Science and Technology for the Built Environment

ISSN: 2374-4731 (Print) 2374-474X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhvc21

Supermarket system characteristics and operating

faults (RP-1615)

Alireza Behfar, David Yuill & Yuebin Yu

To cite this article: Alireza Behfar, David Yuill & Yuebin Yu (2018) Supermarket system
characteristics and operating faults (RP-1615), Science and Technology for the Built Environment,
24:10, 1104-1113, DOI: 10.1080/23744731.2018.1479614

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23744731.2018.1479614

© 2018 ASHRAE

Accepted author version posted online: 19

Jun 2018.
Published online: 21 Nov 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 230

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uhvc21
Science and Technology for the Built Environment (2018) 24, 1104–1113
Copyright # 2018 ASHRAE.
ISSN: 2374-4731 print / 2374-474X online
DOI: 10.1080/23744731.2018.1479614

Supermarket system characteristics and operating faults

(RP-1615)
ALIREZA BEHFAR, DAVID YUILL
, and YUEBIN YU
University of Nebraska–Lincoln, The Charles W Durham School of Architectural Engineering and Construction, 1110 S. 67th St.,
Omaha, NE, USA

Supermarkets undergo various types of operating faults that can require costly preventive maintenance, service, and repairs. Because
supermarkets are growing in number and in the variety of system types and characteristics, information about common faults and
equipment is essential prior to investing effort on the development of new fault detection and diagnostics (FDD) methods or other
improvements to system design and operation. A study was conducted to investigate supermarket equipment characteristics, such as
the prevalence of central vs. distributed systems, condenser types, control strategies, and common operating faults such as refrigerant
leakage, failed evaporator or condenser fans, failed compressors, etc. The data come from four sources: expert surveys, facility
management system messages, service calls, and service records. Some of the results of the study are that centralized direct expansion
systems with on/off compressor capacity control strategy and air-cooled condensers are the most common system types and
refrigerant charge problems are the most common source of equipment failure. Case-related problems, in aggregate, are the most
frequently occurring faults in supermarkets.

