Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Economic Uncertainties in
Chilled Water System Design
Ron Kammerud, who died February 3, was a consultant with Paradigm Consulting, Oakland, Calif. Ken Gillespie is a technologist with
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Ramon, Calif. Mark Hydeman is HVAC program coordinator at Pacific Energy Center, San Francisco,
Calif.
THIS PREPRINT IS FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY, FOR INCLUSION IN ASHRAE TRANSACTIONS 1999, V. 105, Pt. 2. Not to be reprinted in whole or in
part without written permission of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., 1791 Tullie Circle, NE, Atlanta, GA 30329.
Opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASHRAE. Written
questions and comments regarding this paper should be received at ASHRAE no later than July 7, 1999.
PTC 19.1-1985 (ASME 1985). Considerably more compre- fB, L, i = efficiency of the base case system in conversion of
hensive treatments of these methods are also available (see, kW to Btu,
for example, Dieck [1997] and Coleman and Steele [1989]).
fE, L, i = efficiency of the high-efficiency system in conversion
Uncertainty analysis techniques have been regularly
applied in some areas. In energy-related fields, they have been of kW to Btu,
used by utility planners where there is substantial uncertainty Pi = electricity price at hour i,
in future energy requirements that can have appreciable CF = total incremental first cost for the technology,
impact on capacity requirements (see, for example, Violette
CAnn = total incremental annual operating cost (excluding
and Olsson [1994]). At a somewhat more detailed level, the
techniques have been used in demand-side management energy costs) for the technology,
program design to inform resource allocation decisions (see, r = discount rate.
for example, Pigg et al. 1995). Sensitivity analyses have been DN, r is the discount factor:
used to examine the uncertainty in estimates of energy conser-
vation potential (Norris 1996). N
1
Uncertainty analysis methods have been used to estimate D N, r = ------------------ (2)
n
n=1 ( 1 r)
the uncertainty in building simulation estimates (Stern et al.
1994). In this study, simulation inputs were varied in order to where n is the year and N is the period of analysis.
estimate influential coefficients (Spitler et al. 1989) that This formulation of the benefit-cost ratio adopts a simple
describe the sensitivity of the energy requirement estimates accounting perspective. The benefits considered are limited to
from the simulation to the uncertain input parameters. The energy cost savings directly attributable to selection, config-
uncertainties were then propagated to the savings estimates. In uration, and operation of chilled water equipment that maxi-
a case study application of the method, Stern estimated an mizes system efficiency. Similarly, costs considered are
uncertainty of about 30% for the savings estimated by simu- limited to the additional (1) first cost for design, installation,
lation for a ceiling insulation retrofit in residential buildings. and commissioning of the chilled water system and (2) non-
This is not a general conclusion; however, it highlights the fact energy operating costs for the efficient chilled water system
that these uncertainties can be substantial, and they will (e.g., additional maintenance requirements). It is emphasized
directly affect the attractiveness of energy technology. that the costs and benefits are incremental quantities refer-
enced to the energy costs, first cost, and operating cost require-
APPROACH
ments for an alternative to the base case technology.
The approach consists of developing an expression for the The subscripts L and i on the conversion efficiency allow
benefit-cost ratio as a function of the independent engineering for dependence on instantaneous load and climatic conditions;
and economic variables. The sensitivity of the metric to indi- by not including the subscript n, we are assuming that there is
vidual input parameters is determined from this expression. no change in performance of equipment over time (i.e., degra-
Uncertainties are estimated for each parameter and propa- dation). The formulation does not explicitly account for
gated to the benefit-cost ratio using those sensitivities. This demand charges, although they could be approximated by
provides in an estimate the range over which the decision adjusting the electricity price parameter. For simplicity, we
metrics could vary. have assumed that load and price are cyclic on an annual basis,
so the subscript n has been suppressed for these parameters
Benefit-Cost Ratio this assumes that there is no evolution of the cooling load as
In a situation where one is attempting to select between a the technological environment changes over time (i.e., no load
baseline chilled water system and a more efficient option, one reduction due to future installation of energy efficiency
metric that can be used by the decision maker is the benefit- measures and no alteration in the energy use intensity of func-
cost ratio based on discounted cash flows. This can be written tional and process equipment).
