Assessing the Thermal Performance of Building Materials for Sustainable Building Construction
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Zhang, Rui↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “Buildings”
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.
Residential Building Energy Efficiency Field Studies: Low-Rise Multifamily
In recent years, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has conducted a series of research studies to validate energy efficient building technologies in the field. Much of the work has focused on single-family construction, and some has also addressed commercial energy codes. The work detailed in this DOE-funded study (EE0007616) focuses on low-rise multifamily buildings (three stories or fewer above grade) in various regions of the United States, and reports on how state-level building codes are being implemented, both in terms of observed characteristics and also in terms of estimated energy impacts. Nearly 100 buildings across four states—Illinois, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington—were sampled, which represent a range of climate types from mild temperature to very cold continental. Both common entry and outdoor entry buildings were included, and a parallel research project evaluated envelope air tightness and current still-evolving air tightness testing methods. Finally, a set of structured interviews of building designers and other relevant professionals was carried to out to gain more insight into this market. To the greatest extent possible, the methodology developed under the project for low-rise multifamily buildings mirrored the approach established by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) for single-family residential buildings (https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/residential-building-energy-code-field-study). This included the general approach to sampling, recruitment, and data collection, as well as data analysis and presentation. The range of permitting dates for the sites encompassed two energy code cycles in most regions. All states in the study had adopted a variation of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) for the structure of their state code. The low-rise multifamily occupancy presents a hybrid building type: most of the building’s conditioned floor area was covered by the residential chapter of the code while portions of the building (such as corridors and common spaces) fell under the commercial code chapter. The key items assessed in this work were: Building Shell—exterior wall insulation, ceiling insulation, foundation insulation, windows. Common Areas—HVAC and lighting. Living Units—lighting, ventilation. A few items were not assessed in detail, given their relative paucity in this occupancy type; these included duct leakage, pipe insulation, and hot water circulation controls. Building characteristics were collected via a combination of architectural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing plan reviews and field inspections, and entered into a spreadsheet-based tool that was later queried to build a database. Data went through quality control both upon arrival and via a later semi-automated review and assurance process. Most of the data are presented graphically so that the reader can quickly assess compliance with the applicable energy codes (both by state and by code year). As a final step, EnergyPlus™ simulations were created for all buildings in the study to estimate both the as-found energy use intensity (EUI) and the energy and CO 2 that could be saved if features that were found to not meet code minimums were brought up to code. The savings estimates were tabulated for each of the four states in the study. The research team found that the single-family approach was largely applicable to low-rise multifamily buildings. This applies to both the data collection and the prototype EUI analysis. Most of the occupied space is living units and falls under residential energy codes, and many characteristics use similar envelope construction and relatively straightforward mechanical systems and lighting. One of the most challenging aspects of this work was to build an effective spreadsheet-based data collection instrument that could allow efficient collection of both building plan and field data. The research team is of the view that other methods could be equally effective if the work is done carefully with diligent quality control. The primary findings for the work center around the thermal envelope and mechanical systems and lighting at the sites: For thermal envelope components, the majority of buildings met or were better than the prescriptive code.This suggests that building designers and builders are aware of code requirements. In some cases, surveyed buildings were designed to qualify for energy efficiency certification programs. These buildings made up at least 20% of sampled buildings in each state. Almost all buildings met mechanical system efficiency requirements (for both living units and common areas). In some cases, sites employed systems that were considerably more efficient than required by the applicable energy code. Dwelling units had a majority of high-efficacy lighting, often in excess of the state’s residential code requirements. While high-efficacy fixtures were also typical in common areas (corridors and stairwells), lighting power densities (LPDs) in these areas were sometimes higher than levels dictated by the applicable part of the state commercial energy code. The simulation models run on a series of low-rise multifamily prototypes, informed by a composite of the field data collected, calculated annual EUIs of between 20 and 50 kBtu/ft2-yr, with the range representing the effects of both building characteristics and building location (climate zone). A detailed process (based on simulations of prototype buildings) was used to estimate the amount of avoided energy use that would occur if 100% adherence to energy codes were attained. The results indicated modest savings are attainable for items such as window thermal performance and common area lighting. The result is overall only a modest potential for additional energy savings, averaging about 10% of EUI.
