Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9


Tools and Techniques to Calibrate Electric Chiller Component Models

Mark Hydeman, P.E.

Kenneth L. Gillespie, Jr.

Associate Member ASHRAE

ABSTRACT Chilled water plants are complex and dynamic systems that are difficult to accurately model. Core to an accurate analysis of a chilled water plant is the component models used for the chilled water plant equipment. This paper documents techniques to create calibrated simulation models of electric chillers from manufacturers and short-term monitored data. The authors present two techniques: (1) standard linear regression for well-formed data sets and (2) a reference-curve method that can be used with small or limited data sets through the application of a library of well-formed regression models. These techniques, incorporated into a publicly available automated tool, have been applied to hundreds of chillers. This paper describes the authors experience with these techniques and provides insight into the lessons learned in their application. OBJECTIVE Chilled water plants are difficult to accurately model due to the complex interaction of the plant components and controls. Nevertheless, mechanical designers, energy service contractors, and plant operators are faced with the challenge of determining the appropriate mix of equipment, design criteria (such as design temperatures or flows), control setpoints, and control algorithms to optimize their performance. For a specific plant, issues such as the optimal condenser water control setpoint, the cost-effectiveness of variable speed driven chillers, and the life-cycle cost-effective condenser water flow rate are highly dependant on the performance of individual pieces of equipment, the configuration of the piping, and the control system design. These design and oper-

ational issues can only be answered accurately through simulation. The accuracy of the simulations depends in part on the calibration of the component models. Although the literature is full of case studies, there are few general references that document procedures or techniques (Haberl and Bou-Saada 1998). This paper describes techniques to develop accurate calibrated electric chiller models from short-term monitored and/or manufacturers data. This research was part of a larger effort to provide design tools for the optimization of chilled water plant performance (PEC 1998; Hydeman et. al. 1997). Project research on the propagation of uncertainty in economic analysis provided a target model accuracy of 6%.1 According to the research, the uncertainty in cost benefit analysis of chilled water plants is most strongly affected by the component model accuracy and the accuracy in predicting the economic rate of return (Kammerud et al. 1999).2 As discussed in this paper, the authors successfully developed calibration techniques that meet or exceed this target uncertainty from readily accessible data. METHOD Prior to developing a reliable calibration technique, the authors had to select a fundamental electric chiller model. Desired model attributes included availability for use in public tools, accuracy, availability of the data used to calibrate the
1. 2.

See Equations 13 and 16 for definitions of component model accuracy. In this study, a 6% component model error propagated to a 40% error in the cost-benefit analysis. These numbers were based on the evaluation of a new plant. The benefit to cost analysis uncertainty is expected to reduce for a simple chiller replacement.

Mark Hydeman is a principal at Taylor Engineering, LLC, Alameda, Calif. Kenneth L. Gillespie, Jr. is a technologist at Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Ramon, Calif.

THIS PREPRINT IS FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY, FOR INCLUSION IN ASHRAE TRANSACTIONS 2002, V. 108, Pt. 1. 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 January 25, 2002.

model, and ease of implementing the model in a central plant simulation engine. A literature search uncovered four candidate models. The model utilized in the simulation program DOE2 (DOE 1980) The model presented in the ASHRAE primary systems toolkit (Lebrun et al. 1996) The Gordon and Ng model utilized in ASHRAE Research Project 827 (Brandemuehl et al. 1996) A generic regression model developed at a national laboratory as part of a commissioning project (Sezgan et al. 1996)

As shown in Table 1, 45 data sets of manufacturers electric chiller data were tested on three of the subject models. The 45 data sets represented water-cooled centrifugal and screw compressors from all of the major manufacturers. It also included centrifugal chillers with and without variable speed drives. With these data sets and models the predicted power root mean squared (rms) error was smallest in the DOE2 format, as shown in Table 1. The authors selected the DOE2 electric chiller model as it was well documented, publicly available, and provided the desired accuracy across a wide range of chiller configurations. The model from ASHRAEs primary systems toolkit was deemed unsuitable because it required data about chillers that were not directly available to our target market of design professionals, ESCOs, or facility managers.3 Having selected a model, the team developed calibration techniques. To do this, they had to account for lack of readily available performance data for electric chillers. Although manufacturers once published extensive performance data on their electric chillers, with the advent of the ARI Standards 550 and 590 (ARI 1992a, 1992b), they largely withdrew that data from publication. At present, performance data for most electric chillers are available only through the manufacturers TABLE 1 RMS Power Prediction Error* of Alternative Chiller Models
DOE2 Minimum Maximum Median Average