as follows: We assume that the incremental non-energy operating
costs for the technology are the same each year. For simplicity,
8760
incremental costs that recur with a period greater than one year
[ L i ( f B , L , i f E , L , i ) P i ] D N, r are neglected (e.g., major maintenance procedures). In prac-
BC = i------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=1 - (1) tice, these costs may be somewhat higher for a more sophis-
CF
- + C Ann DN, r
--------------- ticated design. However, we expect that most of the difference
(1 + r) observed in practice would be due, not to differences in main-
where tenance recommendations by manufacturers, but to differ-
ences in the way those requirements are interpreted and
B/C = benefit-cost ratio,
adhered to by the maintenance staff. There are probably
i = hour of year (1 2 i 2 8760), exceptions, and one could approximate their effect by prorat-
Li = thermal load on chilled water system at hour i, ing those costs over the recurring cost period.
6(
By including in the denominator of the benefit-cost ratio tools affect risk. We are not estimating the extent to which the
all incremental first costs and operating costs, one is assuming use of these tools will alter the benefit-cost ratio by leading to
that the decision maker requires a return on all of these invest- a better design; that is clearly a highly application-specific
ments at least as large as the discount rate used in the calcu- issue that is beyond the scope of the present study.
lation. There are alternative formulations where the In calculating the benefit-cost ratio, uncertainty will be
discounted annual operating costs are included instead as associated with all of the parameters that enter the calculation.
subtractive terms in the numerator, leaving first costs as the Whether one uses standard practice tools, methods, and calcu-
only term in the denominator. This formulation is used in a lations, or more advanced tools, there will be some degree of
situation where the decision maker requires a return only on uncertainty in each of the input parameters, denoted by Li,
the initial capital expenditure. In still other cases, where some fB, L, i, fE,L,i, Pi, CF , CAnn , N, and r. These compo-
of the firsts costs are financed, discounted financing costs t are nent uncertainties are propagated to the benefit-cost ratio
also subtracted from the benefits in the numerator and only the using standard Taylor Series expansion techniques. As is
nonfinanced portion of the first costs are included in the common practice, we retain only the first-order terms in the
denominator as funds on which a return is expected. Indepen- expansion:
dent of which of these formulations is used, a benefit-cost ratio
m
less than one indicates that the technology is economically (B C)
B C = (B C) + k ------------------- (3)
unattractive. The larger the benefit-cost ratio, the more attrac- A k
k=1 A
tive the technology.
This formulation of the benefit-cost ratio is consistent where k are the m independent variables in the benefit-cost
with the convention that costs are accounted for at the end of calculation, and where the benefit-cost and partial derivative
each year. The formulation assumes that all of the initial costs terms on the right are evaluated at the point A = (1, A, 2, A,
occur at the end of the first year. This is consistent with the ..., n, A) and k = k k, A. Note that although the notation
reasonable assumption that the benefit-cost ratio is calculated is not explicit in this regard, the expansion describes the bene-
during the decision-making process, prior to incurring most of fit-cost ratio in the immediate vicinity of the ratio at the partic-
the first costs. The formulation also assumes that there is a full ular set of inputs, A, that is, for small values of k.
year of benefits during the first year. The scale of the installa- Rearranging the expansion,
tion, specific details of the project, and financing terms would
m
determine the appropriateness of these assumptions. Taken (B C)
( B C ) = ki ------------------- (4)
together, they imply that the benefit-cost ratio calculated from k
k=1 A
the above expression would be somewhat optimistic.
Inflation and escalation have not been included explicitly This expression describes the deviation of the benefit-cost
in this formulation. However, since we are dealing with ratio from its value at point A due to small deviations, k, in
present values of future costs and savings, inflation effects an individual independent variable from its nominal values at
would cancel and so are accounted for implicitly. This is not A. For a particular set of deviations from A, the individual
true for escalation unless all of the economic parameters enter- k can take positive or negative values. In a specific situation,
ing the cost and benefit calculation serendipitously escalate at we do not have complete informationwe do not know the
the same rate. This implies that the discount rate used in the direction of the deviations. The standard procedure is to square
calculations should be the real rate rather than the nominal both sides of the expression to obtain, after simplification,
rate. There also is no explicit accounting for taxes and depre-
ciation, so it is important to use a before-tax discount rate.