29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
Model America: Data and Models for every U.S. Building
The 5-year goal of the “Model America” concept was to generate a model of every building in the United States. This data repository delivers on that goal with "Model America v1". Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has developed the Automatic Building Energy Modeling (AutoBEM) software suite to process multiple types of data, extract building-specific descriptors, generate building energy models, and simulate them on High Performance Computing (HPC) resources. For more information, see AutoBEM-related publications (bit.ly/AutoBEM). There were 125,715,609 buildings detected in the United States. Of this number, 122,146,671 (97.2%) buildings resulted in a successful generation and simulation of a building energy model. This dataset includes the full 125 million buildings. Future updates may include additional buildings, data improvements, or other algorithmic model enhancements in "Model America v2". This dataset contains OSM and IDF zip files for every U.S. county. Each zip file contains the generated buildings from that county. The .csv input data contains the following data fields: 1. ID - the Unique Building Identifier (UBID), generated using the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) BuildingID framework 2. Centroid - building center location in latitude/longitude (from Footprint2D) 3. Footprint2D - building polygon of 2D footprint (lat1/lon1_lat2/lon2_...) 4. State_abbr - state name 5. Area - estimate of total conditioned floor area (ft2) 6. Area2D - footprint area (ft2) 7. Height - building height (ft) 8. NumFloors - number of floors (above-grade) 9. WWR_surfaces - percent of each facade (pair of points from Footprint2D) covered by fenestration/windows (average 14.5% for residential, 40% for commercial buildings) 10. CZ - ASHRAE Climate Zone designation 11. BuildingType - DOE prototype building designation (IECC=residential) as implemented by OpenStudio-standards 12. Standard - building vintage This data is made free and openly available in hopes of stimulating any simulation-informed use case. Data is provided as-is with no warranties, express or implied, regarding fitness for a particular purpose. We wish to thank our sponsors which include Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD), U.S. Dept. of Energy’s (DOE) Building Technologies Office (BTO), Office of Electricity (OE), Biological and Environmental Research (BER), and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Update (September 23, 2025): We corrected the ID field in all state-level.csv input files to ensure one-to-one consistency with the corresponding .osm and .idf output files. The schema and file structure are unchanged; only the values in the ID column were modified. No files were added or removed, and the .zip bundles (containing .osm / .idf) are unchanged. The corrected .csv inputs were re-extracted in March 2025 from the original data generated ~ 2021 (Theta supercomputer runs), and published here to align input IDs with model outputs. Update (September 6, 2026): The Model America dataset was updated to replace the previous building ID field with the Unique Building Identifier (UBID), using the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) BuildingID framework. UBIDs provide standardized, location-based identifiers for individual building footprints and improve interoperability with other building and geospatial datasets. The data files containing the previous building identifiers were updated to include UBIDs. This update standardizes building identification; the underlying Model America building characteristics and energy simulation results were not recomputed as part of this update.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Development and Validation of Smart Building Technology Modules for Academic and Professional Education (Final Technical Report)
Smart building technologies can improve building energy efficiency and resilience, reduce carbon emissions, and provide load flexibility to the grid. However, in both college curricula and building professionals’ continuing education, there is a lack of systematic instruction on smart building technologies. Slipstream, partnering with Texas A&M University (TAMU), the Society of Building Science Educators (SBSE), and the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), developed a semester-long smart building curriculum for college students and 16 training videos for building professionals and the general public. The education and training cover the drivers and benefits of smart building technologies, key building energy systems, the latest sensor technologies and IoT devices, and focus on topics related to smart building controls (i.e., energy management information systems, smart building control platforms, cybersecurity, grid-interactive-efficient buildings [GEBs], smart building control methods, and occupant-centric control). The smart building curriculum for college students was taught at TAMU in the Spring semester of 2024 as part of the validation process. Student feedback was collected and summarized in a validation report by TAMU. The curriculum material was also reviewed by SBSE faculty who are interested in teaching smart building technology-related courses. Suggestions on revisions and better adoption of the materials by other faculty across the architectural, engineering, and construction (AEC) domains were compiled in a distinct validation report by SBSE. The SBSE validation report was used to create structured subsets of the curriculum material for adoption at different levels in different sub-disciplines. These subsets are categorized and offered on the SBSE website (https://www.sbse.org/courses/Smart-Building-Technologies). The 16 training videos for building professionals and the general public were previewed by 17 industry experts, and feedback and suggested changes were incorporated into the final version of these videos. The videos are organized into a smart building technology training course and published on the Whole Building Design Guide website (https://www.wbdg.org/ce/doe/bto/sbtt), which is hosted by the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS). Project team members created marketing materials to promote the awareness of these free, publicly available education and training resources. Outreach and marketing activities included creating short promotional videos, building project webpages, making project announcements on social media, conducting an email campaign, and directly reaching out to faculties and building professionals. This report describes the project approach, provides outlines of the training materials, along with links to resources, and identifies lessons learned in creating the content. We also suggest ways to scale the instruction of smart building concepts to empower the workforce to accelerate the adoption of smart building technologies in the real world.
