Life-Cycle Cost Analysis For Selection of Energy-Efficient Building Components in Lodging Facilities

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Arizona State Univ on 08/18/16. Copyright ASCE.
For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis for Selection of Energy-Efficient Building

Components in Lodging Facilities
Giovanni C. Migliaccio1, Sachin Goel2, and James T. O’Connor3
1
Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, the
University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station C1752, Austin, TX 78712-0276;
email: gcmigliaccio@mail.utexas.edu
2
GTech Engineers, BA-2C Ashok Vihar Ph:I, Delhi - 110052, India; email:
sgoel@alumni.utexas.net
3
Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, the
University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station C1752, Austin, TX 78712-0276;
email: jtoconnor@mail.utexas.edu
Abstract
This paper outlines a methodology for applying life-cycle cost analysis

(LCCA) for selecting building components in a typical modular and repetitive
lodging facility. The study explores available tools, such as energy simulation and
building life-cycle costing software, and identifies a methodology for their
application under uncertainty. An analysis of life-cycle costs for a window system in
a typical two-story economy lodging facility is presented as an example of an
application of this methodology. The effect of one design factor, site location, is
investigated through a sensitivity analysis, which considers a location for each
different climatic area in the United States. Moreover, a contingency analysis is also
performed to assess how changes in energy prices will affect the decision process.
The charts resulting from the uncertainty analyses provide an interesting insight for
decision-makers.
Keywords
Life-cycle Cost Analysis, Energy Simulations, Lodging Industry, Modular

Buildings
Copyright ASCE 2006 AEI 2006

Building Integration Solutions
Introduction
For years, the lodging industry has focused on two primary concerns in its
conception of facilities - architectural features and cost of construction. However,
recent events have amended concerns to include the economics of facility
management (i.e. cost of operations over the life of a building) and the application of
sustainability concepts through green building initiatives. Of particular concern to the
lodging industry are energy costs. These are a significant part of the cost of operating
a facility. The rises of both energy prices and usage resulted in a 6% increase in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Arizona State Univ on 08/18/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
utility costs for the lodging industry between 2003 and 2004 (PKF 2004). Since
electricity costs represents 60% of the utility costs, these increases represent a
growing concern to the industry and have spurred efforts to reduce energy
consumption in new facilities. For instance, a well known economy lodging chain
has changed the layout of its prototype facility from an exterior-door to an interior-
corridor layout, basing its decision on life-cycle evaluations:
The traditional motel, with its exterior doors, … has drawbacks …
during entry and exit, the guestroom is ‘open to the world’ and heat
and cool escapes to the atmosphere … this consumes a lot of energy
… Clearly, an interior-corridor design is a more efficient user of
energy … does not expose every door to the weather, or place as much
emphasis on proper door sealing. Interior hallways do not have to be
cleared of snow, or their railings checked for security or constantly
repainted to hide rust (ACCOR 1997).
This example illustrates the industry’s desire to control operational expenses
over the long run. While this and similar efforts focus on changes to the building
layout based upon qualitative evaluations, little attention has been paid to the
selection of building components by evaluating their life-cycle economic
performance. Were they to shift their focus, lodging operators could gain useful
insight by performing life cycle cost analyses (LCCA) for selecting optimal building
components for their prototype facilities. LCCA is a procedure for evaluating the
economic worth of alternative buildings, building systems, or components by
discounting future costs over the life of the facility. Many researchers have explored
ways of combining life-cycle costing methods with energy simulations to aid in the
selection of efficient design components (Schaufelberger and Jacobson, 2000; Sekhar
and Cher Toon, 1998). However, few studies have considered the effect of
uncertainty in the decision process for selecting building components (Macdonald et
al. 1999). Because of the resulting lack of confidence on simulation-based
judgments, lodging owners often entrust the experience-based judgment of designers
or contractors. Such experience-based decisions can mislead the decision-makers
because of the uncertainty of several design parameters and environmental factors
(e.g. energy prices, technology offerings, etc.).
A common barrier to the adoption of LCCA is its time intensive nature
because most of the required data are not readily available. In addition, LCCA is
generally a costly procedure for a single facility and is rarely carried out except for
federal facilities for which U.S. federal guidelines require decisions to be made upon
life-cycle costing evaluations (Fuller and Petersen 1996). Nevertheless, the cost of
performing LCCA becomes more economically tolerable in the case of economy