2 (B C) 2
The above expression for the benefit-cost ratio holds, [ ( B C ) ] = i -------------------
i
i (5)
independent of what tools the designer uses. In the final anal-
( B C) (B C)
ysis, there is one and only one correct value for the benefit-cost + 2 ------------------- ------------------- R j, k j k
ratioand if we had kept all of the data (and were still inter- j kj j k
6(
To estimate the total uncertainty in the benefit-cost ratio base case and efficient equipment options, CB, F and CE, F,
due to all sources when component uncertainties are assumed respectively,
random, the component uncertainties will be added in quadra-
2 2
ture: C F = ( C B, F ) + ( CE, F ) (10)
m Assuming the same cost estimating procedures are used
(B C ) 2
( B C ) = k ------------------- (7) for the baseline and efficient equipment options, one expects
k
k=1
C B, F C E, F
In many cases, the uncertainty in the individual parame- --------------- --------------- (11)
C B, F C E, F
ters is expected to be systematic rather than random. Where
both systematic and random uncertainties are present, there Thus,
are accepted procedures for combining the individual uncer-
C F, B 2
C F CE, F 1 + ------------
tainties into a single uncertainty.
C E, B
(12)
The uncertainties in some input parameters will be situa-
tion-specific. For example, the load uncertainty in a retrofit
situation may be smaller than in new construction because one For typical situations, the first cost penalty for energy-
can monitor the load in an existing building. Monitoring would efficient equipment options is not more than perhaps 25%:
decrease uncertainties (and therefore risk) at some increase in C B, F
the first cost for the retrofit. The attractiveness of this trade-off 0.75 ------------ 1 (13)
C E, F
is undoubtedly situation-specific. As another example, the
equipment performance uncertainty in a situation where a so CF will be in the range from 1.25 CE, F 2 CF 2 1.41
chiller is being replaced should be smaller than when the CE, F. For convenience, we take
chilled water system as a whole is being replaced. In this anal-
ysis, we consider only a new construction scenario. We note C F 1.35 C E, F (14)
that uncertainties in discount rate, analysis period, and elec-
We define dimensionless parameters n and m:
tricity price in general will be independent of the situation.
C E, F = n C E, F (15)
BENEFIT-COST UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS
C Ann = m CE, F (16)
In what follows, we will go into some detail in considering
the uncertainty in first cost and will provide summaries of the We assume that the same dimensionless parameter m
uncertainty calculations for the other independent variables. describes the relationship between annual operating cost for
the base case system and the first cost for that system. Then:
First Cost Uncertainty
The first cost includes all costs incurred to achieve a ( B C ) 1.35 n C E, F
-------------------- = ---------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
- (17)
working system. This would include design, purchase, instal- (C C) 1 + m ( 1 + D N 1 , r ) C B, F C E, F
lation, and commissioning costs. In a retrofit situation, where
This expression has been evaluated for a realistic range of
monitoring is performed to characterize loads, monitoring and
values for the dimensionless parameters1, 2 in the equation:
analysis costs would also be included in the first cost category.
The incremental first cost is the total increase in these costs in 2% n 10%
going from the base case chilled water system to the efficient
3% m 9%
option.
The sensitivity of the benefit-cost ratio to small uncer- 4 DN, r 12
tainties in first cost is
0.65 (CF B / CF E ) 0.95 (18)
(B C) 1
------------------- = ( B C ) ----------------------------------------------------------------- (8)
C F CF + ( 1 + r ) C Ann D N, r 1.
For discount rates and analysis periods typical of these types of
analysis (e.g., 5% r 20%, 5 N 20 years), the discount factor
After simplification, the fractional uncertainty in benefit- is 3 DN, r 12. DN, r takes on large values when the period of
cost ratio due to an uncertainty in first cost can be estimated as analysis is long and the discount rate is small, and DN, r is small for
short periods of analysis and high discount rates.
( B C ) C F 2.
-------------------- = ---------------------------------------------------------------- (9) The choice of the range for the parameter n is based on estimates
(B C) C F + C Ann ( 1 + D N 1, r ) of contingency funds typically included in construction budgets.
R. S. Means (1998) indicates contingency allowances of 15% at
The incremental first cost uncertainty, CF, can be conceptual design, 10% at schematics, 7% at the preliminary
expressed in terms of the uncertainties in the first cost for the working drawing stage, and 2% at final working drawings.
6(
the equipment. Note again that the analysis considers only the
incremental operating cost for the efficient technology option
relative to the baseline option.