sales representatives with their proprietary software.4 Although it takes a broad range of data to accurately create a chiller model through linear regression, a typical report from a manufacturer's representative will provide only 4 to 10 points of data. Through experience we learned that more performance data could be readily obtained from the manufacturers during the bid process if a data request form was written into the bid specifications (Taylor et al. 1999). Further problems were encountered when evaluating the performance of existing chillers in the field. The DOE2 model requires that the performance data be definitively separated into full-load and part-load conditions. Although in theory one could monitor the signals to chiller controls (e.g., actuators for inlet vanes or slide valves), these signals are not readily available in the field. A technique had to be developed to calibrate models from mixed data sets. In the end, the authors developed and tested two techniques: one for rich data sets where the data could be separated into full- and part-load conditions and another suitable for either small data sets or any amount of mixed full- and partload data. The first technique employs a standard least-squares linear regression method to develop the model coefficients directly from the data. The second technique employs a library of fully developed regression curves to extrapolate the chillers performance beyond the range of the calibration data set. Both of these techniques have been tested over a range of air-cooled and water-cooled electric chillers, including screws, scrolls, and reciprocating and centrifugal compressors. They have also been tested over a range of manufactures and refrigerants and for centrifugal machines with variable speed drives. Each of these techniques is described below. DOE2 Electric Chiller Model Prior to describing the calibration techniques, some background is presented here on the basic format of the DOE2 electric chiller simulation model. The DOE2 model consists of the following three curves. CAPFTa curve that represents the available capacity as a function of evaporator and condenser temperatures EIRFTa curve that represents the full-load efficiency as a function of evaporator and condenser temperatures EIRFPLRa curve that represents the efficiency as a function of the percentage unloading

Gordon and Ng 1.6% 37.0% 4.1% 5.1%

Sezgen et. al. 1.1% 17.3% 6.0% 6.9%

0.7% 4.2% 1.6% 1.8%

See Equation 13 for the definition of RMS power prediction error. Note: Developed from 45 sets of manufacturers data representing a full range of electric chillers (Hydeman et al. 1997).

In the case of the CAPFT and EIRFT, the model employs heat exchange fluid temperatures as a proxy for the refrigerant operating pressure in the evaporator and condenser. The chilled water supply temperature is used for the evaporator conditions of all electric chillers. The condenser water supply temperature is used for the condenser conditions of all water4.

Details such as the surface area of the heat exchangers, compressor characteristics, and engineering data for the expansion device.

This is the case for water-cooled centrifugal and screw chillers; data on packaged air-cooled chillers and water-cooled reciprocating and scroll chillers are still available in either electronic or print form.

cooled electric chillers. The outdoor dry-bulb temperature is used for the condenser conditions of all air-cooled electric chillers. The format of the curves is as follows: CAPFT = a1 + b1 tchws + c1 t2 chws + d1 tcws/oat + e1
2 tcws/oat

the mechanics of developing the 13 regression coefficients. A summary of all the required data characteristics follows. The data can be separated into full-load and part-load conditions.5 The full-load data represent the range of condenser water supply temperatures and chilled water supply temperatures to be simulated by the model. There must be at minimum five distinct full-load data points representing at a minimum two distinct conditions of both chilled-water and condenser-water supply temperatures. The part-load data represent the full range of unloading to be simulated by the model. There must be a minimum of three distinct part-load data points.

