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.

Conclusion & Next Steps

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.