As with first cost, uncertainty in incremental annual non-
energy operating costs is expressed in terms of the uncertainty
in the absolute operating costs for the base case and efficient
systems. As before, we assume that for a particular cost-esti-
mating procedure, the fractional uncertainty in the annual non-
energy operating costs for the base case and efficient systems
will be essentially the same. Furthermore, we expect,3
and so,
( B C ) 1.4 n m D N 1, r C E, F
- -----------------------------
-------------------- = ----------------------------------------------------- - (21)
(B C) 1 + m ( 1 + D N 1 , r ) C B, F C E, F
6(
The benefit-cost uncertainty depends explicitly on the
nature of the price uncertainty. In a case where p = (i.e., the
price uncertainty is an offset from the expected price), the
benefit-cost uncertainty is
( B C ) = ( B C ) P i = $ kWh
(25)
( B C ) = ( B C ) (26)
( B C -) p
------------------- = ------ (27)
(B C) p
6(
D N, r Analysis Period Uncertainty
G N, m, r = ---------------------------------------------------- ----------- + ----------- --------------- (29)
1 1 1
1 + m ( 1 + D N 1 , r ) 1 + r D N, r r The fractional uncertainty in the benefit-cost ratio is
Figure 3 Numerical evaluation for parameter GN, m ,r Figure 4 Numerical evaluations for the parameter
as a function of N for values for m and r that HN, m, r as a function of N for values for m
span the likely range for these variables. and r that span the likely range for these
variables.
6(
estimated uncertainty in the benefit-cost ratio due to uncer- indicated above (i.e., 100% larger!). Conversely, if the perfor-
tainty in the period of analysis. mance advantage of the efficient equipment option over the
base case is larger (i.e., 30% instead of 20%), then the frac-
Equipment Performance Uncertainty tional uncertainty in the benefit-cost ratio will be smaller than
The uncertainty considered in this section is the differ- indicated above (i.e., only 30% smaller).
ence in equipment performance between design assumptions The dominant component in a chilled water system from
and actual operation. This will include deviations in chiller, the kW/ton performance perspective is the chiller, which
cooling tower, and condenser water pump performance char- accounts for perhaps 70% of the total energy use of the system.
acteristics and system level effects. The uncertainties will We estimate the uncertainty in chiller performance as 5%,
include both deviations from manufacturers published which assumes use of very effective design tools. For refer-
performance characteristics for new equipment and degrada- ence, ARI ratings for chillers require variations of 5% or less
tion of performance over the time period of the analysis. in measured performance at the rating conditions for other-
Design assumptions typically will be biased toward perfor- wise identical machines. These values clearly would be opti-
mance characteristics that are better than what is typically mistic when you consider performance differences between
realized in practice; the bias is apt to be increased by expected operation under test conditions and field applications and
performance degradation over time. Arriving at a defensible account for the integrated performance across all of the load,
quantification of the extent of these uncertainties requires condenser, and supply water temperature conditions that will
considerable guesswork. be experienced in application. Because they are a relatively
In this analysis, we consider uncertainty in equipment small fraction of the total energy use of the chilled water
performance for both the base case and efficient technology system, we assume that the condenser water loop and cooling
options. As with first cost and annual non-energy operating tower will add only slightly to the uncertainty in the overall
cost, we are dealing with the incremental performance effects. system performance. We estimate the uncertainty in new
We define: construction to be 6%; admittedly, this is a very optimistic
estimate of a designers ability to predict chilled water system
F L, i = fB, L, i fE, L, i (33) performance.
Given this assumption, we estimate the uncertainty in the
We assume FL, i is a continuous function.5 Proceeding as benefit-cost ratio due to uncertainty in system performance to
with first cost and annual non-energy operating cost, the be a minimum of 35%. This estimate treats the uncertainty
uncertainty in the incremental performance, FL, i is expressed as if it is random (i.e., normally distributed). If, instead, we
in terms of the uncertainty in the absolute performance of the assume that the error is systematic and has a rectangular prob-
base case and efficient equipment options. This yields ability distribution, then for the same assumptions, the benefit-
F L, i cost uncertainty will increase to about 50%.
