www.commercial.carrier.com/commercial/hvac/productdescription..., “Carrier: 33CSCCNWEB-01 CCNWeb Internet Connection to the Carrier Comfort Network,” 1 page, printed Mar. 11, 2008. |
http://www.docs.hvacpartners.com/idc/groups/public/documents/techlit/gs-controls-ivuccn.rtf, “Products,” 5 pages, printed Jul. 3, 2007. |
http://www.lightstat.com/products/istat.asp, Lightstat Incorporated, “Internet Programmable Communicating Thermostats,” 1 page, printed Mar. 13, 2007. |
http://www.sharpsystems.com/products/pc—notebooks/actius/rd/3d/, “Actius RD3D Desktop Replacement Notebook with Industry-Breakthrough 3D Screen,” Sharp, 1 page, printed Jun. 16, 2005. |
http://www2.sims.berkeley.edu/courses/is213/s06/projects/lightson:final.html, “Lights on a Wireless Lighting Control System,” 11 pages, printed Mar. 22, 2007. |
i.Lon 100e3 Internet Server, 1 page, prior to Aug. 27, 2007. |
i.Lon, SmartServer, 2 pages, prior to Aug. 27, 2007. |
i-stat, Demo Screen Shots, 9 pages, printed Mar. 13, 2007. |
i-stat, The Internet Programmable Thermostat, 2 pages, prior to Aug. 27, 2007. |
Jeffrey Ball, “Green Goal of 'Carbon Neutrality' Hits Limit,” TheWall Street Journal, 7 pages, Dec. 30, 2008. |
Johnson Controls, Network Integration Engine (NIE) 3 pages, Nov. 9, 2007. |
Johnson Controls, Network Integration Engine (NIE), Product Bulletin, pp. 1-11, Jan. 30, 2008. |
Kourti, Theodora, “Process Analysis and Abnormal Situation Detection: From Theory to Practice,” IEEE Control Systems Magazine, pg. 10-25, Oct. 2002. |
Mathew, Paul A., “Action-Oriented Benchmarking, Using CEUS Date to Identify and Prioritize Efficiency Opportunities in California Commercial Buildings,” 26 pages, Jun. 2007. |
Morrison, Don et al., “The Early Event Detection Toolkit,” Honeywell Process Solutions, 14 pages, Jan. 2006. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20110184563 A1 | Jul 2011 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61336789 | Jan 2010 | US |