lodging where modular and repetitive facilities are utilized. In fact, most of the
design parameters in such facilities are fixed, an actuality that decreases significantly
the cost of data collection, and one that allows for a uniform application of findings to
other buildings. According to existing industry research, illustrated in Figure 1,
approximately 55% of existing lodging facilities in the United States fall within the
category of economy lodging (e.g., having a room rate below $60 per night).
Facilities in this rate category are often represented by suburban inns and highway
motels, building models that comprise almost 80% of the industry’s facility portfolio
(Figure 2). These categories of lodging facilities mostly use standardized and
modularized layouts, making a widespread application of LCCA feasible for building

component selection.
The authors believe that an LCCA approach can be pursued both for new and
existing facilities. Lodging operators often provide interested franchisees with the
design of a prototype facility (ACCOR 1997). The use of a life-cycle approach can
provide insight into the selection of proper building components for different
geographic locations. For already established franchisee, a systematic retrofit
campaign can become a strategy for adapting existing facilities to the new challenges
brought on escalating energy prices. Although retrofit projects represent a growing
segment in the total building construction market, these projects have historically
been driven by extraordinary maintenance efforts or modifications to building
systems rather than by proactive desires to integrate new methods and technologies
for achieving improved building performance. However, rising energy costs are
changing existing scenarios for the evaluation and selection of retrofit strategies.
Consequently, the selection of these strategies is becoming a fundamental phase in a
building’s life-cycle, a phase that includes technical and cost considerations.
Understanding the importance of this phase, some researchers have identified a path
for adopting optimal retrofit strategies for the residential sector (Gustafsson, 1990;
Gustafsson and Karlsson, 1990).
100%
Over $85
$60–$85
$45–$59.99 80%
$30–$44.99
Under $30 60%
No. of Facilities
40%
20%
0%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Over $85 4,815 7,312 8,263 7,855 8,853
$60–$85 8,667 11,563 13,666 14,334 14,950
$45–$59.99 18,244 13,722 16,129 16,680 16,431
$30–$44.99 14,392 7,101 8,040 7,862 8,088
Under $30 7383 1,695 942 853 866
Year
Figure 1 - Lodging Facilities by Average Room Rate (derived from AHLA, 2001-2005)

Resort 100%
Airport
Urban 80%
Small Metro/Town
Highway
60%
Suburban
No. of Properties
40%
20%
0%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Resort 3,371 2,425 2,309 2,149 4,055
Airport 4,120 3,401 3,305 3,239 1,914
Urban 5,457 4,453 5,502 5,408 4,648
Small Metro/Town 14,523
Highway 22,577 17,454 17,006 18,312 6,666
Suburban 17976 13,660 18918 18476 15792
Year
Figure 2 - Lodging Facilities by Location (derived from AHLA, 2001-2005)
This paper describes a methodology for using LCCA in selecting building

components in a typical modular and repetitive lodging facility. The research
explores available tools such as energy simulation and building life-cycle costing
software, and identifies a methodology for their application to the economy lodging
industry. This methodology is used in a case study to determine the best selecting
window system from among 30 different alternatives. The effect of one design
factor, site location, is investigated through sensitivity analysis. This analysis takes
into consideration one location for each different climatic area in the United States,
and uses a database of thirty existing window system products. Moreover, a
contingency analysis is performed to assess how changes in energy prices could affect
the decision process.
Methodology
Figure 3 displays a model diagram of the proposed methodology. The process
is based on the traditional two-phased approach of running energy simulations and
using the results for performing the LCCA. However, the addition of two other
analyses allows for the assessment of other uncertain scenarios. The first level of
uncertainty is explored through sensitivity analyses. These analyses study the effect
of uncertain design parameters on the ranking of alternatives. Concurrently,
uncertainties related to changes in the environment are investigated through a
contingency analysis, which also explores the effect of these changes on the ranking
of alternatives (DRMI 2005).
The decision-making problem involves the selection of a specific building
component among a set of available alternatives. During the first phase, the running