99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
Model America - data and models of every U.S. building
The 5-year goal of the 'Model America' concept was to generate a model of every building in the United States. This data repository delivers on that goal. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has developed the Automatic Building Energy Modeling (AutoBEM) software suite to process multiple types of data, extract building-specific descriptors, generate building energy models, and simulate them on High Performance Computing (HPC) resources. For more information, see AutoBEM-related publications (bit.ly/AutoBEM). There were 125,714,640 buildings detected in the United States and this dataset contains 122,930,327 (97.8%) buildings which resulted in a successful simulation. Future, annual updates have been proposed that may include additional buildings, data improvements, or other algorithmic enhancements. This dataset of 122.9 million buildings includes: Models (state_county.zip) - OpenStudio (v3.1.0) and EnergyPlus (v9.4) building energy models. Please note that the download requires the free Globus Connect Personal (https://www.globus.org/globus-connect-personal); Each model has approximately 3,000 building input descriptors that can be extracted. Please see the EnergyPlus(v9.4) 2,784-page Input/Output Reference Guide (https://energyplus.net/sites/all/modules/custom/nrel_custom/pdfs/pdfs_v9.4.0/InputOutputReference.pdf) for everything that can be retrieved or simulated from these models. These models were derived from the following metadata, which is not included in this dataset: 1. ID - unique building ID 2. County - county name 3. State - state name 4. CZ - ASHRAE Climate Zone designation 5. Clim_Zone - text label of climate zone 6. est_year - estimated year of construction 7. est_commercial - estimated building type (0=residential, 1=commercial) 8. Centroid - building center location in latitude/longitude (from Footprint2D) 9. Footprint2D - building polygon of 2D footprint (lat1/lon1_lat2/lon2_...) 10. Height - building height (meters) 11. Area2D - footprint area (ft2) 12. BuildingType - DOE prototype building designation (IECC=residential) as implemented by OpenStudio-standards 13. WWR_surfaces - percent of each facade (pair of points from Footprint2D) covered by fenestration/windows (average 14.5% for residential, 40% for commercial buildings) 14. NumFloors - number of floors (above-grade) 15. Area - estimate of total conditioned floor area (ft2) 16. Standard - building vintage. These models are made free and openly available in hopes of stimulating any simulation-informed use case. Data is provided as-is with no warranties, express or implied, regarding fitness for a particular purpose. We wish to thank our sponsors which include Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD), U.S. Dept. of Energy's (DOE) Building Technologies Office (BTO), Office of Electricity (OE), Biological and Environmental Research (BER), and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). This research used resources of the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility, which is a DOE Office of Science User Facility supported under Contract DE-AC02-06CH11357. Please cite as: New, Joshua R., Adams, Mark, Bass, Brett, Berres, Anne, and Clinton, Nicholas (2021). 'Model America - data and models of every U.S. building. [Data set].' Constellation, doi.ccs.ornl.gov/ui/doi/339, April 14, 2021
24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
Data Driven Commercial Building Energy Code Compliance and Technology Inventory for New York City
Building Performance Standards (BPS) are gaining national traction. A BPS will require new processes in the design, construction, and operation of buildings that take the occupants into account and enable predictive analysis to ensure compliance with current and future GHG emissions caps. In New York City, most buildings over 25,000 square feet will be regulated by a BPS starting in 2024, regardless of whether it is new construction permitted under current energy codes or an existing building. This research is one of the first to begin the evaluation of a long-term series of building policies in the context of an open data ecosystem, in cooperation with city agencies. Existing building policies enacted in NYC have ranged from building energy benchmarking and labeling to energy audits to the regulation of GHG emission in buildings. Through the development of a dataset related to building technologies and energy consumption, this project can help to evaluate if meaningful conclusions can be drawn for the data that has been largely self-reported in compliance with city regulations. This project will also provide lessons learned from a deep dive into these types of datasets to provide best practices for municipalities or states seeking to embark on policies like those enacted in NYC. In addition, a Building Automation System (BAS) Stretch Standard of Care (SSOC) for owners, designers, and building operators will enable the measurement and predictive analysis of energy consumption and GHG emissions at the plant, system, or component level, in anticipation of regulated GHG limits on buildings based on energy use. The SSOC is expected to be suitable for use on a national level. The primary feature of an SSOC is a standardized format for a set of BAS points that can be used to control and to gather data from individual plants, systems, or components that are related to building energy consumption. This project examined how measurements compare to prescriptive or simulation-based energy code targets, finding little correlation between predictive 8760-hour energy modeling and actual energy consumption for a small sample (n=27) of buildings constructed after 2015. Other analysis found that, while large multifamily housing (MFH) buildings showed a general trend similar to predicted reductions in energy use from the implementation of model commercial energy codes, this trend was not evident in the office, K-12 school, and hotel use groups in NYC. No upward or downward trends in energy consumption were found when buildings were grouped by size. Energy audit data were analyzed and it appears that there is bias by audit company on measures recommended to clients. Further research should be performed to cross-analyze this with other attributes, such as building size, vintage, and number of stories. Analysis found that for 281 buildings that were permitted and completed after 2015 and had submitted benchmarking data in 2022, between 81% and 96% (by use group) were found to be in compliance with the 2024 to 2029 NYC BPS emission caps, and between 55% and 89% were in compliance with the 2030-2034 caps. This work is beneficial to the public in helping policymakers and building stakeholders better understand the wide-ranging implications of a BPS.
