How Butlr Sensors Are Lab-Tested for Accuracy & Reliability

Our lab testing process & protocols

Butlr’s lab protocols are designed to mirror typical building conditions while isolating variables for repeatability. Tests are documented and performed under controlled, repeatable setups.

Test environment and equipment

• Climate-controlled chambers to simulate temperature ranges from cold-storage conditions to hot, sun-exposed rooms.
• Mechanical rigs and mannequins with controlled heat signatures for repeatable occupancy simulations.
• RF testers and protocol analyzers to monitor wireless performance and packet loss.
• Precision thermometers and reference thermal sources for sensor calibration checks.

Typical test scenarios

• Single-person detection at incremental distances and offsets to establish detection range and field-of-view characteristics.
• Multi-person scenarios with varying spacing and motion patterns to evaluate counting accuracy under crowding and occlusion.
• Static presence versus motion-only detection to validate presence sensing when people are sitting or standing.
• Environmental stress tests including temperature cycling, humidity exposure, and airflow disturbances to verify robustness.
• Interference tests with common building signals (Wi‑Fi, Bluetooth, HVAC noise) to confirm communication resilience.

Metrics collected and how they’re measured

• Detection rate: percentage of true presences detected over repeated trials.
• False alarm rate: instances where the sensor reports presence without a real occupant.
• Counting error: comparison of counted occupants versus ground truth across trials.
• Repeatability: variance of measurements across identical test runs.
• Uptime and packet loss: percentage of valid data packets delivered during extended operation tests.

Calibration and drift checks

• Initial calibration against reference thermal sources to establish baseline sensitivity.
• Periodic recalibration trials to measure drift over time and after environmental stress.
• Algorithms are evaluated for self-calibration behaviors and compensations for ambient temperature changes.

Third‑party evaluations & certifications

Independently validated results increase buyer confidence. Butlr engages accredited test labs and certification bodies to validate key claims:

• Independent accuracy assessments for occupancy and counting metrics.
• Environmental compliance testing to recognized industry standards for temperature and humidity tolerance.
• Wireless certification for regional radio standards and coexistence testing.
• Privacy audits that confirm data is processed as anonymous thermal signatures and not as video or personally identifiable information.

These third-party assessments are summarized in technical validation reports that can be provided to procurement and compliance teams.

Comparison: heat‑based sensors vs. PIR and camera‑based systems

Understanding how heat-based sensing differs helps stakeholders choose the right technology.

Heat-based (thermal) sensors

• Detects infrared heat patterns; produces anonymous heat maps and presence/count analytics.
• Strong in privacy because no optical images are captured.
• Performs well in low light and through partial occlusion where a thermal signature is present.

PIR (passive infrared) sensors

• Detects motion via changes in infrared energy, typically optimized for motion-triggered systems like lighting.
• Good for basic occupancy detection but limited for counting and distinguishing multiple static occupants.

Camera-based systems

• Provide high-resolution images useful for detailed analytics and identity-aware applications.
• Raise privacy and compliance concerns; typically require more strict governance and consent.

Lab testing highlights practical trade-offs: thermal sensors balance accuracy and privacy, offering more granular occupancy analytics than PIR while avoiding the privacy and data governance burdens of cameras.

Case study: lab validation to real-world deployment

A mid-size office deployment required reliable desk-utilization and meeting-room occupancy metrics without cameras. The validation flow looked like this:

• Lab phase: Butlr sensors were tested across a matrix of room sizes, occupant densities, and furniture layouts to establish expected accuracy ranges.
• Pilot deployment: The sensors were installed in 10 rooms representing diverse conditions (glass partitions, open-plan areas, and meeting pods).
• Field validation: Data from the pilot was compared against manual counts and booking logs to quantify performance.
• Optimization: Sensor placement guidelines and algorithm tuning derived from lab findings were applied to improve counting in rooms with heavy occlusion.

Outcome: The deployment achieved counting accuracy within the lab-predicted range and provided the facilities team with reliable utilization reports while preserving occupant anonymity.

What lab results mean for procurement and operations

• Procurement teams should request lab validation summaries that include detection metrics, environmental test conditions, and third-party reports.
• Facilities and IT teams should use lab results to plan sensor density and placement, taking into account room geometry and expected occupant behavior.
• Operations should adopt recommended recalibration intervals and maintenance checks from lab-derived schedules to preserve accuracy.

FAQs

• How are Butlr sensors tested in the lab?

  Sensors are tested in controlled chambers using repeatable thermal sources and simulated occupant scenarios to measure detection, counting accuracy, and environmental resilience.

• What environmental conditions are simulated?

  Tests include wide temperature ranges, humidity cycles, airflow disturbances, and RF interference to ensure sensors perform across realistic building conditions.

• Are results validated by third-party labs?

  Yes. Key claims like accuracy metrics, environmental tolerance, and wireless compliance are validated by accredited third-party labs and summarized in technical reports.

• How often should sensors be recalibrated?

  Recalibration frequency depends on deployment conditions. Typical guidance from lab-derived protocols recommends periodic checks annually, with more frequent review in extreme environments or after major HVAC changes.

Practical guidance for deployments

Start with a virtual or small pilot: use lab findings to model expected sensor density before full rollout. Follow placement recommendations: ceiling and wall heights, avoidance of direct thermal sources, and centroid placement improve accuracy. Monitor drift: include periodic validation checks against known occupancy events to detect calibration drift early. Leverage integration: connect occupancy outputs into BMS, analytics, and scheduling systems to realize operational value.

Next steps and CTAs

• Request a technical validation report to review lab metrics for your deployment scenario.
• Schedule a guided simulation or pilot to translate lab results into placement and density recommendations.
• Contact engineering for custom test summaries or to discuss compliance and procurement documentation.

Lab-tested sensors give teams confidence that occupancy data is accurate, reliable, and privacy-preserving. When lab rigor meets thoughtful deployment planning, thermal sensing becomes a dependable foundation for smarter, more efficient buildings.