Introduction Consulting (2005). Because of this leakage, supermarkets

Supermarkets are one of the most energy-intensive types of
commercial buildings, with the refrigeration systems
accounting for about 43% of the total supermarket electricity
usage (EnergyStar 2008), the largest fraction among the
energy-consuming systems. A typical store contains thou-
sands of pounds of refrigerant charge (ICF Consulting
2005). A considerable portion of the charge is released to
the atmosphere, due to leakage in the refrigeration piping,
valves, and joints (Francis et al. 2017). The annual leakage
rate has been estimated in the range of 15%–20% by
Assawamartbunlue and Brandemuehl (2006) to 25% by ICF
Received November 1, 2017; accepted May 2, 2018
Alireza Behfar, PE, LEED AP, Student Member ASHRAE, is
a PhD candidate. David Yuill, PhD, PE, Member ASHRAE, is
an Assistant Professor. Yuebin Yu, PhD, PE, Associate
Member ASHRAE, is an Assistant Professor.
Corresponding author e-mail: abehfar@unomaha.edu
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can
be found online at www.tandfonline.com/uhvc.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which
permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is
not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
have significant direct and indirect emission rates in addition
to the energy-related impacts (James and James 2010; Beshr
et al. 2015; Islam et al. 2017). Recently, more restrictive
regulations have been established in the United States and
Europe regarding leak repair and inspections in stores and
owners were encouraged to use advanced monitoring equip-
ment (European Parliament 2014; EPA 2016).
Recent research on supermarket systems has largely
focused on refrigerants, because of their potential to cause
environmental damage. Koronaki et al. (2012) reviewed the
status of refrigerant leakage in refrigerating systems in sev-
eral European countries including leakage rates and the level
of compliance with existing legislations. A survey of 81 sys-
tems by Koronaki et al. (2012) showed several important
factors contributing to the refrigerant leakage problem,
including poor service and maintenance and lack of skill of
the technicians. An important conclusion of that paper is
that there is a general lack of data about the status of
refrigeration emissions in some European countries. Francis
et al. (2017) used 1464 leakage maintenance records in the
UK to analyze causes and locations of the leakage in stores
and found that the most common causes of refrigerant leaks
are pipe or joint failure and leaking seals/glands/cores in
compressor racks and liquid lines. Cardoso et al. (2017) sur-
veyed 148 companies, gathering information about existing
refrigerant types in the Portuguese food industry and pos-
sible replacements for R404A and R22, the two most
Volume 24, Number 10, October 2018
commonly used refrigerants. Sawalha et al. (2017) collected
field measurement data to compare the performance of CO2
and hydrofluorocarbon systems. Information about the use of
advanced supermarket technologies, such as variable cap-
acity compressors, high-efficiency fan motors, floating head
pressure controls, and demand defrost was collected in
Klemick et al. (2015) from representatives from 44 super-
market companies in the United States.
In the United States, there are about 200,000 grocery
stores (US Department of Energy 2012). There is a signifi-
cant variety in the types of systems, components, and control
strategies used in the supermarket industry (ASHRAE 2015).
Some evidence in the literature of this variety is that system
layouts used for supermarket energy modeling vary signifi-
cantly among energy models (Mota-Babiloni et al. 2015).
Typical supermarket refrigeration system layout and charac-
teristics can be found in Behfar, Yuill, and Yu (2017).
Several recent studies focus on the use of the CO2 refriger-
ant in supermarket systems. Karampour and Sawalha (2015)
identified several design features and energy saving strat-
egies, such as flooded evaporation and two-stage heat recov-
ery, that result in the best transcritical CO2 system
performance. In another study, Pardinas et al. (2018) investi-
gated new configurations for transcritical CO2 systems with
parallel compressor arrangements. Beghi et al. (2017) inves-
tigated the use of a machine learning technique for supervis-
ory control of a CO2 booster system, such as determining
the sequence of the suction pressure set-points for maximum
performance.
Depending on the system types present, supermarkets
undergo various faults in components and systems. A devi-
ation of a characteristic property of a system or component
from its normal operating state is defined as a fault
(Isermann 2011). Early detection and diagnosis of faults can
prevent energy waste, costly system damage, and food loss
in supermarkets (Dibowski et al. 2016). In recent years, sev-
eral fault detection and diagnostics (FDD) methods or per-
formance monitoring tools for supermarkets have been
developed for the whole-building level (Datta et al. 1997;
Dong et al. 2013; Mavromatidis et al. 2013; O’Neill et al.
2014; Acha et al. 2016), system level (Srinivasan et al.
2015), and component level (Yang et al. 2011a, 2011b;
O’Neill and Narayanan 2014; Janecke et al. 2017) that show
strong potential to determine the state of equipment or
prevent energy waste. However, supermarket FDD is still in
early stages of development, and FDD methods need to be
further developed to facilitate wide-scale deployment
(Behfar, Yuill, and Yu 2017). The comprehensiveness of
the FDD method to handle important faults, the reliability
of the method (considering false alarm, missed detection, or
misdiagnosis), and its ability to consider interactions and
interconnecting effects of systems are some of the important
considerations in the development of new FDD methods.
Because fault symptoms can vary among different system
types or different control sequences, an FDD method that is
developed for a specific system type may not be adaptable
to others (Wichman and Braun 2009; Behfar, Yuill, and Yu
2017). Most of the available sources with information about
1105
Fig. 1. Information collection methods and categories.
the occurring faults in building systems are now about two
decades or more old (International Energy Agency 1996;
Breuker and Braun 1998; Comstock and Braun 1999).
Therefore, it is necessary to collect technical information
about characteristics of the supermarket equipment and
systems. This was a key objective in ASHRAE RP-1615
(Behfar, Yu, and Yuill 2017).
The information collection methods used in the literature
to identify common system types and operating faults can be
classified into three groups, as presented in Figure 1 expert
surveys, advisory messages, and service calls. An advisory
message is a message that is generated by an automated
(controller) system, such as a building automation system.
Facility management systems typically create alarms when
monitored equipment is operating outside a normal range.
Such alarm data have been used directly for FDD purposes.
For example, Taylor and Corne (2002) used comparisons of
alarm data from a central monitoring system and 240 service
