SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
This is a build guide for the MCNP ® code, version 6.3.0, that expands upon the README.md included with the source code. It covers compilers, dependencies, building, testing, and installing the code in one of its supported configurations.
This is a build guide for the MCNP® code, version 6.3.1, that expands upon the README.md included with the source code. It covers compilers, dependencies, building, testing, and installing the code in one of its supported configurations.
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.
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.
B.V. Building commissioning (Cx) is a process for assuring efficient building operations that can be applied to new construction and existing buildings, resulting in energy and non-energy benefits. Quantifying the benefits of commissioning is challenging, but a 2009 study of 643 commercial buildings provided a solid initial data set to which we added 839 additional buildings for a significantly expanded and updated meta-analysis representing 34.7 million square meters (373 million square feet) of floor area. Since 2009 the commissioning industry has continued to grow, driven by building codes, utility programs, and rising awareness of commissioning benefits. In parallel, building controls have become more sophisticated, and analytics software has emerged to assist with commissioning. We find that delivery mechanism and market segment are key determinants of outcomes, although significant and cost-effective savings are found across the spectrum. Median primary energy savings for Cx projects in existing buildings ranged from 5 percent for those conducted under utility programs, 9 percent for monitoring-based commissioning utility programs (i.e., augmented with submetering and diagnostics), and 14 percent for Cx projects outside of utility programs. Across all project types, median savings ranged from 3 percent for the lodging market segment to 16 percent for public order and safety facilities. Outcomes did not vary significantly by building size or by market segment. Energy savings are rarely estimated for new construction commissioning. We found that the median costs of Cx were lower for the 2018 sample than for the 2009 sample—$\$$2.85 per square meter ($\$$0.26 per square foot) for existing buildings (a 33 percent reduction) and $\$$8.78 per square meter ($\$$0.82 per square foot) for new construction (a reduction of almost 50 percent). The median simple payback time for existing buildings was 1.7 years, with a 25th–75th percentile range of 0.8–3.5 years. Overall, this article summarizes these and other key findings, and discusses how the 2018 data reflects shifts in commissioning practice and outcomes.
Occupants are active participants in their built environment, affecting its performance while simultaneously being affected by its design and indoor environmental conditions. With recent advances in computer modeling, simulation tools, and analysis techniques, topics such as human-building interactions and occupant behavior have gained significant interest in the literature given their premise of improving building design processes and operating strategies. In practice, the focus of occupant-centric literature has been mostly geared towards the latter (i.e., operation), leaving the implications on building design practices underexplored. This paper fills the gap by providing a critical review of existing studies applying computer-based modeling and simulation to guide occupant-centric building design. The reviewed papers are organized along four main themes, namely occupant-centric: (i) metrics of building performance, (ii) modeling and simulation approaches, (iii) design methods and applications, and (iv) supporting practices and mechanisms. Important barriers are identified for a more effective application of occupant-centric building design practices, including the limited consideration of metrics beyond energy efficiency (e.g., occupant well-being and space planning), the limited implementation and validation of the proposed methods, and the lack of integration of occupant behavior modeling in existing building performance simulation tools. Finally, future research directions are discussed, covering large-scale international data collection efforts to move from generic assumptions about occupant behavior to specific/localized knowledge, improved metrics of measuring building performance, and improved industry practices, such as building codes, to promote an occupant-in-the-loop approach to the building design process.
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.
We present the first fully open-source capabilities for shutdown dose rate (SDR) calculations of fusion energy facilities based on the Rigorous 2-Step (R2S) methodology. These capabilities have been implemented in the OpenMC Monte Carlo particle transport code, building on its existing capabilities while also leveraging new features that have been added to the code to support SDR calculations, such as decay photon source generation. Each of the individual physics components in the R2S workflow—neutron transport, activation, decay photon source generation, and photon transport—have been verified through code-to-code comparisons with MCNP6.2 and FISPACT-II 4.0. These comparisons generally demonstrate excellent agreement between codes for each of the physics components. The full cell-based R2S workflow was validated by performing a simulation of the first experimental campaign from the Frascati Neutron Generator (FNG) ITER dose rate benchmark problem from the Shielding INtegral Benchmark Archive and Database (SINBAD). For short cooling times, the dose calculated by OpenMC agrees with the experimental measurements within the stated experimental uncertainties. For longer cooling times, an overprediction of the shutdown dose was observed relative to experiment, which is consistent with previous studies in the literature. Altogether, these features constitute a combination of capabilities in a single, open-source codebase to provide the fusion community with a readily-accessible option for SDR calculations and a platform for rapidly analyzing the performance of fusion technology.