of the energy simulations, there is the need to define other characteristics of the
building such as geometry, orientation, site location, and characteristics of the
building components that are not subject to the decision-making problem. The
second phase uses the results of the energy simulation to determine the energy-related
operational costs. These costs together with other categories of costs over the life of
the facility (i.e., investment costs, maintenance costs, other operation-related costs,
etc.) are discounted to the present value to determine the expected life-cycle cost
(LCC). This expected LCC is used as an objective function of the decision-making
problem that focuses on minimizing the LCC. However, complex objective functions
can integrate economic metrics (i.e., LCC) with other metrics (i.e., environmental
metrics) (Lippiatt 1999; Migliaccio et al. 2005).
During the process, there is the opportunity to select both uncertain design
parameters (e.g., building location) and uncertain environmental factors (e.g., energy
price) that can affect the decision-making problem. The former parameters can be
selected for performing a sensitivity analysis on the problem outcome, whereas the
effect of changes in the latter factors is investigated through a contingency analysis.
Underlying Assumptions
The proposed methodology relies on the underlying assumption that non-
energy related building performances will not be negatively affected by the selected
building component. Considering only the energy-related dimension simplifies the
design/retrofit decision but does not consider consequences of the decision in terms of
material durability and occupant health. For instance, even though economically
optimal, the selection of a window system with lower air leakage can produce many
undesired results, such as lack of indoor environment ventilation and mold growth.
Therefore, in addition to energy savings considerations, expected effects on these
building performance dimensions should be carefully evaluated in pre-selecting from
the available options.
Case Study
Decision-making Problem:
The case study analyzes the decision-making problem of selecting a window
system from among a set of available products. For the purposes of this paper, the
selection is based on the minimal LCC. The study is based on a project service life
cycle of 20 years. The LCC value includes window system procurement costs,
energy-related operational costs, and window system replacement costs (in case a
system does not provide the expected period of service). The study did not consider
the effect of other costs (other operational costs, installation costs, maintenance costs)
on the resulting LCC. The authors believe that installation and maintenance costs can
be equal throughout the alternative systems, so their values would not affect the
ranking. In addition, the specific building layout (exterior doors) suggests minimally
varying maintenance costs because of the accessibility of the window independent of
the adopted frame (fixed versus operable). Finally, the energy consumption for each
window system is estimated based on factors affecting the consumption for
heating/cooling but not for lighting the built environment. Therefore, the problem
considers energy loads by conduction and convection (through the U-value) and by

solar gain (through the solar heat gain coefficient - SHGC), but does not take in
consideration lighting loads (e.g. visual transmittance – Tv).
Figure 3 – Model Diagram
Tools
A survey of available tools was conducted. As a result, the authors selected
the components of the model in order to facilitate the flexibility of the application and
to minimize problems in data interoperability. RESFEN, a software program
developed by Lawrence Berkeley, was selected as the energy simulation processor for
estimating the amount of energy consumption due to the window system. Although
the software is designed for residential buildings, the estimation process computes the
energy consumption due to the window system as relative to a standard insulated
windowless wall. It also breaks down energy consumption by directional orientation
and by season (LBNL 1999).
The determination of the LCC needs to refer to widely recognized standards.
Therefore, the authors initially selected the Building Life-Cycle Cost (BLCC)
Program that adheres to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
LCC procedures (Fuller and Petersen 1995). However, this software package allows
limited data interoperability, making the entire process subject to repetitive manual
operations. Therefore, a spreadsheet version of BLCC procedures was selected
(Addison 1999). Using a spreadsheet allowed for the integration of part of the
uncertainty analyses in the LCC by the use of a Microsoft Excel add-in developed by
researchers of the Dartmouth College for NIST (Baker et al. 2003). Unfortunately,
the used energy simulation software did not allow parametric analyses, so the

sensitivity analyses conducted on the parameters needed for the energy simulation
were performed through tedious manual operations.
The use of 3D CAD systems in architectural design is increasingly providing
the base for geometric data interchange. Although the authors did not take this
approach, several existing and freely available software programs that allow for
interoperability through standard protocol were identified (e.g., Energy Plus by DOE
allows data interchange through Industry Foundation Classes; EQUEST by James J.
Hirsch & Associates allows for the modeling of a building’s geometry, and for
parametric energy simulations and LCC evaluations). These software programs
facilitate the interchange of geometric, energy consumption-related, and economic