records related to refrigerant leaks to predict the possibility
of refrigerant losses in the system. A service call is a phys-
ical visit by a technician in response to a service request
from a customer. The request may have been via an actual
phone call, via a routine maintenance visit, or from an
automated alarm system. A collection of such information
is beneficial from the design point of view (ASHRAE 2015)
as well as FDD studies (Behfar Yu, and Yuill 2017).
However, this information is spread among different entities
or individuals, rather than being concentrated in one place
or reference (International Energy Agency 1996; Klemick
et al. 2015).
The current article focuses on the collection of informa-
tion about typical equipment and operating faults in super-
markets from the three sources presented in Figure 1.
These different sources provide different types of informa-
tion—from quantitative to qualitative, from opinion-based
assessments to large samples, and from detailed to gen-
eral—that together can form a more complete picture than
any single information collection method. The goal is to
provide a broad insight and a comprehensive view of the
most important types of equipment and types of faults in a
comparable setting, to facilitate the development of new
FDD methods in supermarket applications. This study
1106
identifies the most beneficial targets for FDD, with regard
to components and system types, frequent faults, and repair
costs. In the following sections of this article, the informa-
tion collected from each of these sources is presented
graphically and explained. Finally, typical supermarket
system types and operating faults are summarized and the
use of this information in the development of new FDD
methods is outlined.
Methodologies
To identify the most beneficial applications for FDD in
supermarkets, information about typical system types and
faults needs to be considered. Three information collection
approaches are used in this study: expert surveys, advisory
messages, and service calls. Expert surveys provide informa-
tion about both operating faults and system types that are
commonly deployed, by including questions from both cate-
gories. Store advisory messages and service calls and records
provide information about operating faults only. To develop
the most comprehensive characterizations of current systems
and faults, the current article presents results from all three
information collection approaches. This section describes the
data types and the associated nomenclature.
Expert survey
An online questionnaire with grid-type and multiple-choice
questions was designed and distributed to professionals in
the supermarket industry, including engineers from major
manufacturers, supermarket technicians, refrigeration system
educators, and facility managers. The questionnaire contains
questions about heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
(HVAC) and refrigeration system types, common operating
faults, and which are the costliest repairs in systems. It is an
opinion-based survey. In the questionnaire, respondents are
asked to estimate the portion of all stores that use a particu-
lar system type or the percentage of equipment failures that
are due to a particular fault, for example, rather than report-
ing answers for a single store. More than 200 emails and
professional network messages with the survey link were
sent to qualified contacts in about a 12-month period that
resulted in 36 participants (one participant answered the sur-
vey twice). Persons with sufficient and appropriate expertise
were identified and persuaded to fill out our questionnaire
by providing a monetary incentive. Some professionals were
reluctant to participate in the survey because they wanted to
avoid providing propriety information of their companies or
helping their industry competitors in any way. Not all of the
respondents answered all of the questions in the survey, so
the number of responses for a given question varies between
26 and 35. Respondents were located in 18 different states
in the United States that represent a wide range of climatic
zones. A complete questionnaire of this survey can be found
in Behfar, Yu, and Yuill (2017).
Science and Technology for the Built Environment
Store advisory messages
With the growing number of installed sensors in supermar-
kets, the diagnostic system of a modern store’s facility man-
agement system detects many incidents and produces
advisory messages at different priority levels (Emerson
2013). An advisory message is produced when a controlled
variable exceeds one of its high or low limits or a connec-
tion is lost altogether. Advisory messages consist of notices,
alarms, and failures. Alarms are high-priority warnings that
require prompt attention. Notices are low-priority messages
that may not need immediate repair. A failure advisory mes-
sage refers to a failure in the system, such as an open sen-
sor, a lost connection, or a broken fan motor.
Service calls and records
Consulting companies that service supermarket systems
receive many service calls from stores. These service calls
could be generated automatically from store advisory mes-
sages or could be a request via a phone call, text message,
or online scheduler. A service call may become a work order
for technicians prior to service and is a service record after
the service visit is completed. The collection of service calls
over time, and for a large number of stores, results in large
databases of service requests. Analyses of such databases
can reveal valuable information about common faults in
stores. Some of the frequently occurring problems in stores,
such as case water leakage, are not detected by the stores’
diagnostic systems and therefore no advisory message can
be produced. These kinds of faults are reported by the store
staff or are noticed by visiting technicians.
Results
In this section, results of the collected information from the
three industry sources are presented and explained. Figures 2
to 4 use stacked bar charts to show the results of the survey
about supermarket system characteristics, common operating
faults, and most costly repairs. Each segment of a bar for a
question shows the percentage of the responses to an answer
category. Answer categories in Figures 2 and 3 consist of per-
centage breakdowns of “More than 75%”; “50 to 75%”; “25
to 50%”; “Less than 25%”; and “None.” Average values, A,
of these breakdowns for each question are shown on the right
sides of Figures 2 and 3 and are calculated by using the
weighted mean for each category, with the following equation:
A ¼ 87:5
SMorethan 75% þ 62:5
S50 to 75% þ 37:5
S25 to50%
(1)
þ 12:5
SLess than 25% ;
where S is the percentage of responses in a segment of a bar.
There are different ways to interpret the results that may
lead to different conclusions. One way is to consider the
greatest consensus among participants on a lower limit in a
category. For example, among 30 respondents, if 12 answer
“More than 75%” and 7 answer “50 to 75%,” we can con-
clude that the question applies to more than 50% of stores.
A second way is to select the answer category with the
Volume 24, Number 10, October 2018 1107