29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
Smart Building Technology Training Modules for Academic and Professional Education
Smart building technologies are a new suite of resources that improve building energy efficiency and resilience, reduce carbon emissions, and provide load flexibility to the grid. However, in both college curricula and building professionals’ continuing education, there is a lack of systematic instruction on smart building technologies–topics that include smart building concepts, key components, smart building controls, “Internet of Things” (IoT) devices, and how to integrate multiple energy systems including distributed energy resources (DER). This major gap in smart building education prevents stakeholders from understanding and adopting smart building technologies in building design and operations. Slipstream leads a DOE-funded project developing a semester-long smart building curriculum for college students and adapting the contents into 16 training videos for building professionals and the general public. The education and training cover the drivers and benefits of smart building technologies, key building energy systems, the latest sensor technologies and IoT devices, and focus on topics related to smart building controls (i.e., energy management information systems, smart building control platforms, cybersecurity, grid-interactive-efficient buildings (GEBs), smart building control methods, and occupant-centric control. This paper describes the project approach, provides outlines of the training materials, and identifies lessons learned in creating the content. We also suggest ways to scale the instruction of smart building concepts to empower the workforce to accelerate the adoption of smart building technologies in the real world.
99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
Developing Smart Building Technology Modules to Enhance Workforce Preparedness: A Case for AI-Driven Academic and Professional Education
Smart building technologies are resources that improve building energy efficiency and resilience, reduce carbon emissions, and provide load flexibility to the grid. However, in both academic curricula and building professionals’ continuing education, there is a lack of systematic instruction on methods to integrate multiple energy systems including distributed energy resources (DER), smart building technologies, AI (Artificial Intelligence) tools and key concepts, components, and controls, including “Internet of Things” (IoT) devices. In today’s dynamic workforce, this major gap in smart building technology education prevents stakeholders from being able to attract talent with an understanding and preparation to adopt smart building technologies in building design and operations. A federally funded project included a partnership between Slipstream and Texas A&M University (TAMU) to develop a semester-long smart building curriculum for engineering college students with the ability to adapt the contents for workforce development of professionals in building services. The final product consists of 16 training videos adapted for building professionals and the public. The educational content and training materials cover the benefits of building energy systems, the latest sensor technologies and IoT devices, all with a focus on smart building technologies. The key drivers are on topics related to smart building controls (i.e., energy management information systems), smart building control platforms, cybersecurity, grid-interactive-efficient buildings (GEBs), smart building control methods, and occupant-centric control. Although not explicitly included the technologies nod to the need for AI driven technologies to prepare engineers and industry professionals to be future ready. This paper describes the project approach, provides outlines of the training materials, and identifies lessons learned in creating the content for this course. The authors suggest ways to scale the instruction of smart building concepts to empower the workforce to accelerate the adoption of smart building technologies and AI-based teaching and learning in higher education and building sector.