+ f1 tchws tcws/oat

(1) (2) (3) (4)

EIRFT = a2 + b2 tchws + c2 t2 chws + d2 tcws/oat + e2

2 tcws/oat

+ f2 tchws tcws/oat

EIRFPLR = a3 + b3 PLR + c3 PLR2

Q PLR --------------------------------------------------------------------------Q ref CAPFT ( t chws, t cws oat )

where tchws = the chilled water supply temperature (F), tcws/oat = the condenser water supply temperature (F) for water-cooled equipment or the outdoor air dry-bulb temperature (F) for air-cooled equipment, Q = the capacity (ton), Qref = the capacity (ton) at the reference evaporator and condenser temperatures where the curves come to unity, PLR = a function representing the part-load operating ratio of the chiller. ai, bi, ci, di, ei, and fi are the regression coefficients. Using Equations 1 to 4, the power under any conditions of load and temperatures can be found from the following equation. P = Pref CAPFT(tchws, tcws/oat) EIRFT(tchws, tcws/oat) (5) EIRFPLR(Q, tchws, tcws/oat) where P = the power (kW) and Pref = the power (kW) at the reference evaporator and condenser temperatures where the curves come to unity. A given chiller performance model is defined by the regression coefficients (ai, bi, ci, di, ei, and fi), the reference capacity (Qref), and the reference power (Pref). TECHNIQUE 1: LEAST-SQUARES LINEAR REGRESSION MODEL The first technique employs standard least-squares linear regression techniques. This technique is applicable to relatively large data sets (20 to 30 records) where the data fully covers the range of conditions that will subsequently be simulated. Failure to fully represent the simulation conditions will lead to model extrapolation with highly unpredictable and inaccurate results. Further data requirements are imposed by

The steps to developing the regression curve coefficients in this technique are identical for air- and water-cooled machines and are as follows. 1. Select a reference full-load condition from the data set (Qref, Pref). This can be any full-load point but is often the design condition. Calculate the values for the CAPFT and EIRFT functions for each of the full-load data records. Use standard least-squares linear regression to calculate the curve coefficients for the CAPFT and EIRFT functions. Calculate the values for the PLR and EIRFPLR functions for the combined full- and part-load data. Use standard least-squares linear regression to calculate the curve coefficients for the EIRFPLR function. These steps are described in detail below. Selecting Reference Full-Load Conditions The reference full-load conditions can be arbitrarily selected from the full-load data as the choice will not have any impact on the accuracy of the model. Nonetheless, the results will be more intuitive for the user if the machines design conditions are used as the referencethe reference capacity (Qref) will equal the full-load capacity of the chiller at design conditions, and the design efficiency (kW/ton) will equal the ratio of the reference power to capacity (Pref / Qref). These results can be checked by hand, which helps reduce the risk of misapplication of the model resulting from user-introduced error. Calculating Intermediate Curve Values for CAPFT and EIRFT Development of the intermediate curve values is a preliminary step for calculating the actual CAPFT and EIRFT curve coefficients. The CAPFT function (Equation 1) represents the

2. 3. 4. 5.

As previously discussed, this is seldom the case with fieldmeasured data.


Figure 1 CAPFT curve.

Figure 2 EIRFT curve.

ratio of the full-load capacity at one set of temperatures to the reference capacity at the reference temperatures. This curve is typically domed with a peak at the evaporator and condenser conditions (saturated temperatures) for which the compressor is optimized. The curve will typically decrease at high lift.6 Figure 1 depicts a sample CAPFT curve as a function of evaporator and condenser temperatures. The CAPFT is calculated from the full-load performance data as follows:
Qi CAPFT i = --------Q ref

Figure 3 CAPFT input matrix.