Fig. 2. Supermarket typical systems and characteristics: percentage of respondents answering each prevalence category, with weighted
average values on the right.

Fig. 3. Supermarket commonly occurring faults that lead to equipment failure, with weighted average values on the right.
1108
largest number of responses. In the above example, that
would mean that the question applies to more than 75% of
stores. A third interpretation method, providing a discrete
value, uses the weighted average values that were calculated
from Equation 1. Other interpretations may also be possible.
For the results presented in Figure 2, the respondents
were asked: “What portion of stores use the following sys-
tem types?” Definitions were provided, so that there would
be consistent interpretation among respondents. Most of the
questions address the refrigeration systems, with the last
eight questions referring to the HVAC systems that provide
comfort conditioning to the occupied spaces.
For the data on equipment provided in Figure 2, the fol-
lowing observations and conclusions can be drawn:
The most common refrigeration system type is centralized
direct expansion. Distributed and self-contained systems are
the second and third most common system types,
respectively. Indirect or secondary systems are the least
common system types.
Air-cooled condensers controlled by cycling fan motors on/
off are the most common type of condenser unit and control
strategy, respectively. Following that, air-cooled condensers
controlled by coil flooding are the second most common
condenser unit and control strategy type. Many respondents
agreed that the use of air-cooled or evaporative condensers
controlled by air throttling or bypassing is rare.
The results of the question about the head pressure control
strategy look very similar for the fixed and floating head
pressure controls, with fixed head pressure controls being
slightly more common. (In general, control strategy
questions are more difficult for some respondents to answer
than system-type questions, because control logic is not a
physical entity to observe.) Fixed head pressure control
maintains a constant high-side pressure set-point throughout
the year, whereas floating control adjusts the set-point based
on the ambient temperature.
The most common refrigerant metering and control devices
are mechanical valves. Most of the respondents indicated
that more than 75% of valves used in stores are mechanical
valves. Consistent with this result, most respondents
indicated that electronically controlled electric valves
account for less than 25% of all valves.
The following results are the portions of stores that use
the specified energy-saving strategies and equipment types,
based on the greatest consensus among responses and the
average values presented in Figure 2.
For energy-saving strategies, more than 50% of stores use
liquid suction heat exchangers or subcoolers, electronically
commutated fan motors for the evaporators, and heat reclaim
coils for service hot water, and less than 50% of stores use heat
reclaim coils for space heating. Most stores do not use
demand defrost.
Science and Technology for the Built Environment
The largest group of respondents indicated that 50%–75% of
stores use rooftop units (RTUs) for space conditioning. The
second largest group of respondents indicated that more than
75% of stores use RTUs.
The largest group of respondents indicated that less than
25% of stores use air handling units (AHUs) served by
chillers. Following that, the second largest group of
respondents indicated that 25%–50% of stores use AHUs
served by chillers.
Most respondents indicated that less than 25% of stores use
air-source or water-source heat pumps.
The largest group of respondents indicated that less than 25%
of stores use dehumidification units. The second largest group
indicated that 25%–50% of stores use dehumidification units.
Single-duct or dual-duct variable air volume systems exist in
less than 25% of stores, whereas more than 50% of stores
use single-duct constant air volume systems served by
AHUs or RTUs.
Less than 25% of stores use fan coil units with a dedicated
outdoor air system system.
The online questionnaire also included questions with
results that do not fit the format of Figure 2. These asked
which capacity control method for parallel compressors is
the most common and about types of defrosts used in
medium and low temperature cases. Based on the responses,
the most typical method for capacity control of parallel com-
pressors is on/off cycle control. A compressor unloader is