The two paths for documenting compliance with ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 are the prescriptive path and the performance path. Beyond code programs and rating systems (for example, USGBC-LEED ) are primarily known to use a third path – the Appendix G Performance Rating Method. An update in the 2016 edition of Standard 90.1 approved the Appendix G Performance Rating System for code compliance, extending its application and allowing for greater consistency of modeling rules for code and beyond code building energy modeling. The Appendix G PRM provides rules for the development of whole building energy models of baseline and proposed models for calculating the “performance cost index target” value using the simulated energy results of the baseline and proposed models and the building performance factors published in Table 4.2.1.1 of the Standard. This report documents (1) the methodology used for development of the baseline and proposed energy models of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and U.S. Department of Energy commercial building prototypes using the Appendix G Performance Rating Method; and (2) the building performance factors that were calculated using those models.
In the last decades, the accessibility to digital fabrication technologies positioned composites as an affordable, structurally efficient and low-maintenance alternative to traditional mineral-based and high-energy materials. Of special interest are carbon nanotubes (CNT) and carbon foam (CFoam) from methane and coal pyrolysis respectively, as an environmentally friendly substitute to glass and carbon fiber. This paper presents the design of a principled single-family house, as a first case study to identify the constraints of such a material system, including technology gap, techno-economic and life cycle assessment, as well as building code requirements. In turn, the investigation proposes a suitable design-to-fabrication workflow, which potentially could bring CNT and CFoam materials to the construction of buildings.
Predicting the moisture durability of building envelope components remains challenging due to multiple influencing factors, including material selection, assembly positioning, local climate conditions, air tightness, interior environment, and construction quality. Building codes increasingly emphasize energy efficiency through enhanced insulation and tighter envelopes but offer limited guidance on moisture durability considerations. Consequently, builders face uncertainty, particularly as new materials and assemblies enter the market.The Building Science Advisor (BSA) is a free, web-based expert system developed to address these challenges by providing actionable insights into the moisture durability and energy efficiency of both new and retrofit wall designs. Recently updated, we are now providing version 3.0 of the tool. BSA features significant user interface improvements, enhancing navigation and user interaction through a refreshed, intuitive design. Additionally, the tool incorporates a newly developed database containing pre-simulated wall assembly cases, significantly reducing response times and improving the accuracy of moisture durability assessments. Furthermore, the updated BSA includes moisture content as a performance criterion, providing users with a more comprehensive understanding of moisture-related durability risks. These enhancements enable rapid, reliable assessments tailored to specific climate zones and local building practices. BSA continues to offer targeted guidance on wall retrofit scenarios and delivers access to an expanded library of location-specific building science resources.This paper describes these key updates, highlighting the enhanced features, expanded capabilities, and overall improvements to user experience and educational content. The paper includes a demonstration that illustrates how the revised BSA effectively supports practitioners in designing durable, energy-efficient building envelope assemblies.
The state of Washington recently updated their current state commercial energy code, which is the 2018 Washington State Energy Code (2018 WSEC-C) to an updated version named the 2021 WSEC-C. This report assesses the life cycle costs and savings and greenhouse gas emissions impacts of the 2021 WSEC-C compared to the 2018 WSEC-C, as requested by the Washington State Building Code Council (SBCC).
The occupant-centric control (OCC) is receiving an increasing attention due to its ability to reduce building heating ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) system energy consumptions while not affecting the occupant thermal comfort. This paper aims to investigate and quantify the nationwide energy-saving potential of implementing the occupant-centric HVAC controls in typical office buildings using a whole building simulation software EnergyPlus. First, the medium office and large office from the Department of Energy (DOE) Commercial Prototype Building Models (CBPM) were enhanced to have detailed layouts and dynamic occupancy schedules. Then, a comprehensive simulation plan was created by incorporating the multiple zone-level and system-level occupant-centric building HVAC controls recommended by the updated ASHRAE Standard 90.1 – 2019 and ASHRAE Guideline 36 – 2018. Three control scenarios with different occupancy sensing methods were identified in this simulation plan. A nation-wide parametric analysis which includes two building types, three occupancy sensing scenarios, two building code versions, and 16 U.S. climate zones was carried out. The simulation results of the key control variables and HVAC energy consumption suggest that generally, both the occupancy presence sensor and occupant counting sensor could achieve energy savings for the office buildings in majority of the scenarios. However, compared with the occupancy presence sensor, which could support both the temperature setpoint reset and operational breathing zone airflow rate reset for the unoccupied zones, the occupant counting sensor only brings a marginal benefit. Besides, a higher HVAC energy-saving ratio could be achieved in the heating-dominated zone, since the energy reduction brought with the minimum outdoor airflow rate reset is stronger in the heating mode.