data. The choice of the tools adopted for the case study analysis was driven by two
factors: first, the simplicity of use and the manageability of the results offered by
RESFEN; and second, the opportunity to embed uncertainty analysis in the LCC
spreadsheet model.
Phase I
Interviews with two local (Austin, Texas) window system vendors allowed the
authors to build a database of economic and physical characteristics for 29 window
systems included in the database. In addition, the database included a baseline
system under a low cost / low performance perspective that can be representative of
an existing situation of retrofit in the Austin area (Table 1).
Based upon the design parameters, the geometry of the standard modular unit
of the suite/room was identified and repeated in order to create a virtual two-story
exterior-door motel. The building was “sliced” into 4-room units as represented in
Figure 4. The baseline orientation was assumed to be oriented along the North-South
direction. Finally, an electric heat pump mechanical system was also assumed in the
baseline model.
After the building template was thus defined, it was necessary to identify the
building location. In order to evaluate the effects of location on the LCC of the
installed window systems, location was considered an uncertain parameter for the
decision and became the object of the sensitivity analysis. In the case study, five
locations belonging to different hygro-thermal regions (BSC 2003) were considered
for analysis. Each location was included in the energy simulations to account for
weather fluctuations and varying recommendations for construction insulation values
(Table 2). As a result, the energy simulation engine estimated the electric energy
consumption due to the window component for each of the 30 window systems in
each of the five locations (Table 3) producing 150 values.
Phase II
The results from the energy simulations were factored together with the
assumptions on the electric utility charge plan and energy price to provide the energy-
related operational costs for the LCC model. While the charge plan was assumed for
a constant price throughout the year, the energy price was used as parameter for a
contingency analysis on the 6-30 cents/kWh range with a 3 cents/kWh step. Other
costs were provided from the window systems database. Although data on
maintenance costs of different systems were not available, the authors assumed that
these costs do not change between different window systems. Finally, the number of

project service years was assumed equal to the length of the warranty provided by the
window vendors. Other financial parameters of the LCC (i.e., real discount rate,
energy escalation rate, etc.) were assumed equal to the default values in the LCC
model.
LCC Results
Initially, the LCC for the baseline window system is determined. Results of
the corresponding uncertainty analyses are included in Table 4. An energy price of 9
cents/kWh is assumed as a base scenario for the decision because of its closeness to
the average electricity price (DOE 2005). Under a retrofit scenario, the baseline
window system should be substituted by a more efficient window system. The LCC
for the six window systems with lowest values are included in Figure 5. According to
the results, window system # 3 is the one that offers the lowest LCC in every location.
This outcome is not surprising, considering the optimal mix of price and performance
offered by this system. However, the ranking of alternatives changes under the
evolving scenarios considered in the contingency analyses for every location (Figures
6, 7, 8, 9, and 10). In every geographic location, system # 3 keeps its attractiveness at
the lowest levels of energy price, but the ranking of alternatives changes as the energy
price goes up. Obviously, better performing but more expensive systems take the
lead in high-energy costs situations.
Two patterns are clearly represented by the results. Window system # 4
presents the lowest LCC for locations with a predominance of the cooling season (i.e.,
TX and AZ) under high-price scenarios thanks to its lower SHGC value. On the other
hand, window system # 18 offers the best value in locations with a predominance of
the heating season (i.e., NY, IL and TN) under the same high-energy price scenarios
thanks to its lower U-value.
Figure 4 - Building Template

Table 1 - Window Systems Database
# Brand Type Glazing U-Value SHGC Air Price Price Warranty
Leakage
# Type Fill cfm/sqft $/unit $/4 years
units
0 None Fixed 1 Clear - 1.25 0.76 1.00 350 1,400 10
1 A Casement 2 Clear Argon 0.33 0.33 647 2,588 20
2 A Casement 2 Tinted Argon 0.35 0.24 675 2,700 20
3 A Fixed 2 Clear Argon 0.33 0.33 578 2,312 20
0.30
4 A Fixed 2 Tinted Argon 0.35 0.24 603 2,412 20
5 A Gliding 2 Clear Argon 0.35 0.3 803 3,212 20