the second most common control method to meet varying
refrigeration loads. No respondent indicated that a continu-
ous slide valve is the most common method of cap-
acity control.
The most typical defrost type for medium-temperature
cabinets is off-cycle defrost. Electric defrost is the second
most common option. Hot gas defrost is the least common
option for medium-temperature cabinet defrost. By far the
most common defrost type for low-temperature cabinets is
electric defrost. Hot gas defrost is the second, and distant,
most common option. Off-cycle defrost was not mentioned
by any respondents for low-temperature cabinets.
Section 2 of the questionnaire asked about faults and their
impacts. Figure 3 shows the results of responses about which
faults are the most responsible for equipment failures. Based
on the weighted average values in Figure 3, refrigerant
charge problems are considered the most responsible fault
for equipment failure. Oil problems are the second most
common fault to cause equipment failure. Iced-up evaporator
or evaporator fouling and control system problems are the
third and fourth causes of equipment failure, respectively.
Case-related problems are spread among several differ-
ent categories.
Finally, respondents were asked to choose the four
most costly faults to repair. The response statistics are
shown in Figure 4. Refrigerant charge problems are
Volume 24, Number 10, October 2018
Fig. 4. Supermarket most costly repairs.
Fig. 5. Store alarm advisories.
considered the costliest fault to repair. Compressor prob-
lems are the second costliest fault to repair. Oil problems
and condenser fan or fan motor problems have the third
and fourth places after refrigerant charge and compres-
sor problems.
Store advisories
Figures 5 and 6 show the frequencies of two advisory types:
alarms and failures. They come from about 10,000 store advi-
sories generated in 18 stores in the United States in 2016 and
1109
2017 and show the comparative frequency of each category of
diagnosed advisory. These advisories were automatically gen-
erated in the stores’ control systems with the alarm and fail
classifications that are specific to a controller manufacturer
(Emerson 2013). Each of the stores is a supermarket (not a
convenience store or boutique), with dozens of display cases
or cold rooms. They typically utilize centralized direct expan-
sion or distributed systems or a combination of these two sys-
tems in a single store. One store has an indirect system with a
CO2 secondary loop. The information was collected on the
condition of anonymity for the stores.
1110
Fig. 6. Store failure advisories.
Figure 5 shows that the Case Temp Hi Limit Exceeded
alarm has by far the largest portion of the total store alarms
(54% of total advisories). The figure has a scale break to more
clearly show the remaining categories’ comparative relevance.
Low Liquid level is the second most frequent alarm. In Figure
6, the most frequent failure advisory is the Device Absent
from Network. That means that a controller or device has lost
its connection to the network. Failed Sensor or Bad Wiring is
the second most frequent advisory. Although many of the cate-
gories in Figures 5 and 6 are self-explanatory, the meaning of
some of them may not be immediately clear to the reader.
Therefore, we have reviewed manuals of the store controllers
and provided additional explanations for the less obvious cate-
gories in the following sections.
The Alarm Limit Exceeded category contains alarms
when an analog sensor or a suction group exceeds its high
limit threshold (Emerson 2013). The System in Pump Down
alarm refers to the pump-down strategy (Wirz 2009). In this
control strategy, when the refrigeration load is met, compres-
sor racks continue to pump the refrigerant from the low side
to the high side until the suction pressure falls below the
pump down set-point. In this way, the liquid level in the
receiver increases and compressors then shut down. Spill
and Evacuate Level Exceeded refers to the level of leak
detected by the on-site refrigerant leak detection system, and
they represent medium and large levels of leakage, respect-
ively (Emerson 2013). Occupied High Limit Exceeded refers
to an HVAC zone air temperature that exceeded its high
limit during the occupied mode of operation (Emerson
2013). VS Inverter Fail refers to a failure in a variable-speed
inverter (Emerson 2013). More information about each cat-
egory can be found in the controller user manual book
(Emerson 2013).
Service calls
Figure 7 shows categories and percentages of service calls