Almost two thirds of the residential homes in the U.S. were constructed before the Department of Energy implemented energy conservation measures that were later formalized in the building codes. To reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions from the built environment, improvement to the existing housing stock is a prerequisite. However, improvements that lower energy consumption address carbon emissions related to heating, cooling and plug loads but not the embodied carbon of the building materials that also contribute to global carbon emissions. As the enclosure is made more efficient a larger portion of total carbon emissions is embodied carbon from the building materials. To mitigate carbon emissions, a holistic approach is required so that any improvement to the home results in a net reduction in carbon emissions. To understand the overall environmental impact of building enclosure improvements, the embodied and operational carbon emissions are calculated in this investigation and compared to the overall energy savings associated with enclosure improvements. The energy savings together with a reduction in operational carbon emissions are calculated using a novel building envelope metric. The net carbon emissions are then determined before and after the energy improvement measures. This approach allows or enables architects and builders to select designs that result in maximizing the overall reduction in energy and carbon emissions.
The moisture durability of a building envelope component can be difficult to predict. It depends on the materials used, the location in the assembly, the macro- and microclimate of the building, the air tightness of the interior environment and construction quality. Modern building codes require more insulation and tighter construction but provide little guidance about how to ensure these energy-efficient assemblies are designed and built to retain moisture durability. Furthermore, as new products are introduced to the market, builders are increasingly uncertain about the long-term durability of their building envelope designs. As building envelopes get tighter and better insulated, moisture management is key to a durable and high-performing wall assembly.
Energy utilities are evaluating emerging energy technologies to reduce reliance on carbon as an energy carrier. Hydrogen has been identified as a potential substitute for carbon-based fuels that can be blended into other gaseous energy carriers, such as natural gas. However, hydrogen blending into natural gas has important implications on safety which need to be evaluated. Designers and installers of systems that utilize hydrogen gas blending into natural gas distribution systems need to adhere to local building codes and engage with the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) for safety and permitting approvals. These codes and standards must be considered to understand where safety gaps might be apparent when injecting hydrogen into the natural gas infrastructure. This report generates a list of relevant codes and standards for hydrogen blending on existing, upgraded, or new pipelines. Additionally, a preliminary assessment was made to identify the codes and standards that need to be modified to enable this technology as well as potential gaps due to the unique nature and safety concerns of gaseous hydrogen.
A virtual workshop titled "BTO Cross-Laminated Timber Workshop: Pathways and Priorities for CLT Building Systems," was held on April 19, 2021, to identify research and development pathways, including the embodied energy content, operational energy efficiency, wall moisture profiles, structural connector durability, and health monitoring systems for CLT wall systems. In the workshop, perspectives were gathered from a wide range of stakeholders across North America from academia, the mass timber industry, trade groups, and federal government departments. The participants had knowledge in one or more areas of CLT building performance, production and construction, supply and demand dynamics of CLT panels, building codes, and recycling of CLT panels. To capture potential research opportunities from the participants in the mass timber field, the workshop was structured with the following objectives: 1. Identify the research and development opportunities to overcome technology gaps, integration issues, and market adoption challenges that are currently preventing the greater deployment of CLT, and 2. Understand what priorities and pathways are needed to advance energy efficient, high- rise CLT building systems.
As energy-efficiency standards for both new construction and existing building renovations become more stringent, further reductions become less tractable and more expensive. With increasing interest and rising investment in healthy built environments, integrating energy efficiency with improved occupant experience (i.e., health, comfort, and work performance) offers a new path to drive deep energy retrofits. However, the difficulty in quantifying and verifying health and productivity gains from building upgrades leads to lower valuation of human benefits in practice. Building codes and standards have progressive energy targets but often give minimum requirements to occupant health for factors such as ventilation and thermal comfort. State and federal laws in the United States that govern the energy service performance contract (ESPC) have no clear and consistent guidance on quantifying non-energy benefits and incorporating them into a formal cost-effectiveness analysis. This paper presents a methodology to measure a building’s potential performance improvement regarding occupant health based on existing evidence correlating IEQ to occupant outcomes. Health improvement measures are integrated with a building energy model to identify and measure the impact of holistic improvement strategies. The net present value of these measures is determined based on the investment costs required to attain those improvements, energy savings, and personnel gains. We will discuss results from one pilot building, which showed nearly $50 per square foot 20-year net present value using the integrated approach.