99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
Whole-building life-cycle analysis with a new GREET® tool: Embodied greenhouse gas emissions and payback period of a LEED-Certified library
Embodied greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of building components and buildings operations need to be quantified to holistically address building sustainability. To evaluate embodied GHG emissions of buildings and to provide insights on building materials and building design decisions toward decarbonization, we have recently created a building life-cycle assessment (LCA) module in the widely used Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Technologies (GREET (R)) LCA model. We applied the GREET building LCA module to examine embodied GHG impacts and the payback period of a LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certified public library in Chicago, USA. We developed localized, detailed life-cycle inventories to address individual building materials used in the library. We expanded the LCA system boundary to include the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing system, as well as refrigerant impacts, which are often ignored in previous studies. Results show that the total embodied GHG emissions are approximately 817 metric tons, or approximately 538 kg/m 2 . Sensitivity analysis highlights the positive role of increasing the use of recycled materials for reducing embodied GHG emissions. Sensitivity analysis on embodied GHG emissions payback periods shows the need to benchmark the embodied and operational carbon performance of buildings for comparison to alternative building designs and sustainability practices. Furthermore, this analysis demonstrates that building LCA models, such as the GREET building LCA module, which addresses embodied and operational GHG emission impacts of whole buildings holistically, could empower building architects, technology developers, manufacturers, and general contractors to address embodied and operational impacts holistically for building sustainability.
32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
Mitigation for Removal of Building 01-103 in the Area 1 Subdock, Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada
Building 01-103, the Drill Bit Repair Building was originally recorded as SHPO Resource No. B18848 in 2020 during an architectural survey of the Area 1 Subdock (Collins et al. 2022). It was recommended individually eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A and C and contributing to the significance of the Area 1 Subdock Historic District. The SHPO concurred with these determinations in a letter dated April 29, 2022 (Reed 2022). The Drill Bit Repair Building retains all seven aspects of integrity. The location, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association have not changed since its original construction. The design was modified slightly in 1996 with the addition of a removable and non-destructive chain-link fence. Nearby buildings 01-101 and 01-102 were removed (Collins and Menocal 2020) but the other buildings and storage yards remain. Therefore, the integrity of setting has been changed, but not to the degree that the building no longer conveys its significance (see Figures 4 and 5 for comparison). Building 01-103 was constructed in 1985 to coincide with the relocation of the Area 3 Subdock to Area 1. The design for the new Subdock provided a centralized cluster of buildings surrounded by two large storage yards. The buildings included administrative and engineering office space, warehouses, a radiograph building, and Building 01-103 as the drill bit maintenance and repair building, among others. The Drill Bit Repair Building was critical to the success of underground nuclear testing and is eligible under Criterion A for its contribution to broad patterns of history by maintaining specially designed equipment for underground nuclear testing at the NNSS. It is also eligible under Criterion C as it is the only recorded example of a facility built specifically for the maintenance of big-hole drill bits on the NNSS. As it retains both significance and integrity, it remains individually eligible under Criteria A and C. In addition to its individual significance, the Drill Bit Repair Building also contributes to the significance of the Area 1 Subdock Historic District as a representative of a big-hole drilling support facility necessary for underground nuclear testing. The building and the equipment therein were designed specifically for testing at the NNSS, where much of the early technology and methods for big-hole drilling were developed. Its removal will result in not only the demolition of a contributing element but also a change in the physical features of the district’s setting that contribute to its historic significance. The change in setting will diminish the district’s integrity. However, the district still contains numerous examples of other buildings constructed for the purpose of supporting big-hole drilling and remains eligible under Criteria A and C.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Design Requirements and Software Specification for the Autonomous Energy Management Software System for Small Commercial Buildings
Commercial buildings are responsible for approximately 20 percent of the total United States energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Over 85 percent of these buildings lack building automation systems. Many of these buildings are small (<50,000 square feet), underserved, and use rooftop units for heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning needs. Because these buildings lack proper energy management systems, they have several operational deficiencies that lead to excess energy consumption. Studies have shown that managing the rooftop units heating and cooling set points, schedules, setbacks, and optimal start can result in 20 to 25 percent reduction in electricity consumption in small commercial buildings. In addition, improving demand flexibility of these buildings will result additional cost savings for the building owner. Therefore, the Department of Energy’s Building Technologies Office approved a project to address the needs for small commercial buildings. The project is led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) with Intellimation LLC as the cooperative research and development agreement partner. The primary goal of the project is to develop and validate an autonomous energy management software (AEMS) system that will continuously optimize small commercial building operations by minimizing energy consumption and cost, while providing a solution for maximizing decarbonization benefits from electrification of buildings. The work will leverage the vast experience of PNNL research and development staff who have over two decades of experience in developing and successfully transferring software technologies to the private sector. This solution will be jointly developed with Intellimation, a company that plans to use it to scale their building energy efficiency (EE) and grid services offering. Widespread deployment of the AEMS system will improve the EE and demand flexibility of the building commercial building stock. It should also support cities and states in meeting their climate change mitigation goals. This document describes the various EE and grid service features of the AEMS system, infrastructure and data required to implement those features, and how the features should be automated. It also details how the various features will be tested and validated, including field validation. The document also details what flexibility the users have and how they will be able to leverage those capabilities exercise those. The intent is to create an AEMS system that would support scalable deployment, requires minimal configuration, and is easy to maintain over its expected lifespan. The initial alpha release of AEMS system is planned for March 2023, and the beta release is planned for the summer of 2023. The final release is planned for March 2024. Section 2 of the report documents the relevant building types that AEMS is suitable for. Section 3 documents EE features that will be supported. It will also include the data requirements, hardware requirements, implementation details, and how EE features will be tested and validated. Grid service features will be documented in section 4, including data requirements, hardware requirements, implementation details, and how the services will be tested and validated. Planned next steps are described in section 5.