received by one or more large refrigeration system service
Science and Technology for the Built Environment
company in 2015. The total number of service calls is
177,240, indicating that the sample covers a wide range of
system types, equipment manufacturers, geographical loca-
tions, and retailer chains. The top 12 classifications are
shown, representing 65% of all calls. The percentages in
Figure 7 are calculated by dividing the number of calls in
each category by the total number of service calls. The
information was collected on the condition of anonymity for
the companies.
Figure 7 shows that Case Problems are the most frequent
cause of service calls, followed by Preventive Maintenance.
Case Problems could include or be caused by various types
of faults. The Misc./Other classification is composed of calls
such as system/diagnostics tests, nonproductive tickets
(safety, training, inventory, etc.), and unknown problems.
Further detail on the exact nature of the faults is not avail-
able in the dataset of Figure 7.
However, the service records of one large store with 10
distributed systems were analyzed to understand the occur-
ring faults and issues in more detail. Figure 8 shows the
results of more than 100 service records (each contains one
or more repairs) from 2013 and 2014 that are grouped into
13 categories. The horizontal axis in Figure 8 shows the per-
centage of service records that contain a particular repair.
Because some service records contain more than one service
repair, the summation of these percentages adds up to more
than 100%. Seven out of 13 fault categories are problems
that occurred in cases. Case-related problems collectively
have the highest repair frequency at this store, which is con-
sistent with the data from the store alarm advisories in
Figure 5 and service calls in Figure 7.
A considerable portion of the repairs is due to problems
in Stand-Alone Units. This includes refrigerated preparation
tables, ice flakers, ice merchandisers, cold rails, etc. The
Other Problems category refers to other repairs or re-
placements in components (not necessarily related to the
refrigeration system) such as a refrigerant line filter drier,
hot cases, hot wells, soup wells, blocked or dirty
Volume 24, Number 10, October 2018
Fig. 7. Classifications of service calls.
Fig. 8. Classifications of faults in store service records.
evaporators, and other system sensors. The Walk-In
Problems classification refers to faults in walk-in coolers
and freezers.
The Case Electronics or Temperature Setting Problems
category refers to a faulty sensor or thermostat, bad setting,
lost connections, or electrical shorts.
Conclusion
Information about typical supermarket equipment charac-
teristics and common operating faults was obtained from
three categories of industry-based data sources and the
results were presented and analyzed. The objective of the
article was to present the information and data collected
in this study. The intent of the study was to help provide
a broad foundation for expanded development of
FDD methods, by showing the types of equipment and the
1111
types of faults that are comparatively most important,
as opposed to studying the prevalence of a particular fault
in supermarkets.
Based on the expert survey results, centralized direct
expansion systems with an on/off compressor capacity con-
trol strategy and air-cooled condensers are the most common
system types, and refrigerant charge problems are the most
common source of equipment failure. In this survey, case-
related problems were divided into more specific categories.
Based on the information from the advisory messages and
service calls, case-related problems together are the most fre-
quently occurring faults in stores. System charge problems
and problems in the compressor racks are the other most
frequent faults in stores.
Because the expert survey was an opinion-based question-
naire with a limited number of responses, the results are not
as reliable as a large, controlled direct observation study.
However, wherever the expert survey results can be
1112
compared with the service records and store advisory data,
they agree quite well, suggesting that the results may gener-
ally be relied upon.
The service calls data do not provide a high degree of
specific detail for the fault categorizations. To better under-
stand the operating faults in each category, we analyzed the
service records from one large store in detail. This analysis
showed that Case Evaporator Fan or Fan Motor Problems
and Case Electronics or Temperature Setting Problems are