Calculating Coefficients for CAPFT and EIRFT Curves With intermediate values calculated in the previous step, an input matrix of full-load data is created for use in a standard least-squares linear regression routine.7 Figure 3 shows the CAPFT input matrix and the required fields. The input matrix structure for EIRFT is identical to that shown in Figure 3 for calculation of the CAPFT coefficients. Developing Intermediate Curve Values for EIRFPLR Having solved the full-load equations, we are now ready for the EIRFPLR. Similar to the process applied to the CAPFT and EIRFT equations, the first step is to calculate intermediate curve values for each record. This step can be performed on either the part-load data alone or on the combination of the full- and part-load data. The authors have tried both and found the combined data to produce the best results. For each data entry, calculate the CAPFT and EIRFT as described in Equations 1 and 2. Note that you are now using the actual regression coefficients and the values will differ slightly from those

The EIRFT function is the ratio of the efficiency (kW/ton) of the fully loaded chiller at one set of temperatures over the efficiency of the fully loaded chiller at the reference conditions. This curve typically slopes from high kW/ton at high lift conditions to low kW/ton (high efficiency) at low lift. Figure 2 depicts a sample EIRFT curve as a function of evaporator and condenser temperatures. The EIRFT is calculated as follows:
Pi ----Qi Pi EIRFT i = --------- = ----------------------------------P ref P ref CAPFT i --------Q ref


Equations 6 and 7 are applied to each full-load data record. These equations scale the curves to unity at the reference conditions. This normalization of the curves is particularly useful in the reference curve method where curves are subsequently scaled for use in modeling other chillers.

Lift is a measure of the difference between the condenser and evaporator operating pressures (or saturated temperatures).

A mathematical description of least-squares linear regression can be found in most general texts on statistics. Many spreadsheets and databases provide automated functions that will perform this type of regression.

produced in Equations 6 and 7. The part-load ratio (PLR) function is the ratio of the present capacity over the available fullload capacity at the same temperature conditions. It is important to note that the divisor is not simply the reference full-load capacity, it is the available capacity at the same evaporator and condenser temperatures as the part-load point. The PLR is calculated as follows:
Qi PLR i = -----------------------------------Q ref CAPFT i


The EIRFPLR function is the ratio of power for the partload condition to power for the full load at the same temperature conditions. It is parabolic, sloping from 100% power at 100% part-load ratio (PLR) down to a higher percentage power than the percentage load at low load conditions. Figure 4 depicts a sample EIRFPLR curve. The EIRPLR is calculated from Equation 5 as follows:
Pi EIRFPLR i = -----------------------------------------------------------P ref CAPFT i EIRFT i

Figure 4 EIRFPLR curve.


After calculating the CAPFT, EIRFT, PLR, and EIRFPLR for each data record, we can calculate the final curve coefficients. Calculating Coefficients for the EIRFPLR Curve As we did for the CAPFT and EIRFT functions, we now create an input matrix of data that can be used in a standard least-squares linear regression routine. Figure 5 shows the EIRFPLR input matrix and the required fields. This completes the calculation of the curve coefficients by the linear regression technique. TECHNIQUE 2: REFERENCE CURVE METHOD As previously stated, the reference curve method relies on a library of well-developed regression curves. Prior to development of this technique and bundling of the calculation engine with a library of curves in a publicly available tool (PEC 1998), users with insufficient data for the development of curve coefficients by the least-squares linear regression method were forced to develop calibrated models using publicly available curve coefficients and fitting them to a single point of data.8 The resulting models were often improperly fit due to the misunderstanding of the reference data point.9

Figure 5 EIRFPLR input matrix.

The steps for the reference curve method are as follows. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Select the subset of curves in the library that are applicable to the target chiller. Calculate the reference capacity for each curve from the subset. Calculate the reference power for each curve from the subset. Calculate the power prediction error for each curve from the subset. Select the curve with the smallest error. Each of these steps is discussed below. Filtering Curves for Applicability The purpose of this step is to select a subset of the available chiller curves that reasonably represent the type of machine that the user intends to model. Possible parameters for selection include the following:

The DOE2 program (DOE 1980) only provides four electric chiller modelshermetic centrifugal, hermetic reciprocating, open centrifugal, and open reciprocating. There were no curves provided for air-cooled chillers, screw or scroll compressors, or chillers controlled by variable speed drives. Coefficients for seven air- and water-cooled chillers with screw, scroll, reciprocating, and centrifugal compressors were published in the first public review of ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989 (ASHRAE 1996) and subsequently in the California Energy Commission's ACM Manual (CEC 1998).