32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
An overview of data tools for representing and managing building information and performance data
Building information modeling (BIM) has been widely adopted for representing and exchanging building data across disciplines during building design and construction. However, BIM's use in the building operation phase is limited. With the increasing deployment of low-cost sensors and meters, as well as affordable digital storage and computing technologies, growing volumes of data have been collected from buildings, their energy services systems, and occupants. Such data are crucial to help decision makers understand what, how, and when energy is consumed in buildings—a critical step to improving building performance for energy efficiency, demand flexibility, and resilience. However, practical analyses and use of the collected data are very limited due to various reasons, including poor data quality, ad-hoc representation of data, and lack of data science skills. To unlock value from building data, there is a strong need for a toolchain to curate and represent building information and performance data in common standardized terminologies and schemas, to enable interoperability between tools and applications. This study selected and reviewed 24 data tools based on common use cases of data across the building life cycle, from design to construction, commissioning, operation, and retrofits. The selected data tools are grouped into three categories: (1) data dictionary or terminology, (2) data ontology and schemas, and (3) data platforms. The data are grouped into ten typologies covering most types of data collected in buildings. This study resulted in five main findings: (1) most data representation tools can represent their intended data typologies well, such as Green Button for smart meter data and Brick schema for metadata of sensors in buildings and HVAC systems, but none of the tools cover all ten types of data; (2) there is a need for data schemas to represent the basis of design data and metadata of occupant data; (3) standard terminologies such as those defined in BEDES are only adopted in a few data tools; (4) integrating data across various stages in the building life cycle remains a challenge; and (5) most data tools were developed and maintained by different parties for different purposes, their flexibility and interoperability can be improved to support broader use cases. Finally, recommendations for future research on building data tools are provided for the data and buildings community based on the FAIR principles to make data Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable.
32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
Automated pipeline framework for processing of large-scale building energy time series data
Commercial buildings account for one third of the total electricity consumption in the United States and a significant amount of this energy is wasted. Therefore, there is a need for “virtual” energy audits, to identify energy inefficiencies and their associated savings opportunities using methods that can be non-intrusive and automated for application to large populations of buildings. Here we demonstrate virtual energy audits applied to large populations of buildings’ time-series smart-meter data using a systematic approach and a fully automated Building Energy Analytics (BEA) Pipeline that unifies, cleans, stores and analyzes building energy datasets in a non-relational data warehouse for efficient insights and results. This BEA pipeline is based on a custom compute job scheduler for a high performance computing cluster to enable parallel processing of Slurm jobs. Within the analytics pipeline, we introduced a data qualification tool that enhances data quality by fixing common errors, while also detecting abnormalities in a building’s daily operation using hierarchical clustering. We analyze the HVAC scheduling of a population of 816 buildings, using this analytics pipeline, as part of a cross-sectional study. With our approach, this sample of 816 buildings is improved in data quality and is efficiently analyzed in 34 minutes, which is 85 times faster than the time taken by a sequential processing. The analytical results for the HVAC operational hours of these buildings show that among 10 building use types, food sales buildings with 17.75 hours of daily HVAC cooling operation are decent targets for HVAC savings. Overall, this analytics pipeline enables the identification of statistically significant results from population based studies of large numbers of building energy time-series datasets with robust results. These types of BEA studies can explore numerous factors impacting building energy efficiency and virtual building energy audits. This approach enables a new generation of data-driven buildings energy analysis at scale.
