Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Best”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 289 records · Page 16
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Choosing the Best Modeling Platform for Radiological Risk Assessment Models - 20468

Radiological risk assessments, in the form of performance or safety assessments, are often required under regulations or guidance for remediation of contaminated land, decommissioning of contaminated buildings or structures, and radioactive waste disposal. These risk assessments are usually supported by fate and transport models that address decay and ingrowth of radionuclides, as well as their movement through engineered systems and the natural environment. These models are often projected thousands, or more, years into the future, largely because the radioactive species change through decay and ingrowth, and hence the magnitude of the radioactive effect changes with time. There are many computer codes that are available to address this type of modeling. They range from addressing specific pathways or processes such as infiltration of water, groundwater, surface water, air, biota, diffusion and advection of water and gases, to those that try to couple all processes together to evaluate the impact of fate and transport through the entire system to places in space and time to which access is assumed. These different types of codes are sometimes separated with the monikers process-level and systems-level codes, although it is often not clear that this separation does justice to the capabilities of the many codes that are available to evaluate fate and transport of radionuclides. The focus of this paper is the latter group of modeling codes. Several systems level modeling codes exist and are used. There are differences between these codes in terms of utility, flexibility, complexity and cost. The purpose of this paper is to compare a few of these codes in the context of work currently being performed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Modeling and Data for Radiological Impact Assessments (MODARIA) II Working Group 1 (WG1). The MODARIA II WG1's main focus is how stakeholder engaged decision analysis can, or should, be applied to radiological contamination problems so that better, longstanding, sustainable, solutions are reached. However, the WG1 also recognizes the potential impact of the modeling tools that are chosen to address radiological risk, which is often a primary objective of decision making for radiological problems. Other objectives might also be important, such as constraining costs, obtaining financing, minimizing impact on ecosystems, saving cultural resources, saving jobs, farmland, environmental justice, etc., in a full decision analysis for a given radiological contamination problem, but none of these other objectives have the same types of complex modeling needs as minimize radiological dose. Consequently, a further focus of WG1 is to evaluate the potential impacts on decision making of the choice of fate and transport, and risk assessment, modeling codes that are used to support decision making. The WG1 will produce a report at the end of 2020 that will focus on an approach to effective decision making and stakeholder engagement. The report will also consider the role that performance assessment modeling should play in the decision-making process, including the impact of the choice of modeling tools or computer codes on risk-informed decision making. Several sites around the World have been made available by Member States for these model comparisons, and several modeling tools have been considered. However, the focus of this paper is on two of the sites, one in Belgium and one in Ukraine, and on three of the tools: NORMALYSA (NORM And Legacy Site Assessment); GoldSim{sup C}, and AMBER{sup C}. The final report from this working group will also cover other modeling tools, including RESRAD, and PC-Cream{sup R}. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Best practices for documenting a scientific Python project

Documentation is a crucial component of software development that helps users with installation and usage of the software. Documentation also helps onboard new developers to a software project with contributing guidelines and API information. The INTERSECT project is an open federated hardware/software library to facilitate the development of au- tonomous laboratories. A documentation strategy using Sphinx has been utilized to help developers contribute to source code and to help users understand the INTERSECT Python interface. Docstrings as well as reStructuredText files are used by Sphinx to automatically compile HTML and PDF files which can be hosted online as API documentation and user guides. The resulting documentation website is automatically built and deployed using GitLab runners to create Docker containers with NGINX servers. The approach discussed in this paper to automatically deploy documentation for a Python project can improve the user and developer experience for many scientific projects.

Wiggins, Gavin↗
DOE OSTI2024

Alfalfa Virtual Building Service: Software Engineering Best Practices Applied to Runtime Interaction with Building Energy Models

Buildings are active participants in increasingly complex energy systems. Building Energy Modeling (BEM) has a key role to play in planning and de-risking an equitable energy transition, with BEM-backed "virtual buildings" critical path for diverse applications that include workforce training tools, Hardware-in-the-Loop (HIL) experimentation to study equipment performance under a range of conditions, Control-Hardware-in-the-Loop (CHIL) experimentation to de-risk commercial control implementations at equipment through grid orchestration levels, and integration of dynamic load profiles into grid modeling tools for energy system experimentation at the urban scale. Modeling requirements vary across these applications, but many software engineering tasks do not. The Alfalfa Virtual Building Service (AVBS, see https://github.com/NREL/alfalfa/wiki) is an open-source web service that solves these common tasks robustly in one place, providing a foundational platform for power users to bootstrap their own applications. AVBS abstracts the specifics of runtime interaction with OpenStudio, Modelica, and Spawn of EnergyPlus models behind a unified REST API. Additionally, AVBS provides resources for cloud deployment and scaling to 100s of parallel simulations, a growing library of modular Operational Technology (OT) integrations for emulation of real-world interfaces, and scripts to automate the population of communities of virtual buildings from URBANopt, ResStock and ComStock.