6 A Gliding 2 Tinted Argon 0.37 0.22 842 3,368 20
7 B Clad Cas. 2 Clear IG Argon 0.54 0.53 813 3,252 20
8 B Clad Cas. 2 InsulShield Argon 0.36 0.32 813 3,252 20
9 B Clad Cas. 2 Bronze IS Air 0.45 0.27 970 3,880 20
10 B Clad Cas. 2 Gray IS Air 0.45 0.26 970 3,880 20
11 B Clad Cas. 2 Green IS Air 0.45 0.3 970 3,880 20
12 B Wood Cas. 2 Clear Argon 0.5 0.53 688 2,752 20
13 B Wood Cas. 2 IS Argon 0.32 0.31 688 2,752 20
14 B Wood Cas. 2 Bronze IS Air 0.41 0.26 845 3,380 20
15 B Wood Cas. 2 Gray IS Air 0.42 0.26 845 3,380 20
16 B Wood Cas. 2 Green IS Air 0.41 0.3 845 3,380 20
17 B Wood Fixed 2 Clear Argon 0.5 0.57 627 2,508 20
18 B Wood Fixed 2 IS Argon 0.3 0.34 0.05 627 2,508 20
19 B Wood Fixed 2 Bronze IS Air 0.4 0.28 783 3,132 20
20 B Wood Fixed 2 Green IS Air 0.4 0.32 783 3,132 20
21 B Clad Cas. 2 Clear with Argon 0.5 0.53 732 2,928 20
22 B Clad Cas. 2 Clear with Argon 0.4 0.51 786 3,144 20
23 B Clad Cas. 2 Bronze Argon 0.5 0.38 936 3,744 20
24 B Clad Cas. 2 Bronze Argon 0.39 0.34 990 3,960 20
25 B Clad Cas. 3 IS Argon 0.36 0.31 786 3,144 20
26 B Clad Cas. 3 IS with Argon 0.28 0.28 867 3,468 20
27 B Clad Cas. 3 IS with Argon 0.25 0.27 920 3,680 20
28 B Clad Fixed 2 Clear with Argon 0.5 0.58 671 2,684 20
29 B Clad Fixed 2 Clear with Argon 0.39 0.55 725 2,900 20
Table 2 - RESFEN 3.1 New Construction Insulation Values (Council of American Building
Officials, 1993)
State City MEC Zone Pkg # Glz % Ceiling U- Wall Floor R- Basement Slab Crawler
Value R-Value Value R-Value R-Value R-Value
AZ Phoenix 3 3 15 30 11 11 - 0 -
IL Chicago 14 3 15 38 19 30 14 - -
NY Buffalo 14 3 15 38 19 30 14 - -
TN Nashville 8 3 15 38 19 19 - 2 -
TX San Antonio 4 2 15 26 11 11 - 0 -

Table 3 - RESFEN Simulation Result Summary
Energy consumption (kWh/year)
# AZ - Phoenix IL - Chicago NY - Buffalo TN - Nashville TX- San Antonio
0 1,144 2,174 2,490 1,374 968
1 418 611 674 432 348
2 361 716 797 466 315
3 406 611 674 432 348
4 361 716 797 466 315
5 404 675 745 454 337
6 359 773 866 496 312

7 654 852 950 606 528
8 410 632 694 441 338
9 415 859 952 550 357
10 410 865 962 549 353
11 437 834 925 552 372
12 637 774 863 564 516
13 386 552 604 395 318
14 392 780 861 506 335
15 398 800 889 517 340
16 419 752 829 507 351
17 674 745 830 562 535
18 401 489 531 365 327
19 401 742 825 493 340
20 430 717 791 488 357
21 637 774 863 564 516
22 519 881 980 593 433
23 519 881 980 593 433
24 440 681 751 473 361
25 403 637 702 445 332
26 344 488 529 344 282
27 323 430 463 308 266
28 677 738 823 558 542
29 609 542 590 442 476
Table 4 - Life-cycle Costs for Baseline Window System
Locations Energy Price (cents/Kwh)
6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
AZ - Phoenix $3,017 $3,479 $3,941 $4,403 $4,865 $5,327 $5,789 $6,251 $6,713
IL - Chicago $3,984 $4,929 $5,874 $6,820 $7,765 $8,711 $9,656 $10,601 $11,547
NY - Buffalo $4,182 $5,226 $6,271 $7,315 $8,359 $9,404 $10,448 $11,493 $12,537
TN - Nashville $3,310 $3,918 $4,527 $5,136 $5,744 $6,353 $6,961 $7,570 $8,178
TX - San Antonio $2,950 $3,379 $3,808 $4,236 $4,665 $5,094 $5,523 $5,951 $6,380
10

Window Systems with Lowest LCCs
[based on 9 cents/kWh]
TX
TN
18
17
Locations
13
NY
4
3
IL 1
AZ
$2,500 $2,700 $2,900 $3,100 $3,300 $3,500 $3,700