36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
Hierarchical Model-Free Transactive Control of Building Loads to Support Grid Services
Residential buildings consume 4.4 quads of electricity annually, approximately 37% of the total electricity consumption in the United States. This represents a vast resource that can be used for demand management and other ancillary services. This project aims to develop a robust, scalable hierarchical transactional control mechanism incorporating elements of model-free control (MFC) and game theory to harness buildings to provide ancillary services to the grid. This approach is being taken to address the challenges of incorporating traditional transactional control schemes into existing buildings. The challenges include small individual building sizes requiring aggregation of many buildings, unpredictable energy usage that makes model identification difficult, and satisfying the sensitive occupant comfort constraints. In the proposed approach, by separating the control mechanism into two layers above and below the load aggregator, MFC can be used below the aggregator to modulate flexible building loads in response to pricing signals with guaranteed performance. This allows the burden of identifying an accurate model of the system to be shifted to the above-aggregator layer, where fluctuations in individual building usage have less impact on predicted building system behavior. Game theory concepts can then be used to determine pricing curves and control signals among regional aggregators. Managing this control in a game-theoretic approach will allow us to build in financial incentives that increase customer engagement. Additionally, the usage of MFC necessitates less burdensome computational and communication requirements, thus, it is easily deployable on small, embedded devices. In a broader sense, developing a strategy capable of effectively incorporating residential and small commercial buildings will allow greater throughput of existing and emerging grid services in addition to future transactive energy grid management methods. Using MFC within a hierarchical control architecture will allow the shifting of existing forecasting challenges to an aggregate level, where dynamics are slower and more predictable. This will enable a smooth interface between the grid services requests of utilities and the reliable control required by participating buildings. MFC, which supports distributed control architecture, permits a scalable solution that can be deployed to neighborhood-size systems as well as individual buildings. This project focuses on three objectives: (1) developing the mathematical framework, algorithm toolkit, and software toolset of the two-layer transactive control testbed; (2) developing a scalable solution for application over many residential and small-size commercial buildings with sparse distributed communication; and (3) field testing and implementation on hardware of the control strategies developed in the previous two objectives. The research and development activities are focused and designed to be impactful within the relevant 2025 targets timeframe. An open-source control framework for exploiting variability and dispatchability of building loads will be delivered as the outcome of the project. This capability enables greater participation of loads in electricity markets and ancillary services that are both useful for the utility and financially beneficial for building owners.
29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
Building Performance Standards and Energy Code Alignment - Technical Brief
Building energy codes focus on building design, construction and renovation and have significantly increased building efficiency since the first national energy code was published in 1975. Most jurisdictions have energy codes based on ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 (hereto referred to as Standard 90.1) and the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). Compliance options available in these model energy codes include a prescriptive path, whole building performance paths – including IECC Total Building Performance (TBP), Standard 90.1 Energy Cost Budget (ECB) method and Performance Rating Method (PRM) – and system performance paths for envelope and heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning systems. Building performance standard (BPS) policies are an emerging policy tool used by jurisdictions to reduce the operational energy use or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the existing commercial building stock. BPS policies vary widely between jurisdictions and are tailored to each location’s climate and energy goals. Intuitively, projects that met a recent edition of the energy code should comply with the BPS targets. However, some new buildings may struggle with meeting the BPS for the following reasons: 1. Energy codes focus on the design of the building and its projected ability to perform efficiently, while BPS compliance is dependent on the actual ongoing performance of the building, considering variables like occupancy, operation, and maintenance. 2. There are significant differences in the methodologies used to determine BPS compliance versus code compliance, including how each handles compliance metrics, handling of building amenities, and renewable energy generation. 3. The prescriptive compliance path in the energy code is based on performance of individual building components, as opposed to the performance compliance path which accounts for holistic building design strategies and interdependent building systems. This can result in a significant variability in post-occupancy performance for buildings built using the prescriptive path. Designs on the lower end of the permitted efficiency range may struggle with meeting the BPS.