the first and second most frequent faults in display cases,
respectively. Case TXV Problems, Iced-Up Evaporator, and
Water Leakage are third to fifth most frequent faults in
display cases, respectively. Lighting Faults and Defrost
Problems are the least frequent fault types in display cases.
Nomenclature
A ¼ average
AHU ¼ air handling unit
CO2 ¼ carbon dioxide
FDD ¼ fault detection and diagnostics
Misc ¼ miscellaneous
RTU ¼ rooftop unit
S ¼ segment
TXV ¼ thermostatic expansion valve
VS ¼ variable speed
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the monitoring committee,
chaired by Dr. John House, for their diligent work. Special
thanks to Dick Wirz for his great help in the preparation of
our online survey of supermarket equipment characteristics
and his efforts to connect us to several supermarket contacts
in the United States.
The research work was supported by ASHRAE 1615 RP,
sponsored by TC 7.5 Smart Building Systems, and TC 10.7
Commercial Food and Beverage Refrigeration Equipment.
The authors are grateful to ASHRAE for funding this project.
References
Acha, S., Y. Du, and N. Shah. 2016. Enhancing energy efficiency in
supermarket refrigeration systems through a robust energy
performance indicator. International Journal of Refrigeration
64:40–50.
ASHRAE. 2015. Advanced Energy Design Guide for Grocery Stores—
Achieving 50% Energy Savings toward a Net Zero Energy
Building. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE.
Assawamartbunlue, K., and M.J. Brandemuehl. 2006. Refrigerant
leakage detection and diagnosis for a distributed refrigeration
system. HVAC&R Research 12(3):389–405.
Beghi, A., M. Rampazzo, and S. Zorzi. 2017. Reinforcement learning
control of transcritical carbon dioxide supermarket refrigeration
systems. International Federation of Automatic Control
50(1):13754–59.
Behfar, A., Y. Yu, and D. Yuill. 2017. Fault detection and diagnostic
(FDD) methods for supermarkets—Phase 1. Report 1615 RP.
Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE.
Science and Technology for the Built Environment
Behfar, A., D.P. Yuill, and Y. Yu. 2017. Automated fault detection and
diagnosis methods for supermarket equipment (RP-1615). Science
and Technology for the Built Environment 23(8):1253–66.
Beshr, M., V. Aute, V. Sharma, O. Abdelaziz, B. Fricke, and R.
Radermacher. 2015. A comparative study on the environmental
impact of supermarket refrigeration systems using low
GWP refrigerants. International Journal of Refrigeration 56:
154–64.
Breuker, M.S., and J.E. Braun. 1998. Common faults and their impacts
for rooftop air conditioners. HVAC&R Research 4(3):303–18.
Cardoso, B.J., F.B. Lamas, A.R. Gaspar, and J.B. Ribeiro. 2017.
Refrigerants used in the Portuguese food industry: Current status.
International Journal of Refrigeration 83:60–74.
Comstock, M.C., and J.E. Braun. 1999. Development of analysis tools
for the evaluation of fault detection and diagnostics for chillers.
Report 1043-RP. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE.
Datta, D., S.A. Tassou, and D. Marriott. 1997. Application of neural
networks for the prediction of the energy consumption in a
supermarket. Proceedings of the International Conference CLIMA
2000, Brussels, Belgium, August 29 to September 2, pp. 98–107.
Dibowski, H., O. Holub, and J. Rojicek. 2016. Knowledge-based fault
propagation in building automation systems. 2nd International
Conference on Systems Informatics, Modelling and Simulation
(SIMS2016), Riga, Latvia, June 1–3.
Dong, B., M. Gorbounov, S. Yuan, T. Wu, A. Srivastav, T. Bailey, and
Z. O’Neill. 2013. Integrated energy performance modeling for a
retail store building. Building Simulation 6(3):283–95.
Emerson. 2013. E2 Installation and Operation Manual for RX
Refrigeration, BX HVAC, and CX Convenience Store Controllers.
Document No. 026-1610. Kennesaw, GA: Emerson Climate
Technologies.
EnergyStar. 2008. Energy Star Building Manual—Facility Type:
Supermarkets and Grocery Stores. Washington, DC: EPA.
EPA. 2016. Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Update to the
Refrigerant Management Requirements under the Clean Air Act.
Washington, DC: EPA.
European Parliament. 2014. Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on
Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases and Repealing Regulation (EC)
No 842/2006 Text with EEA relevance. Official Journal of the
European Union 57(L 150):195–230, Luxembourg.
Francis, C., G. Maidment, and G. Davies. 2017. An investigation of
refrigerant leakage in commercial refrigeration. International
Journal of Refrigeration 74:10–19.