The published DOE2 electric chiller curves all go to unity at 44F chilled-water supply temperature and 85F condenser water supply temperature (DOE 1980). As this often differs from the design conditions, the user needs to provide a reference capacity and efficiency that are different from the design conditions. These adjustments are described in Equations 5 and 12. Review of utility rebate applications and energy code compliance submissions revealed that these corrections were seldom made.


Type of compressor (centrifugal, screw, scroll, or reciprocating) Type of condenser (air, water, or evaporatively cooled) Type of unloading mechanism (staging, unloaders, slide valve, inlet vanes, or inlet vanes with variable-speed drive) Refrigerant Range of data on which the curve was developed (evaporator temperatures, condenser temperatures, and load ratio) Manufacturer or model line Chiller size

To calculate a reference capacity with a user-defined maximum percentage full-load ratio, one would use the following equation:
Qi Q ref = Maximum --------------------------------------------- CAPFT i PLR max


for all data records. To calculate a reference capacity with a user-defined rated full-load capacity you would use Equation 12.
Q user Q ref = ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------CAPFT ( t chws_user, t cws oat_user )


The authors have tested filtering by compressor type, condenser type, the unloading mechanism, the refrigerant, and the range of data for which the curves were developed. Of these, all but the refrigerant appear critical to the accuracy of the results. The data range on which the curve was developed is critical as it protects the user from operating the model in a region where its performance is extrapolated and highly unpredictable. The challenge is that the user is often employing this technique because they have a limited set of data. The data they bring to the calibration may not fully define the range of conditions that they will use to exercise the underlying model in a simulation. Calculating Reference Capacity The reference capacity can be selected in one of several ways: Assume that at least one record represents the machine as fully loaded. Select the maximum percentage unloading for the data set. Specify a reference fully loaded data record.

Calculating Reference Power Reference power is calculated to minimize the predicted power error. The format of root mean square error utilized by the authors follows.
i i i i ref ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pi n


Error =

i=1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

= f ( P ref )

(13) In Equation 13, the only unknown is the reference power (Pref). We seek the minimum of this error function, which should occur when the first derivative goes to zero.
( 2 A P ref + B ) f ------------ = --------------------------------------------------------------------- = 0 P ref 2 2 A P ref + B P ref + C


i i i -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pi n


If you assume that the data set contains at least one record with full-load operation, the reference capacity can be calculated as follows:10
Qi Q ref = Maximum ------------------- for all data records. CAPFT i

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ai=1 n ( CAPFT i EIRFT i EIRFPLR i ) 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pi i=1 B -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------n C1



The assumption of full-load operation is probably accurate where the data source is the manufacturer. Where field measured data is employed, it may be better to allow the user to either define a maximum percentage full-load ratio (PLRmax) that they feel the chiller achieved during the measuring period or to define a rated full load capacity at specific conditions.

This minimum can be found where the equation in the numerator goes to zero. This happens where
B P ref = ------------ 2 A
i i i -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pi n


This equation is derived from Equation 4 with the PLR set equal to one. The maximum function guarantees that the selected reference capacity will create PLRs across the data set of less than or equal to one with at least one record fully loaded.

i=1 = -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . n ( CAPFT i EIRFT i EIRFPLR i ) 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pi i=1



This mathematical solution has been validated through tests using binomial search and other numerical nonlinear equation solution methods as a basis for comparison. In all tests, Equation 15 produced superior results (lower error). Calculating the Power Prediction Error For each curve in the subset and with reference capacity and power calculated as described above, we calculate a total error on the predicted power across the data set. The equation used for the error calculation is shown in Equation 13. The curve with the lowest prediction error is selected for the final model. DISCUSSION In the five years since these techniques have been developed, they have been tested against hundreds of chillers. In general, the authors have found the least-squares regression technique to produce results between 1% and 3% RMS error. The reference curve method has been tested against both small sets of manufacturers data and mixed sets of field data with general results between 3% and 6% RMS error. In the retrofit of a 17,000-ton chilled water plant, these techniques were validated by field-measured data (Hydeman et al. 1999). Validated on four months of post-retrofit data, a regression model of a newly installed chiller predicted its measured performance within 2.8%. This error was within instrumentation uncertainty tolerances. An automated tool incorporating these techniques was tested by nearly 200 design professionals (PG&E 1999). These beta testers were subsequently surveyed. Of the group that used the tool on real projects, the majority expressed satisfaction with the results and rated the software superior to other existing software or techniques.11 The authors have uncovered several limitations with the underlying DOE2 model. Chillers with variable speed drives appear to have a relatively high error (~10% power prediction) at low loads (>20%) and condenser temperatures (below ~60F). This error reduces if the EIRFPLR curve (Equation 3) is expanded to a cubic equation. However, this does not fully solve the problem. It is likely that the curve needs to be reformulated to include both temperature and load terms. As this error only occurs at low loads and temperatures, it generally has a minor impact on the chiller energy usage in an annual simulation. The DOE2 model does not directly address variation of evaporator and condenser flows. The authors have tested the model on widely varying evaporator flows (at the full range of

