Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Representativeness Analysis”

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 1,027 records · Page 57
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

2017 National Household Travel Survey - Arizona Add-On

# 2017 National Household Travel Survey – Arizona Add-On The Arizona add-on survey supplements the 2017 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) with additional household samples and detailed travel behavior for an assigned travel day. ## Data Collection Agency The Federal Highway Administration conducted the NHTS and corresponding add-on surveys. ## Methodology This survey documents the demographic, attitudinal, and travel behavior for all members of 2,987 households, as collected from April 2016 to April 2017. Daily travel details provide insight into work and school commutes, non-emergency medical trips, shopping trips, and even how travel differs in the summer and on weekends as compared to a typical weekday when school is in session. When statistically weighted to adjust for survey biases, the data demographically represents all Americans and is appropriate for analysis at the national and census region levels. ## Survey Records Survey records include a total of 6,081 participants. ## Transportation Data The NHTS Arizona add-on data package contains a demographic and socioeconomic composition of 6,081 people from 2,987 households in Arizona, as well as detailed information on the travel behavior of each household for a designated 24-hour period. The survey logged more than 258,000 vehicle miles of travel by participants during 19,779 trips. For details on available data and variable definitions, see the [data dictionary](https://www.nrel.gov/media/docs/libraries/tsdc/data-elements-2017.xlsx?sfvrsn=ad09b18c_3). Transportation data are available as zipped files. [Download Winzip](http://www.winzip.com/downwz.htm).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2025

2017 National Household Travel Survey - Arizona Add-On

# 2017 National Household Travel Survey – Arizona Add-On The Arizona add-on survey supplements the 2017 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) with additional household samples and detailed travel behavior for an assigned travel day. ## Data Collection Agency The Federal Highway Administration conducted the NHTS and corresponding add-on surveys. ## Methodology This survey documents the demographic, attitudinal, and travel behavior for all members of 2,987 households, as collected from April 2016 to April 2017. Daily travel details provide insight into work and school commutes, non-emergency medical trips, shopping trips, and even how travel differs in the summer and on weekends as compared to a typical weekday when school is in session. When statistically weighted to adjust for survey biases, the data demographically represents all Americans and is appropriate for analysis at the national and census region levels. ## Survey Records Survey records include a total of 6,081 participants. ## Transportation Data The NHTS Arizona add-on data package contains a demographic and socioeconomic composition of 6,081 people from 2,987 households in Arizona, as well as detailed information on the travel behavior of each household for a designated 24-hour period. The survey logged more than 258,000 vehicle miles of travel by participants during 19,779 trips. For details on available data and variable definitions, see the [data dictionary](https://www.nrel.gov/media/docs/libraries/tsdc/data-elements-2017.xlsx?sfvrsn=ad09b18c_3). Transportation data are available as zipped files. [Download Winzip](http://www.winzip.com/downwz.htm).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2018

Surface Seismic Monitoring of Hydraulic Fracturing Test Site (HFTS) in the Midland Basin, Texas

Low-frequency seismic events of long duration were recorded by a surface array of 48, 3-component geophones during the fracture stimulation of two offset horizontal wells in the Middle Wolfcamp Formation (8000-8100 ft. below the geophone array) at the Hydraulic Fracturing Test Site (HFTS) in Reagan County, TX. Each recorded event was approximately 5-10 seconds long, with no clear first wave arrival; the seismic energy was largely visible on the vertical component suggesting that the events are dominated by P waves. A finite temporal moveout was observed across the seismic network in event arrival times indicating a causal relationship with the local source of deformation. The low-frequency seismic events observed in this study can be distinguished from the more commonly known microseismic events by their: 1) emergent waveform, 2) lack of clear P wave and S wave arrivals, 3) longer duration (few seconds), and 4) lower-frequency energy content (10-60 Hz). Previous researchers have observed similar low-frequency, long duration events in conjunction with the hydraulic fracturing of hydrocarbon reservoirs and have referred to them as long-period, long-duration (LPLD) events in the literature. LPLD events may be important to a comprehensive understanding of fracture stimulation because these events are thought to represent: 1) movement along pre-existing discontinuities such as bedding planes and fractures/faults, 2) deformation of ductile rocks with high clay content, and 3) the jerky tensile opening of hydraulic fractures. LPLD events resulting from slow shear-slip on faults and fractures of relatively larger dimension or rupture in the clay rich rock are collectively referred to as slow-slip seismicity, which was first observed in tectonic and volcanic settings, areas with high pore pressure like hydraulically fractured reservoirs. Because LPLDs are thought to represent deformation mechanisms not captured by microseismic analysis (which dominantly indicate shear failure of brittle rock), we believe that incorporating LPLD events into a new methodology for delimiting stimulated reservoir volume might improve predictions of well production.