f
------------- 1.4 -------------------------------- (34)
F L, i f B, L, i f E, L, i
Cooling Load Uncertainty
where f is the uncertainty in the absolute performance of The sensitivity of the benefit-cost ratio to cooling load
either the base case or efficient equipment option. If we can be written as
assume that the efficient technology option provides a 20%
performance improvement over the base case, then 8760
[ ( f B, L, i f E, L, i ) P i ] D N, r
F L , i
------------- 7
-----f (35) (B C) i = 1
------------------- = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F L, i f L CF
----------- + C Ann D N, r
1+r (37)
The fractional uncertainty in the benefit-cost ratio 8760
becomes ( f B, L, i f E, L, i )
L i ----------------------------------------
L
Pi D N, r
( B C -) f + i----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=1 -
------------------- = 7 ----- (36) CF
(B C) f - + CAnn D N, r
----------
1+r
In a situation where the performance advantage of the
efficient equipment option over the base case is smaller than In a simple case where the performance curves for the
that assumed above (i.e., 10% instead of 20%), then the frac- base case and efficient options (kW/ton vs. tons for the portion
tional uncertainty in the benefit-cost ratio will be larger than of the chilled water system being designed) are essentially
parallel, then (FB, L, i fE, L, i) is constant, and the second term
5.
In some cases, FL, i will be only piecewise continuous. For exam- is 0. This assumption will be valid in a limited number of situ-
ple, this will be true in a case where the base case and efficient ations. In particular, it may hold in some cases where a BMS
equipment configurations include a different number of chillers is being installed or where an existing control system is being
and/or equipment staging is different. enhanced. In the more general case, the curves will not be
6(
parallel. For example, if one were to compare a design where to the difference. Modest uncertainties in either of the values
there are multiple, staged chillers to one with a single larger will result in appreciable uncertainty in the difference.
chiller, then, for a typical load, the two systems will be in very
different regions of the typical kW/ton curve. We have found CONCLUSIONS
no general, simple expression for the uncertainty in the bene-
fit-cost ratio under these conditions. It is not clear that it is Improved load and equipment performance data will
possible to do so without selecting specific system perfor- allow designers to identify better chilled water system config-
mance curves. For this reason, we will not include the uncer- urations and to identify better equipment, controls, and oper-
tainty in the benefit-cost ratio due to load uncertainty in the ating strategies; the tools will allow design of more energy-
summary below, and we will, therefore, be underestimating efficient systems. However, there is appreciable uncertainty in
the actual uncertainty. Instead, we will use the uncertainties in economic metrics commonly suggested and used. The uncer-
the benefit-cost ratio due to the other parameters to define tainty appears to be in the area of 50% even when using some-
limits on the desired accuracy of the load data used in chilled what conservative estimates of component uncertainties. That
water plant design. is, even when the nominal benefit-cost ratio for the improved
system is appreciably greater than 1, the decision maker is still
SUMMARY at substantial risk that the additional investment will not meet
the criteria.
In this study, uncertainty in the benefit-cost ratio and in
simple payback have been estimated. The uncertainty is due to In the analysis, we assumed an equipment performance
uncertainty in the parameters that enter the calculation. Table uncertainty of 5%; in spite of the fact that this is believed to
1 summarizes the results for the six independent variables in be a far lower uncertainty than we can achieve with existing
the benefit-cost ratio for which estimates of uncertainty were tools, this still translates to a large source of uncertainty in the
possible. Calculations similar to those described in the previ- decision metrics. Using engineering tools and data available
ous section were also performed using the simple payback today, the equipment performance uncertainty is probably
metric; these results are also included in the table. greater than 20%, implying benefit-cost uncertainties on the
As discussed earlier, uncertainties in the benefit-cost ratio order of 100%. We do need vastly improved equipment perfor-
and simple payback due to uncertainty in the cooling load mance data and tools. One question that does remain is how far
profile could not be estimated without making specific the tools and data issues can usefully be pushed before equip-
assumptions about the performance of the chilled water ment dynamics must be considered. It is probable that this is
system as a function of load. Adding the uncertainties for all not yet an issue.
other independent variables in quadrature results in total From an engineering perspective, it is always tempting to
uncertainty of 54% and 59% for the benefit-cost ratio and tighten the engineering screws so that we have more accurate
simple payback, respectively. Because we have not included load data so that we have a better estimate of the energy cost
uncertainties associated with the cooling load, these total savings. However, energy cost saving by itself is not an
uncertainty estimates are conservative. accepted decision-making metric, so the benefit of this
The key sources of risk in selection of an efficient chilled approach is questionable. There is a reasonably well defined
water system are equipment performance, first cost, and non- limit beyond which it is simply not useful to try to reduce the
energy operating cost. This is not surprising since these uncertainty in the load data that are used in developing a
parameters enter the calculation as incremental quantitiesas particular design. It appears that the inherent uncertainty limit
differences between two values that are typically large relative for the benefit-cost ratio due to uncertainty in load data is
TABLE 1
Uncertainty Summary for New Construction
Input Parameter
Identity Uncertainty Benefit-Cost Ratio Uncertainty Simple Payback Uncertainty
Incremental first cost 5% 25% 35%
Incremental annual non-energy operating cost 5% 15% 10%
Discount rate r/2 15% NA
Analysis period N/3 years 10% NA
Electricity price 10% 10% 10%
Chilled water system equipment performance 6% 40% 60%
Cooling load TBD TBD TBD
6(
about 30%. What does this mean? In a particular design, building systems. Designation E 964-93. American
there is little or no benefit to the decision maker in using load Society for Testing and Materials.
