Better Buildings, U.S.

Department of Energy Advanced RTU Campaign

RTU Evaluation Checklist

Rate individual components and indicate if service is needed Rating Service

Condenser Coil.
Good = No significant denting or corrosion. Expectation of restoration to near-new condition with power washing.
Fair = Prominent denting or corrosion. Onset of severe corrosion (fins are brittle to touch) is acceptable for less than 25% of
surface area. Expectation of some permanent residue that cannot be removed with power washing.
Poor = Severe damage, corrosion, and/or fowling.
Service = Unless rated poor, power washing is recommended to remove noticeable fowling (dirt, debris, etc.) Good No

Refrigerant Piping.
Good = No visible sign of leakage (oil residue). Maintenance log (if available) indicates no significant leakage.
Fair = Visual inspection reveals minor leakage; unit is still providing cooling. Schedule service call; upgrade to good if leak can be
repaired. Downgrade to poor if leak cannot be repaired and cooling capacity decreases.
Poor = Visual inspection reveals severe leakage (loss of cooling capacity). Schedule service call; upgrade to good if leak can be
repaired.
Service = Recommended if leaking is identified. Good No

Cabinet.
Good = No significant damage or corrosion. Tight seal; no extra holes. Minor dents and rusting are acceptable.
Fair = Prominent damage and/or corrosion. Minor loss of air flow control expected. Isolated severe damage that can be patched is
acceptable; schedule service for patching as necessary.
Poor = Severe damage and/or corrosion. Damaged and/or degraded to the point that structural integrity and/or air flow control
have become significantly compromised.
Service = Unless rated poor, recommended if patching or door repair is needed. Good No

Evaporator Coil.
Good = No significant denting or corrosion. Expectation of restoration to near-new condition with power washing.
Fair = Minor denting or corrosion. Onset of severe corrosion (fins are brittle to touch) is acceptable for less than 25% of surface
area. Expectation of some permanent residue that cannot be removed with power washing.
Poor = Severe damage, corrosion, and/or fowling.
Service = Unless rated poor, power washing is recommended to remove noticeable fowling (dirt, debris, etc.) Good No

Burner Section.
Good = Heat exchanger shows no visible signs of corrosion or cracking.
Fair = Heat exchanger has no visible cracking, but noticeable corrosion.
Poor = Heat exchanger has visible cracks. Severe corrosion and/or fowling create high likelihood of cracking. Good NA
Compressor.
Good = No obvious signs of internal wear or dysfunction. Appears to be functioning correctly.
Poor = Operating abnormaly (quick cycling; abnormal noise or vibration) or nonfunctional. Good NA

Air Dampers (OA, economizer, and return air).

Good = Dampers are in good physical condition and appear to be in working order (actuators connected and seals intact and tight).
Minor damage or wear is acceptable.
Fair = One or more dampers appears to be stuck due to a disconnected actuator, or is not sealing (seals may be degraded or
misaligned, or damper may be dented). Schedule service to connect actuator or repair manageable denting. Upgrade to good if
repair is successful; downgrade to poor if unsuccessful.
Poor = One or more dampers is dented or corroded to the point that it cannot be repaired.
Service = Recommended if actuator disconnected or damper is dented but repairable. Good No

Fan Motors (supply and condenser).

Good = No obvious signs of internal wear or dysfunction. Appear to be functioning correctly. All mounting screws accounted for
and in good condition (not stripped). Mounting brackets show no signs of damage.
Poor = Not operating as intended; non-functional or in a state of noticeable degradation (e.g., oil leakage due to bearing seal
failure). Mounting brackets may be cracked and mounting screws may be missing or stripped. Schedule service for brackets if
replaceable; upgrade to fair after repair if motor(s) otherwise functional.
Service = Recommended for damaged mounting brackets that are replaceable, if motor(s) otherwise functional. Good No
Overall rating (determined by individual component ratings) and service requirement Good No

Document advanced functionality not inherent to unit make and model (Y/N)
Energy Recovery. No
Evaporative Cooling. No
Variable Speed Fan Operation. No

October 2013 Prepared by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)

Better Buildings, U.S. Department of Energy Advanced RTU Campaign

Economizing. No

October 2013 Prepared by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)