flows certified by the manufacturer) and have seen no significant increase on the model RMS error (still within the 1% to 3% range). Changes in the heat transfer coefficient in the evaporator appear to directly offset the changes in lift with variations in flow. Condenser flow variations are an entirely different story. Although the authors have not extensively tested the model under varying condenser flows, we expect the present format will be inadequate. The problem is not likely to impact most plants, as there are very few plant configurations with variable condenser flow systems. Modeling of different condenser water flow regimes (e.g., 2 gpm/ton versus 3 gpm/ton) is possible, but a different regression model for the chiller needs to be developed for each regime. The authors plan to test a simple reformulation of the CAPFT and EIRFT equations using the leaving condenser water temperature in place of the entering condenser water temperature for water-cooled equipment. With flooded condensers, the leaving temperature is a better indication of heat exchanger approach. Another source of error comes from the ARI Standard 550/590 tolerances allowed in the manufacturers certified programs. The authors have verified through zero-tolerance chiller bids with factory witness tests that all of the manufacturers use these tolerances to overstate the capacity and understate the efficiency of their chillers. By comparing bid submissions from the manufacturers with both zero tolerance data and the data from the ARI certified programs, the authors have noted routine derating of the capacity by 3% to 5% and derating of the performance (kW/ton) by the full tolerance provided by the ARI Standard. This error does not apply to field measured data. Equation 13 is just one formulation of power prediction error. An alternate form of error calculation for calibrated simulations is the coefficient of variation of the root mean squared error (CVRMSE) (Haberl et al. 1998). Subsequent to the development of the authors techniques, CVRMSE has gained in popularity and is making its way into standards. It is given by Equation 16.

( P ref ( CAPFT i EIRFT i EIRFPLR i ) P i ) 2

n CVRMSE = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------n
i=1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pi i=1 -------------n

(16) Haberl et al. (1998) also present mean bias error (MBE), which is a measure of the systematic error of a simulation model. This is given by Equation 17.

54% rated the software superior and 32% rated it about the same as existing software and techniques. The remainder did not have an opinion.


( P ref ( CAPFT i EIRFT i EIRFPLR i ) P i ) 2

i=1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------n MBE = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------n

Overall, the authors have been very pleased with these techniques and are presently working to extend these to other equipment models including cooling towers, gas-fired chillers, and thermally fired chillers. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Pi i=1 -------------n

(17) Using the CVRMSE metric, the reference curve method would calculate a different reference power than the one presented in Equation 15. The appropriate reference power for CVRMSE is given as follows:

P ref =

( P i CAPFT i EIRFT i EIRFPLR i ) i=1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------n ( CAPFT i EIRFT i EIRFPLR i ) 2 i=1