32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
Energy Savings Results from Small Commercial Building Retrofits in the US
Small commercial buildings, or those comprising less than 50,000 square feet of floor area, represent 94% of U.S commercial buildings by count and consume approximately 8% of the nation’s primary energy; as such, they represent a largely unexploited opportunity for energy savings. Small commercial buildings also represent a large economic market—the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) estimated the small commercial retrofit market at USD 35.6 billion. Despite the prominence of small commercial buildings and the economic opportunity for energy retrofits, many energy efficiency programs focus on large commercial buildings, and create efficiency solutions that do not meet the needs of the small commercial market. This paper presents an analysis of 34 small commercial case study projects that implemented energy efficiency retrofits. This paper contributes to the existing building retrofit body of knowledge in the following ways: (1) it identifies the decision criteria used by small commercial building stakeholders that decided to complete an energy retrofit; (2) it identifies the most commonly implemented efficiency measures in small commercial buildings, and discusses why this is the case; and (3) it provides empirical evidence about the efficacy of installing single energy efficiency measures (EEMs) compared to packages of EEMs in small commercial buildings by reporting verified energy savings. To the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to catalog decision criteria and energy savings for the existing small commercial buildings market, and this research illustrates that small commercial building decision-makers seem most motivated to retrofit their spaces by energy cost savings and operational concerns. Furthermore, small commercial building decision-makers opted to implement single-system retrofits in fifteen (15) of the thirty-four cases studied. Finally, this research documents the improved savings, in the small commercial buildings market, associated with a more integrated package of EEMs compared to a single-system approach, achieving approximately 10% energy savings for a single-system approach and more than 20% energy savings for integrated approaches. These savings translate to CO2 savings of 1,324,000 kgCO2/year to 2,647,000 kgCO2/year, respectively, assuming small commercial buildings are retrofit at a rate of 0.95% of the stock annually.
24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
An assessment of power flexibility from commercial building cooling systems in the United States
Understanding varying characteristics and aggregate potential of power flexibility from different building types considering regional diversity is critically important to actively engaging building resources in future eco-friendly, low-cost, and sustainable power systems. This paper presents a comprehensive characteristics analysis and potential assessment of the power flexibility from heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) loads in commercial buildings in the U.S. using a simulation-based method. In this method, commercial buildings are first grouped by building types and climate regions. The U.S. Department of Energy Commercial Prototype Building Models are used to represent an average building in each group and are simulated to characterize corresponding power flexibility. Based on building survey data, the number of commercial buildings in each group is estimated and used to calculate aggregate power flexibility. It is found that HVAC loads in commercial buildings offer more flexibility for increasing power consumption than for decreasing it. The power consumption of commercial buildings in the U.S. can be increased by 46 GW and decreased by 40 GW on peak summer days. Among all commercial building types, standalone retail buildings provide the most absolute flexibility while the medium office buildings have the most flexibility as a percentage of the rated power consumption.
32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
Ambient energy for buildings: Beyond energy efficiency
The following Key Messages comprise the salient findings of this study: 1. Ambient energy (from sun, air, ground, and sky) can heat and cool buildings; provide hot water, ventilation and daylighting; dry clothes; and cook food. These services account for about three-quarters of building energy consumption and a third of total US demand. Biophilic design (direct and indirect connections with nature) is an intrinsic adjunct to ambient energy systems, and improves wellness and human performance. 2. The current strategy of electrification and energy efficiency for buildings will not meet our climate goals, because the transition to an all-renewable electric grid is too slow. Widespread adoption of ambient energy is needed. Solar-heated buildings also flatten the seasonal demand for electricity compared to all-electric buildings, reducing required production capacity and long-term energy storage. In addition, ambient-conditioned buildings improve resilience by remaining livable during power outages. 3. National policies, incentives, and marketing should be enacted to promote ambient energy use. Federal administrative priorities should reflect the importance of ambient energy for buildings. Use of ambient energy should be encouraged through existing and new building codes and standards. 4. Ambient energy system design tools are needed for architects, engineers, builders, building scientists, realtors, appraisers, and consumers. PVWatts is used over 100 million times per year for photovoltaic system design. A similar, simple, and accessible tool for ambient design is crucial. 5. Training on ambient energy is needed throughout secondary, post-secondary, and continuing education for workforce development. Currently, only about 10% of colleges teach courses on passive heating and cooling systems. 6. Ambient-conditioned buildings should be demonstrated in all US climate zones. Performance should be monitored and reported, with quantitative case studies made widely available. 7. While current technology is sufficient to build high-performance ambient buildings now, research is needed to develop new technologies to harness ambient energy more effectively and more economically. Such advancements will facilitate adoption of ambient energy technologies in a wider range of buildings, including retrofits. Examples include windows with much lower thermal losses, use of the building shell as thermal storage, alternative light-weight thermal storage systems, sky radiation cooling systems, automated controls for solar gains and passive cooling, and ground coupling.
14 SOLAR ENERGY↗