ICF Consulting. 2005. Revised draft analysis of U.S. commercial
supermarket refrigeration systems. https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/documents/EPASupermarketReport_PUBLIC_
30Nov05.pdf.
International Energy Agency. 1996. Building optimization and fault
diagnosis source book. IEA ANNEX 25 Report, International
Energy Agency, Paris, France.
Isermann, R. 2011. Fault-Diagnosis Applications: Model-Based
Condition Monitoring: Actuators, Drives, Machinery, Plants,
Sensors, and Fault-Tolerant Systems. London, UK: Springer.
Islam, M.A., K. Srinivasan, K. Thu, and B.B. Saha. 2017. Assessment
of total equivalent warming impact (TEWI) of supermarket
refrigeration systems. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy
42(43):26973–83.
James, S.J., and C. James. 2010. The food cold-chain and climate
change. Food Research International 43(7):1944–56.
Janecke, A., T.J. Terrill, and B.P. Rasmussen. 2017. A comparison of
static and dynamic fault detection techniques for transcritical
refrigeration. International Journal of Refrigeration 80:212–24.
Karampour, M., and S. Sawalha. 2018. State-of-the-art integrated CO2
refrigeration system for supermarkets: A comparative analysis.
International Journal of Refrigeration 86:239–257.
Volume 24, Number 10, October 2018
Klemick, H., E. Kopits, and A. Wolverton. 2015. The Energy
Efficiency Paradox: A Case Study of Supermarket Refrigeration
System Investment Decisions. National Center for Environmental
Economics, US Environmental Protection Agency, Working Paper
# 15-03, Washington, DC.
Koronaki, I.P., D. Cowan, G. Maidment, K. Beerman, M. Schreurs, K.
Kaar, I. Chaer, G. Gontarz, R.I. Christodoulaki, and X. Cazauran.
2012. Refrigerant emissions and leakage prevention across
Europe—Results from the RealSkillsEurope project. Energy
45(1):71–80.
Mavromatidis, G., S. Acha, and N. Shah. 2013. Diagnostic tools of
energy performance for supermarkets using artificial neural
network algorithms. Energy and Buildings 62:304–14.
Mota-Babiloni, A., J. Navarro-Esbri, A. Barragan-Cervera, F. Moles, B.
Peris, and G. Verdu. 2015. Commercial refrigeration—An
overview of current status. International Journal of Refrigeration
57:186–96.
O’Neill, Z., and S. Narayanan. 2014. Model-based estimation of cold
room temperatures in a supermarket refrigeration system. Applied
Thermal Engineering 73(1):819–30.
O’Neill, Z., M. Shashanka, P. Haves, and T. Bailey. 2014. Model-
based real-time whole building energy performance monitoring
and diagnostics. Journal of Building Performance Simulation
7(2):83–99.
Pardinas, A.A., A. Hafner, and K. Banasiak. 2018. Novel integrated CO2
vapour compression racks for supermarkets. Thermodynamic
analysis of possible system configurations and influence of
operational conditions. Applied Thermal Engineering 131:1008–25.
Sawalha, S., S. Piscopiello, M. Karampour, L. Manickam, and J.
Rogstam. 2017. Field measurements of supermarket refrigeration
1113
systems. Part II: Analysis of HFC refrigeration systems and
comparison to CO2 trans-critical. Applied Thermal Engineering
111:170–82.
Srinivasan, S., A. Vasan, V. Sarangan, and A. Sivasubramaniam. 2015.
Bugs in the freezer: Detecting faults in supermarket refrigeration
systems using energy signals. Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Sixth
International Conference on Future Energy Systems, Bangalore,
India, July 14–17, pp. 101–110.
Taylor, D., and D. Corne. 2002. Refrigerant leak prediction in supermarkets
using evolved neural networks. Proceedings of the 4th Asia Pacific
Conference on Simulated Evolution and Learning (SEAL) November
18-22, 2002, Orchid Country Club, Singapore, pages 1–5.
US Department of Energy. 2012. 2011 Building Energy Data Book.
Washington, DC: United States Department of Energy.
Walker, D.H. 2001. Development and demonstration of an advanced
supermarket refrigeration/HVAC system [Report ORL-970163].
Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Wichman, A., and J. Braun. 2009. Fault detection and diagnostics for
commercial coolers and freezers. HVAC&R Research 15(1):77–99.
Wirz, D. 2009. Commercial Refrigeration: For Air Conditioning
Technicians. Clifton Park, NY: Cengage Learning.
Yang, Z., K.B. Rasmussen, A.T. Kieu, and R. Izadi-Zamanabadi.
2011a. Fault detection and isolation for a supermarket
refrigeration system—Part one: Kalman-filter-based methods.
IFAC Proceedings 44(1):13233–8.
Yang, Z., K. Rasmussen, A. Kieu, and R. Izadi-Zamanabadi. 2011b.
Fault detection and isolation for a supermarket refrigeration
system—Part two: Unknown-input-observer method and its
extension. IFAC Proceedings 44(1):4238–43.