Life-Cycle Costs
[$/4 units]
Figure 5 - Window Systems with Lowest Average LCC by Location
AZ-Phoenix
$4,500
$4,300
$4,100
$3,900
1
Life-Cycle Cost
$3,700 2
3
$3,500
4
$3,300 13
18
$3,100
$2,900
$2,700
$2,500
6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
[cents/kWh]
Figure 6 – Phoenix, AZ: Contingency Analysis of Window Systems with Lowest LCC
11

IL-Chicago
$6,000
$5,500
$5,000
1
Life-Cycle Cost
3
[$/4 units]
$4,500
4
13
$4,000
18
29
$3,500
$3,000
$2,500
6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
[cents/kWh]
Figure 7 - Chicago, IL: Contingency Analysis of Window Systems with Lowest LCC
NY-Buffalo
$6,500
$6,000
$5,500
1
Life-Cycle Cost
$5,000
3
[$/4 units]
13
$4,500
17
18
$4,000
29
$3,500
$3,000
$2,500
6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
[cents/kWh]
Figure 8 - Buffalo, NY: Contingency Analysis of Window Systems with Lowest LCC
12

TN-Nashville
$5,500
$5,000
$4,500
1
Life-Cycle Cost
3
[$/4 units]
4
$4,000
13
17
$3,500 18
$3,000
$2,500
6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
[cents/kWh]
Figure 9 - Nashville, TN: Contingency Analysis of Window Systems with Lowest LCC
TX-San Antonio
$4,300
$4,100
$3,900
$3,700
1
Life-Cycle Cost
2
[$/4 units]
$3,500
3
4
$3,300
13
$3,100 18
$2,900
$2,700
$2,500
6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
[cents/kWh]
Figure 10 - San Antonio, TX: Contingency Analysis of Window Systems with Lowest LCC
13

Conclusions
This paper outlines a methodology for using LCCA in the selection of
building components in a typical modular and repetitive lodging facility. By
identifying freely available software programs, the study also models a methodology
for their application to the economy lodging industry. The methodology is applied to
a case study for selecting optimal window systems from among a database of
different options.
The argument underlying the study is that modular and repetitive facilities
allow for a widespread application of LCCA to building components selection. The

authors have approached some of the barriers to LCCA application (e.g., time-
intensity, costly software investment, quality of results under uncertainty). The
authors argue that the specific environment of modular facilities makes it possible to
distribute the cost of modeling the building prototype across a large number of
buildings. Moreover, the availability of freeware software programs for energy
simulation, LCC, and uncertainty analyses allows lodging operation managers to
reduce the overhead cost for implementing a LCCA approach to selecting building
components. Finally, the quality of results under uncertainty is overcome by
developing a set of charts that increases the rational insight into the decision process.
These charts allow decision makers to foresee their decision under evolving energy
price scenarios and within different geographic zones.
The case study application provides rankings in both a static and an evolving
energy price scenario. While the decision in the static scenario was driven by the
presence of a low cost / high performance product (e.g., window system #3), the
charts of the evolving scenarios demonstrated the importance of uncertainty analyses
in providing a further dimension of awareness in the decision process.
References
ACCOR (1997). “The new Motel 6 Prototype,” ACCOR North America,
<http://www.accor-na.com/franchising_info/prototype.asp> (Oct 28, 2005).
Addison M. S. (1999). “User-friendly Life-Cycle Costing: The BLCC Procedure in
an Easy-to-Use Spreadsheet,” <http://www.doe2.com/Download/LCC/LCC-
Summary-Rev2004.pdf> (Oct 28, 2005).
American Hotel & Lodging Association [AHLA] (2005). 2005 Lodging Industry
Profile, <http://www.ahla.com/pdf/Lodging-Ind-Profile-2005.pdf> (Oct 20, 2005).
Profile, <http://www.ahla.com/products_info_center_lip_2002.asp> (Oct 20, 2005).
Profile, <http://www.ahla.com/pdf/2001.pdf> (Oct 20, 2005).
Baker, K.R., Powell, S. G. and Burnham B. (2003). “The Sensitivity Toolkit,” Tuck
School of Business at Dartmouth College, http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/toolkit/
(Oct 20, 2005).
14