building automation↗
DOE OSTI2024

Best Practices for Smart Grid-Interactive Efficient Building Ready Performance Contracts

Grid-interactive efficient building (GEB) measures reduce costs and optimize energy use for additional grid services by coordinating building energy loads and providing continuous demand management. Incorporating GEB energy conservation measures (ECMs) in performance contracts is reliant upon multiple factors. These factors include site selection with utility tariffs and incentives favorable to GEB, the identification of GEB as a priority in the initial stages of the contracting process, integration of GEB within comprehensive performance contracts with multiple other ECMs, and careful consideration of GEB measurement and verification (M&V) for energy savings performance contracts (ESPCs) and performance assurance for utility energy service contracts (UESCs).

building energy loads↗
DOE OSTI2024

Best Practices for Resilience in Smart Grid-Interactive Efficient Buildings

The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) supports federal agencies' energy decisions with information and guidance on design, funding, and operations to ensure federal buildings are efficient and resilient. The modernization of building infrastructure and the evolution of buildings to support decarbonization involves complex implementation of multiple components across several systems. This includes energy-efficient equipment, on-site energy generation and storage systems, and control systems. These systems have operational modes that can operate more efficiently if they are able to behave responsively to the conditions of the electrical grid. These grid-interactive efficient buildings (GEB) allow facilities to manage power demand according to operational constraints and market signals issued by grid operators. With proper design and planning, these same capabilities have the potential to enable building and facility resilience - coordinating with microgrids, maintaining power on critical circuits to sustain essential operations, and monitoring building health and safety status during an outage. By managing the load of buildings, GEBs can also reduce the cost of backup generation and make better use of renewable power sources on site. This document outlines some of the processes and considerations to guide the design and operation of GEBs in ways that promote facility resilience.

building decarbonization↗
DOE OSTI2024

The Best of Both Worlds: Combined Thermal and Battery Storage for Widespread Building Decarbonization

To meet 2050 decarbonization targets, widespread building electrification is a critical complement to clean power generation. Behind-the-meter storage (BTMS) (e.g., battery electric energy storage [EES] and thermal energy storage [TES]) integrated with buildings or building end uses to store and supply energy at optimal times can minimize burdens associated with operation, planning, and upgrades to the electrical grid sometimes triggered by building electrification. Such BTMS systems can serve the dual purpose of providing enhanced resilience at the building and grid level, and support the deployment of renewable generation needed for wide-scale decarbonization. While TES can cost-effectively shed and shift thermal loads, it cannot generally backup or shift non-thermal building end uses. EES, by contrast, is more expensive, but applicable to all end uses (i.e., thermal and electrical loads). Combined together, these storage systems can be traded off against one another to perform optimally in meeting demand flexibility, decarbonization goals, and energy resilience of the buildings at a lower total system cost. This paper proposes a framework to define BTMS benefits, provides four illustrative electrification scenarios using TES and EES, and discusses the combined TES/EES benefits with building energy modeling results. The paper also highlights potential barriers to adoption of BTMS and a path forward.

buildings↗
DOE OSTI2026

Municipal Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) Programs: Economic Benefits, Limitations, and Best Practices

Pay-as-you-throw (PAYT), also known as unit pricing or variable rate pricing, is a solid waste management system where customers pay for waste collection based on the volume or weight of waste they discard. By linking costs directly to waste generation, PAYT encourages customers to reduce waste through recycling, composting, and source reduction. This approach could support key waste management goals such as waste reduction, increased recycling, and controlling disposal costs. PAYT programs are flexible and can be customized to community needs. When implemented effectively, PAYT may also generate dedicated funding for waste services, enhancing program sustainability and stability.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Evaluation of Best Practices in Mitigating Startup Costs on Leadership-Class Supercomputers

Supercomputers at Department of Energy (DOE) National Laboratories face a widening range of workloads, from traditional modeling and simulation to Artificial Intelligence model training or complex multi-stage workflows, and beyond. At DOE Leadership Computing Facilities like the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility (OLCF), these workloads demand concurrent access to large portions of the supercomputer’s resources. Launching a job across massive supercomputers is challenging from the start; the file system struggles with a large backlog of metadata requests as tens of thousands of processes read thousands of the same files, and the compute job cannot start until this is completed. There are multiple existing approaches to calm this metadata storm, ranging from vendor-developed tools like sbcast to National Laboratory-developed tools like Spindle and Copper. In this paper, we benchmark and discuss three common approaches to improving compute job launch latencies on Frontier: Slurm’s sbcast tool, Spindle, and Copper. We evaluate these tools by measuring the launch latencies of four workloads: OSU Microbenchmark’s osu_init, Pynamic, Python import mpi4py, and Python import torch. We provide discussion of the results, highlighting data that meet expectations and that do not meet expectations.

Hagerty, Nick [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000330014414)↗