 RTU Field Checklist and Evaluation Methodology
DOE Advanced RTU Campaign
National Renewable Energy Laboratory

This checklist is designed to guide the RTU field evaluation process. In an ideal scenario, the
evaluation could become a standard part of the maintenance program (e.g., the unit is evaluated every
two maintenance cycles). For general purposes, however, we will assume that RTU evaluation is
independent of the normal maintenance workflows. Accordingly, any standard maintenance procedures
(replacing filters, cleaning coils, adjusting or replacing fan belts, etc.) are not covered by the evaluation
checklist. This checklist is intended to help identify damage, dysfunction, or degradation that requires
more than routine maintenance. The checklist is organized at the component level in order of priority
(the condition and performance of components listed first have more impact on overall unit
performance, and accordingly, are more relevant to a retrofit or replacement analysis). Only
components whose condition is deemed to impact the rating of the overall unit are included. For
example, fan blades can become damaged (broken fins, imbalance, etc.) and require replacement.
However, this is a relatively low cost repair that would not be likely to influence the decision between
repair and replacement. Accordingly, we do not include fan blades among the components considered
as part of the evaluation process. Components included in the checklist, along with selection rationale,
scoring guidance, and inspection considerations, are as follows:
1. Condenser Coil.
a. Impact. The condition of the condenser coil is the best indicator of the overall condition
and performance of the unit. Replacing a condenser coil is expensive and generally not
practical, and condenser coil performance significantly impacts overall unit performance. If
a condenser coil is in poor condition, the entire unit will likely need to be replaced.

b. Scoring.
Good: No significant damage (dents, cracks, etc.) or corrosion (rust, brittleness,
or flakiness). Minor wear and initial onset of corrosion (very light rust) are
acceptable. Dirt, debris, and clogs must be minor enough to be completely
removed with power washing.

Fair: Prominent damage (minor dents that can be removed via combing) or
corrosion (surface rust). Damage or corrosion cannot have reached the point that
obvious performance degradation would be expected. Onset of severe corrosion
(brittleness or flakiness) is acceptable for a small area fraction (less than 25%).
Some permanent residue (which cannot be removed with power washing) from
dirt, debris, and clogs is expected, but must not severely impact performance.
Poor: Severe damage (major dents [that cannot be removed via combing] or
cracks that compromise structural integrity), corrosion (severe corrosion,
brittleness and flakiness, for an area fraction larger than 25%), and/or fowling
(dirt, debris, and clogs that cannot be cleared to the point that remaining residue
will not significantly impact performance).
 c. Service. If the condenser coil is rated as fair or better, a service call is recommended to:
(1) power wash the coil if noticeable fowling is present; and/or (2) comb removable dents.
Note that power washing leverages hot water to remove fowling, whereas pressure washing
relies on the force of the water stream; pressure washing is not recommended, as it could
lead to fin removal.
d. Evaluation Difficulty. Low; the condenser coil is easy to inspect. It is readily accessible
and can be evaluated visually, without the need for disassembly.
2. Refrigerant Piping.

a. Impact. If refrigeration piping is leaking, significant refrigerant replacement costs can

result. Detecting and repairing minor leaks falls under the category of standard maintenance.
However, systematic leaks, or those that are difficult to locate or access, are often difficult
or impractical to repair. If the piping has these types of leaks, it is likely that unit
replacement will be the most economical approach.

b. Scoring.
Good: No visible signs of leakage (leakage can often be ascertained by the
presence of oily residue). Maintenance log, if available, indicates that there is no
significant refrigerant leak.
Fair: Visual inspection indicates that minor refrigerant leakage is occurring, but
the RTU continues to provide adequate cooling. A service call should be
scheduled to determine if the leak can be repaired. If the leak can be repaired, the
refrigerant piping rating should be upgraded to good post-repair; if the leak
cannot be repaired (cannot be identified, difficult to access, too costly, etc.),
downgrade the refrigerant piping rating to poor if/when the RTU can no longer
provide adequate cooling.
Poor: Visual inspection and/or maintenance log indicate(s) that severe refrigerant
leakage is occurring or has occurred and the unit is not able to meet cooling
requirements. A service call should be scheduled to determine if the leak can be
repaired. If the leak can be repaired, the refrigerant piping rating should be
upgraded to good post-repair; if the leak cannot be repaired (cannot be identified,
difficult to access, too costly, etc.), the refrigerant piping rating should remain at
poor.
c. Service. If visual inspection identifies refrigerant leakage, a service call is recommended
to determine whether the leak can reasonably be repaired.
d. Evaluation Difficulty. Low to Moderate. Checking the maintenance log is simple and
informative (assuming detailed maintenance records are kept). If leakage is identified (either
via the maintenance log or visual inspection), a unit service call (to do a charge check and/or
leak test) will be required to determine whether the leak is repairable.
3. Cabinet.