Kumar, Abhash↗
DOE OSTI2025

Design Assessment of Brayton Cycles for Combined Heat and Power from Nuclear Power Plants

Brayton cycles (BCs) are gaining renewed interest for use in high-temperature nuclear reactors for power production. This study explores the potential of nuclear Brayton systems in industrial combined heat and power (CHP) production. After a review of the historical deployment and technical development of BC systems for nuclear and cogeneration applications several BCs in CHP configurations are assessed when applied to representative high-temperature reactor types. The analysis emphasizes process heat delivery options, electrical efficiency, and component performance for the case of a direct cycle—Helium BC in a high temperature gas reactor, and an open-air Brayton cycle with a high temperature gas reactor. The results highlight thermodynamic trade-offs in cogeneration operation, particularly in recuperated configurations, and compare BC-based CHP with conventional Rankine cycle (RC) performance. Key findings suggest Helium BCs offer viable CHP performance primarily at lower process heat temperatures, with open air cycles being less efficient. The work also demonstrates trade-off between CHP performance and power production performance with a detailed comparison to where steam RC has better performance. The work is designed to be used as a reference work when cogeneration is proposed from high temperature reactors alongside the use of BCs.

22 - GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2012

Renewable Diesel from Algal Lipids: An Integrated Baseline for Cost, Emissions, and Resource Potential from a Harmonized Model

The U.S. Department of Energy's Biomass Program has begun an initiative to obtain consistent quantitative metrics for algal biofuel production to establish an 'integrated baseline' by harmonizing and combining the Program's national resource assessment (RA), techno-economic analysis (TEA), and life-cycle analysis (LCA) models. The baseline attempts to represent a plausible near-term productionscenario with freshwater microalgae growth, extraction of lipids, and conversion via hydroprocessing to produce a renewable diesel (RD) blendstock. Differences in the prior TEA and LCA models were reconciled (harmonized) and the RA model was used to prioritize and select the most favorable consortium of sites that supports production of 5 billion gallons per year of RD. Aligning the TEA and LCAmodels produced slightly higher costs and emissions compared to the pre-harmonized results. However, after then applying the productivities predicted by the RA model (13 g/m2/d on annual average vs. 25 g/m2/d in the original models), the integrated baseline resulted in markedly higher costs and emissions. The relationship between performance (cost and emissions) and either productivity or lipidfraction was found to be non-linear, and important implications on the TEA and LCA results were observed after introducing seasonal variability from the RA model. Increasing productivity and lipid fraction alone was insufficient to achieve cost and emission targets; however, combined with lower energy, less expensive alternative technology scenarios, emissions and costs were substantiallyreduced.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2014

Comment on T. Tokano, 2013: "Wind-induced Equatorial Bulge in Venus and Titan General Circulation Models: Implications for the Simulation of Superrotation"

According to Tokano, “Table 1 shows that the centrifugal force in Earth’s stratosphere is 5 orders of magnitude smaller than g, while it is only 4 and 3 orders of magnitude smaller on Venus and Titan, respectively . . . Thus, the relative contribution of the centrifugal force to the vertical momentum balance is not negligible at all on Titan and less negligible on Venus than on Earth, and the force balance is not accurately enough represented in hydrostatic GCMs.” But Tokano’s analysis omits an important term in Earth’s momentum balance. Inclusion of this term contradicts the implication that an atmospheric “equatorial bulge” is more important on Venus than on Earth (though he may be right that an atmospheric equatorial buldge is very important on Titan).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2014

DOE High Performance Computing Operational Review (HPCOR): Enabling Data-Driven Scientific Discovery at HPC Facilities

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) High Performance Computing (HPC) facilities are on the verge of a paradigm shift in the way they deliver systems and services to science and engineering teams. Research projects are producing a wide variety of data at unprecedented scale and level of complexity, with community-specific services that are part of the data collection and analysis workflow. On June 18-19, 2014 representatives from six DOE HPC centers met in Oakland, CA at the DOE High Performance Operational Review (HPCOR) to discuss how they can best provide facilities and services to enable large-scale data-driven scientific discovery at the DOE national laboratories. The report contains findings from that review.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2016

Modeling and simulation of high dimensional stochastic multiscale PDE systems at the exascale

Predictive Modeling of multiscale and Multiphysics systems requires accurate data driven characterization of the input uncertainties, and understanding of how they propagate across scales and alter the final solution. This project develops a rigorous mathematical framework and scalable uncertainty quantification algorithms to efficiently construct realistic low dimensional input models, and surrogate low complexity systems for the analysis, design, and control of physical systems represented by multiscale stochastic PDEs. The work can be applied to many areas including physical and biological processes, from climate modeling to systems biology.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the District of Columbia

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the District of Columbia. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Alabama

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Alabama. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Alaska

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Alaska. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Arizona

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Arizona. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Arkansas

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Arkansas. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of California

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of California. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Colorado

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Colorado. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Connecticut

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Connecticut. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Delaware

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Delaware. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Florida

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Florida. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