profile data or load distribution data that are more accurate ASTM. 1993c. Standard guide for selecting techniques for
than is required to generate a benefits estimate within 30%. treating uncertainty and risk in the economic evaluation
Uncertainty in cost parameters can perhaps be reduced, of buildings and building systems. Designation E 1185-
but there is not much reason to be optimistic that this will actu- 93. American Society for Testing and Materials.
ally happen in the foreseeable future. While it is quite likely Cavanaugh, R. 1997. Oral presentation at the Cool $ense
that greater accuracy could be achieved through more compre- National Forum on Integrated Chiller Retrofits. Septem-
hensive construction analysis and planning, it is not clear how ber, San Francisco.
far one can beneficially go in this direction. That is, there is a Coleman, H.W., and W.G. Steele. 1989. Experimentation and
point where the incremental cost of decreasing risk exceeds uncertainty analysis for engineers. New York: John
the incremental benefit of reduced exposure. The fact that Wiley & Sons.
owners are willing to live with whatever is presently the typi- Dieck, R.H. 1997. Measurement uncertainty, Methods and
cal level of contingency costs in construction projects suggests applications. International Society for Measurement and
that this point may already have been reached. Control.
The uncertainties in the economic metrics are the result of
Marshall, H.E. 1988. Techniques for treating uncertainty and
uncertainties in several of the input parameters, and at least
risk in the economic evaluation of building investments.
some of these parameters are not controllable. That is, for
NIST Special Publication 757. Gaithersburg, Md.:
uncontrollable parameters, such as discount rate and analysis
National Institute of Standards and Technology.
period, we cannot beat down the uncertainty by improving any
Norris, G.A. 1996. Sensitivity analysis for estimating energy
of our measurements or analytical techniquesthese uncer-
conservation potential. Energy Services Journal 2 (2):
tainties must be lived with. Uncertainties in other parameters
65 - 85.
(e.g., equipment performance characteristics) can be
controlled to some extent. Peters, J.S., R.E. Way, and M. Seratt. 1996. Energy invest-
ment decision making in industrial firms. Energy Ser-
REFERENCES vices Journal 2 (1): 5 - 17.
ASHRAE. 1990. ASHRAE Guideline 2-1986 (RA 90), Engi- Pigg, S., G. Dalhoff, and K. Maini. 1995. Applying uncer-
neering analysis of experimental data. Atlanta: Ameri- tainty analysis for strategic evaluation planning. Pro-
can Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air- ceedings of the Energy Program Evaluation Conference,
Conditioning Engineers, Inc. pp. 111-118.
ASME. 1985. Instruments and apparatus: Measurement R.S. Means, Inc. 1998. Mechanical cost data. 21st ed. King-
uncertainty. American Society of Mechanical Engi- ston, Ma.: R.S. Means, Inc.
neers. Spitler, J., D. Fischer, and D. Zietlow. 1989. A primer on the
ASTM. 1997. Standard terminology of building economics. use of influence coefficients in building simulation. Pro-
Designation E 833-97. American Society for Testing ceedings of the International Building Performance
and Materials. Simulation Association Conference.
ASTM. 1993a. Standard guide for selecting economic meth- Stern, F.D., R.E. Ciliano, and W. Kallock. 1994. Calculating
ods for evaluating investments in buildings and building the uncertainty of building simulation estimates.
systems. Designation E 1369-93. American Society for ACEEE 7.233-238
Testing and Materials. Violette, D.M., and L.K. Olsson. 1994. Addressing uncer-
ASTM. 1993b. Standard practice for measuring benefit-to- tainty and the value of flexibility in the second genera-
cost and savings-to-investment ratios for buildings and tion IRP. ACEEE 6.231-240.
6(