a. Impact. While general cabinet damage and corrosion is not particularly worrisome, severe
cabinet damage can result in system leaks (leading to uncontrolled OA intake or dumping of
conditioned air to unconditioned space), which can have significant energy performance
impact. If a cabinet is severely degraded, regardless of the condition of the individual
system components, the unit may need to be replaced.
b. Scoring.
 Good: No significant damage (dents, cracks, etc.) or corrosion (rust or rot).
Cabinet is tightly sealed (no screws are missing; no additional holes have been
drilled to secure cabinet door, etc.). Minor dents and corrosion (light rust) are
acceptable.

Fair: Prominent damage (minor to moderate dents) or corrosion (surface rust).

Damage or corrosion cannot have reached the point that obvious performance
degradation would be expected. Severe dents and other structural damage (onset
of cracking, rot, or small holes, including those that may be drilled to secure the
cabinet door) are acceptable as long as they do not significantly compromise air
flow control (both for outdoor air intake, and conditioned air delivery).

Poor: Severe damage (major dents, cracks, or holes) or corrosion (rot resulting in
holes). A cabinet should only be rated as poor if it has become damaged and/or
degraded to the point that structural integrity and/or air control have become
significantly compromised. If damage is isolated, and the cabinet is otherwise in
acceptable condition, it may be possible to patch the crack or hole, such that the
cabinet could be rated as fair, rather than poor.
c. Service. If the cabinet is rated as fair or better and visual inspection identifies the need for
repair to the cabinet door or patching of holes in the cabinet, a service call is recommended.
d. Evaluation Difficulty. Low; surface corrosion, holes, and other structural damage can be
identified through simple visual inspection.

4. Evaporator Coil.

a. Impact. Evaporator coil damage and/or degradation can significantly impact unit
performance. However, evaporator coil condition is not likely to be the limiting factor in
most cases. In general, if the condenser coil is in at least passable condition, the evaporator
coil should be as well. Evaporator coils can be replaced; in the rare case where evaporator
coil is the limiting performance factor, it is not likely that full unit replacement will be
necessary. However, if the unit is otherwise not in good condition (somewhere between fair
and poor), the additional expense of evaporator coil replacement could make unit
replacement the most cost effective option.

b. Scoring.
Good: No significant damage (dents, cracks, etc.) or corrosion (rust, brittleness,
or flakiness). Minor wear and initial onset of corrosion (very light rust) are
acceptable. Dirt, debris, and clogs must be minor enough to be completely
removed with power washing.
 Fair: Prominent damage (minor dents that can be removed via combing) or
corrosion (surface rust). Damage or corrosion cannot have reached the point that
obvious performance degradation would be expected. Onset of severe corrosion
(brittleness or flakiness) is acceptable for a small area fraction (less than 25%).
Some permanent residue (which cannot be removed with power washing) from
dirt, debris, and clogs is expected, but must not severely impact performance.
Poor: Severe damage (major dents [that cannot be removed via combing] or
cracks that compromise structural integrity), corrosion (severe corrosion,
brittleness and flakiness, for an area fraction larger than 25%), and/or fowling
(dirt, debris, and clogs that cannot be cleared to the point that remaining residue
will not significantly impact performance).

c. Service. If the evaporator coil is rated as fair or better, a service call is recommended to:
(1) power wash the coil if noticeable fowling is present; and/or (2) comb removable dents.
Note that power washing leverages hot water to remove fowling, whereas pressure washing
relies on the force of the water stream; pressure washing is not recommended, as it could
lead to fin removal.
d. Evaluation Difficulty. Moderate. Inspecting the evaporator coil requires that unit to be
opened up (disassembly of the unit exterior).