The CoolTools project was made possible through public-goods funds administered by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company on behalf of the ratepayers of California. The authors would like to thank Peter Turnbull the project manager for his guidance and support, the CoolTools Project Advisory Board for their direction and support, Ernie Limperis, who programmed the automated tool, and Dr. Ron Kammerud, Steven Gates, Dr. Agami Reddy, Dr. Jeff Haberl, and Steve Taylor for their technical assistance and critical review. REFERENCES ARI. 1992a. ARI Standard 550-92, Standard for centrifugal and rotary screw water-chilling packages. Arlington, Va.: American Refrigeration Institute. ARI. 1992b. ARI Standard 590-92, Standard for positive displacement compressor water-chilling packages. Arlington, Va.: American Refrigeration Institute. ASHRAE. 1996. ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-1989R, Energy standard for buildings except low-rise residential buildings, First Public Review Draft, March 1996. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. Brandemuehl, M.J., M. Krarti, and J. Phelan. 1996. Methodology development to measure in-situ chiller, fan and pump performance, Final report. Boulder, Colo.: Joint Center for Energy Management, publication JCEM TR/ 96/3. CEC (California Energy Commission). 1998. The nonresidential alternative calculation method (ACM) approval manual for compliance with California's 1998 energy efficiency standards. Sacramento, Calif.: California Energy Commission, Publication Number P400-98-011, April. DOE (Department of Energy). 1980. DOE 2 Reference manual, part 1, version 2.1. Berkeley, Calif.: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories. Haberl, J.S., and T.E. Bou-Saada. 1998. Procedures for calibrating hourly simulation models to measured building energy and environmental data. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 120:3 (August). Hydeman, M., K. Gillespie, and R. Kammerud. 1997. PG&Es CoolTools project: A toolkit to improve evaluation and operation of chilled water plants. Presented at the Cool$ense National Forum on Integrated Chilled Water Retrofits, September. Berkeley Calif.: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories. Hydeman, M., S. Taylor, C. Speck, and K. Gillespie. 1999. Commissioning tools and techniques used in a large

Both techniques are subject to bias from the selection of calibration data by the user. As presently employed in the automated tool, both techniques apply equal weight to each record in the data set. If the entire data set is not representative of the operation of the chiller in the simulation model, the resulting model could be overly accurate in areas of little interest and not very accurate in areas of extended operation. For the leastsquares regression technique, the optimal data set would be equally distributed in a grid across the entire range of operation (i.e., a data record starting at the extremes of temperature with equal distribution of samples from one extreme to the other). For the reference curve method, a binning of like data points with one or more representatives from each bin may help to reduce any bias. Alternately, in either method the user could be allowed to assign weights to each data record. CONCLUSIONS The techniques presented have proven robust through field verification and have achieved the authors goals for acceptable electric chiller equipment model accuracy. With adequate data and care to select a representative data sample, the least-squares regression method will always be the more accurate of the two techniques. The reference curve method depends on having and selecting a representative set of curves for the target machine. The automated tool referred to by the authors now has over 200 curves in the library representing a wide range of manufacturers, models, and design conditions. As the library of curves grows through the user base, in theory it should improve accuracy through time. The greatest challenges in the use of either technique are the proper selection of data and the proper application of the results. An automated tool must run a careful balance between excessive data requirements on the user and protecting the user from running the curves beyond their well-formed regions.

chilled water plant optimization project. Proceedings of the 7th National Conference on Building Commissioning. Portland, Ore.: PECI. Kammerud, R., K. Gillespie, and M. Hydeman. 1999. Economic uncertainties in chilled water system design. ASHRAE Transactions 105(2): 1075-1085. Lebrun, J., J.-P. Bourdouxhe, and M. Grodent. 1996. HVAC1 toolkit: Algorithms and subroutines for primary HVAC system energy calculations. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company). 1999. CoolTools: A survey of users and applications. Prepared

by Opinion Dynamics for Customer Opinion Research. San Francisco: Pacific Gas and Electric Company. MPR Library File #MR-99-05. PEC (Pacific Energy Center). 1998. CoolTools Project. San Francisco: Pacific Energy Center. http:// www.hvacexchange.com/cooltools/index.html. Sezgan, O., B. Smith, and M. Moezzi. 1996. Building performance evaluation and tracking. Berkeley, Calif.: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories. Taylor, S., P. Dupont, M. Hydeman, B. Jones, and T. Hartman. 1999. The CoolTools chilled water plant design and performance specification guide. PG&E Pacific Energy Center, San Francisco.