Building Construction Corporation [BSC] (2003). Hygro-Thermal Region Map,
http://www.buildingscience.com/housesthatwork/hygro-thermal.htm(Mar 31, 2003).
Council of American Building Officials [CABO] (1993). Model Energy Code. Falls
Church, Virginia.
Defense Resource Management Institute [DRMI] (2005). Economic Analysis
Handbook, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California.
Department of Energy [DOE] (2005). Residential Electricity Prices: A Consumer's
Guide, Energy Information Administration, No. DOE/EIA-X061 Washington, DC.
Fuller, S. K. and Petersen, S.R. (1996). Life-Cycle Costing Manual for the Federal
Energy Management Program. NIST, Washington, DC.

Gustafsson S. I.(1990). “Energy conservation and optimal retrofits in multifamily
buildings,” Energy Systems and Policy, 14: 37-49.
Gustafsson S. I. and Karlsson B. G. (1990). “Life-cycle cost minimization
considering retrofits in multi-family residences,” Energy and Buildings, 14: 9-17.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory [LBNL] (1999). RESFEN 3.1.
<http://windows.lbl.gov/software/resfen/31/resfen31.pdf> (Oct 19, 2005).
Lippiatt, B. (1999). “Selecting Cost-Effective Green Building Products: BEES
Approach,” J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, Volume 125 (6), 448-455.
MacDonald, A.I., J.A. Clarke, P.A. Strachan. 1999. “Assessing Uncertainty In
Building Simulation,” Proceedings of Building Simulation '99, Volume 2: 683-690.
<http://www.ibpsa.org/proceedings/bs99/papers/B-21.pdf> (Oct 28, 2005).
Migliaccio, G. C., Iannone, F., Dell’Osso, G. R., and Catalano, M., “A Case Study for
Using Energy Simulation and Life-cycle Costing in Selecting Building Retrofit
Strategies,” Proceedings of INCEED 2005, GIES, Charlotte, NC, July 2005.
PKF Consulting (2005). Hotel Energy Costs; Not So Shocking News,
<http://www.hotel-online.com/News/PR2005_2nd/Jun05_EnergyCosts.html> (Oct
28, 2005).
Schaufelberger J. E. and Jacobson R. H. (2000). “Selecting Optimum Mechanical
Systems for Office Buildings,” Cost Engineering, AACE 42 (5): 40-43.
Sekhar, S C and Cher Toon, K. L. (1998). “On the study of energy performance and
life cycle cost of smart window.” Energy and Buildings, 28 (3), 307-316.
15


Life-Cycle Cost Analysis For Selection of Energy-Efficient Building Components in Lodging Facilities

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis For Selection of Energy-Efficient Building Components in Lodging Facilities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Arizona State Univ on 08/18/16. Copyright ASCE.

For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis for Selection of Energy-Efficient Building

This paper outlines a methodology for applying life-cycle cost analysis

Life-cycle Cost Analysis, Energy Simulations, Lodging Industry, Modular

Copyright ASCE 2006 AEI 2006

Copyright ASCE 2006 AEI 2006

modularized layouts, making a widespread application of LCCA feasible for building

Copyright ASCE 2006 AEI 2006

Figure 2 - Lodging Facilities by Location (derived from AHLA, 2001-2005)

This paper describes a methodology for using LCCA in selecting building

Copyright ASCE 2006 AEI 2006

Copyright ASCE 2006 AEI 2006

Figure 3 – Model Diagram

Copyright ASCE 2006 AEI 2006

facilitate the interchange of geometric, energy consumption-related, and economic

Copyright ASCE 2006 AEI 2006

Figure 4 - Building Template

Copyright ASCE 2006 AEI 2006

5 A Gliding 2 Clear Argon 0.35 0.3 803 3,212 20

Copyright ASCE 2006 AEI 2006

6 359 773 866 496 312

Copyright ASCE 2006 AEI 2006

$2,500 $2,700 $2,900 $3,100 $3,300 $3,500 $3,700

Figure 5 - Window Systems with Lowest Average LCC by Location

Copyright ASCE 2006 AEI 2006

Copyright ASCE 2006 AEI 2006

Copyright ASCE 2006 AEI 2006

allow for a widespread application of LCCA to building components selection. The

Copyright ASCE 2006 AEI 2006

Energy Management Program. NIST, Washington, DC.

Copyright ASCE 2006 AEI 2006

You might also like