5. Burner Section.

a. Impact. Burner section heat exchanger damage (cracking) can significantly impact unit
heating performance. Additionally, cracks can result in CO emissions, which can pose a
serious health risk in enclosed areas. Heat exchangers can be replaced; while expensive, it is
not likely that the need for heat exchanger replacement would necessitate full unit
replacement. However, if the unit is otherwise not in good condition (somewhere between
fair and poor), the additional expense of heat exchanger replacement could make unit
replacement the most cost effective option.
b. Scoring.
Good: No visible signs of corrosion (rust) or damage (cracks). Dirt, debris, and
clogs must be minor enough to be completely removed with power washing.
Fair: No visible signs of damage, but noticeable corrosion (rust). Some
permanent residue (which cannot be removes with routine maintenance) from
dirt, debris, and clogs is expected, but must not severely impact performance.
Poor: Visible cracks. Severe corrosion or fowling is an indicator that cracks may
have formed or are likely to form in the near future.
c. Evaluation Difficulty. Moderate. Burner section heat exchangers are often somewhat
difficult to access. A trained eye is needed to identify cracks.
6. Compressor.

a. Impact. If a compressor is not functional, the unit cannot provide cooling. Accordingly,
compressor failure is a severe issue. Compressors can be replaced; while expensive, it is not
likely that the need for compressor replacement would necessitate full unit replacement.
However, if the unit is otherwise not in good condition (somewhere between fair and poor),
the additional expense of compressor replacement could make unit replacement the most
cost effective option.
b. Scoring.
Good: No obvious signs of internal wear or dysfunction. Compressor appears to
be functioning correctly.
Poor: The compressor is operating abnormally (quick cycling, abnormal noise or
vibration, etc.) or nonfunctional and in need of replacement.
c. Evaluation Difficulty. Moderate to high. Problems with compressor performance, short
of actual failure, may not be easy to identify.
7. Air Dampers (OA, economizer, and return air).

a. Impact. The condition of the unit’s air dampers affect the extent to which it can be
controlled properly. OA flow rates and economizing availability can have significant impact
on energy consumption. In many cases, damper repair can fall under the category of
standard maintenance. However, if the unit is otherwise not in good condition (somewhere
between fair and poor), the additional expense of damper repair (on the order of 5-10% of
unit cost) could make unit replacement the most cost effective option.
b. Scoring.
Good: All dampers are in good physical condition and appear to be in working
order. Minor damage or wear (dents, rust, etc.) is acceptable as long as it does
not appear to have caused the damper to become stuck in a fixed position.

Fair: One or more dampers appears to be stuck due to a disconnected actuator, or

not sealing (seals may be degraded or misaligned, or the damper may be dented).
Denting is acceptable as long as the damper can be restored to a shape that allows
full range of motion and proper sealing. A service call should be scheduled to
properly connect disconnected actuators or to repair manageable denting. If the
service call results in successful repair of the degraded dampers, upgrade damper
rating to good; otherwise, downgrade damper rating to poor.
Poor: One or more dampers are damaged to the point that complete damper
system replacement is the only course of action. Severe damage (e.g., denting) to
the damper is the most likely need for damper system replacement.
c. Service. If actuators are disconnected or one or more dampers is not sealing (but also not
dented beyond repair), a service call should be scheduled to make the necessary repairs.
 d. Evaluation Difficulty. Low to Moderate. OA and economizer dampers can be inspected
without the need for disassembly. The return air damper will require disassembly for
evaluation.
8. Fan Motors (supply and condenser).

a. Impact. Fan motor performance can have a significant effect on unit performance
(especially on fan energy, which can make up a significant fraction of overall unit energy
use). Most fan repairs are relatively straightforward, including motor replacement.
However, if the unit is otherwise not in good condition (somewhere between fair and poor),
the additional expense of fan motor replacement (3-5% of unit cost) could make unit
replacement the most cost effective option.
b. Scoring.
Good: No obvious signs of internal wear or dysfunction. Fan motors appear to be
operating as intended. All mounting screws are accounted for and in good
condition (not stripped). Mounting brackets show no sign of damage.
Poor: Not operating as intended; either non-functional or operating in a state of
noticeable degradation (e.g., oil leakage due to bearing seal failure). Mounting
brackets may be cracked and mounting screws may be missing. If visual
inspection indicates that mounting brackets are the sole cause for dysfunction,
and the brackets are replaceable (not welded to the motor), schedule a service call
to replace broken brackets. If the repair is successful, upgrade fan motor rating to
good; if not, leave at poor.
c. Service. If it appears that one or more fan motors are dysfunctional due to damaged
mounting brackets (but are otherwise in acceptable condition), and the damaged brackets are
replaceable, schedule a service call to replace the damaged brackets.
d. Evaluation Difficulty. Moderate. Inspecting the fan motor requires the unit to be opened
up (disassembly of the unit exterior).

9. Advanced Functionality. While not factored directly into the rating of the RTU, documenting
advanced functionality will inform future analysis (to establish baseline performance for comparison
with replacement/retrofit alternatives). Accordingly, there is a section of the RTU evaluation checklist
dedicated to documenting whatever advanced functionality the unit may have. The evaluator should
indicate whether the unit has energy recovery, evaporative cooling, variable speed fan operation, or
economizing.
Given the specified scoring guidance at the component level, a score should be assigned to the overall
unit according to the following procedure:

1. Score Individual Components. Evaluate individual components according to the instructions of the
RTU checklist. Rate each component as poor, fair, or good. In general, a rating of good indicates that
nothing of note is wrong with the component. It does not have any visible damage, dysfunction, or
degradation and there is no other information (such as maintenance logs) to indicate otherwise. A
rating of poor indicates that the component has been damaged and/or degraded to the point that
immediate replacement is warranted (e.g., brittleness/flakiness for large portions of a condenser coil).
A rating of fair, for lack of a more articulate definition, is anything that falls between poor and good.
Evaluation should factor in whatever information is available (measured data should be considered if
available, but is not required).
2. Determine Unit Score. Apply the following logic to assign an overall score to the unit:
Score the unit as good if ALL of the following criteria are met:
a. Each of the condenser coil, refrigerant piping, cabinet, evaporator coil, compressor, and
burner section heat exchanger are rated as good
b. The air dampers are in good condition and working order, or require nothing more than
straightforward maintenance (e.g., restoring range of motion to a fixed damper) to put them
back in working order
c. All advanced functionality and controls are either in working order or require only routine
maintenance
Score the unit as poor if ONE OR MORE of the following criteria are met:
a. One or more of the condenser coil, refrigerant piping, or cabinet is rated as poor. If this
condition is met, the unit should not be serviced.
b. (1) One or more of the condenser coil and cabinet is rated as fair; and (2) one or more of
the evaporator coil, burner section heat exchanger, or compressor is rated as poor. If this
condition is met, the unit should not be serviced.
c. The condenser coil and cabinet are rated as good, but: (1) the refrigerant piping; (2) one or
more of the evaporator coil, burner section heat exchanger, or compressor; and (3) one or
more of the air damper(s), or fan motor(s) are rated as poor
Score the unit as fair if: (1) the unit does not meet the requirements to be rated as good; and (2) also
does not match any of the scenarios in which it should be rated as poor.

3. Determine Need for Service Call. Individual components may be in need of a service call for
repair. However, it may not be appropriate to repair components if the RTU as a whole is not worth
repairing. Scenarios in which one or more components are marked for service, but should not be
serviced due to the overall condition of the unit are identified in the scoring criteria. If none of those
conditions are met, individual components should be serviced as necessary. Post-service, component
scores should be updated and a new overall unit score should be determined.

4. Determine Appropriate Action. According to the overall unit score (post-service calls, if any),
determine what course of action is recommended. For retrofit candidates rated as poor, the retrofit
analysis should not be performed; rather, the unit should be reassigned as a replacement candidate. For
replacement candidates rated as poor, replacement is a given; the replacement analysis should be
applied to determine the appropriate replacement. All other retrofit or replacement candidates (those
rated as either fair or good) should be subjected to the corresponding detailed analysis. Those analysis
procedures will be designed to account for overall unit score, as well as the controls and advanced
functionality component score, which together can be used to estimate existing unit performance for
comparison purposes.