Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “view factor models”

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.

116 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Aerosol hygroscopicity over the southeast Atlantic Ocean during the biomass burning season – Part 1: From the perspective of scattering enhancement​​​​​​​

Aerosol hygroscopicity plays a vital role in aerosol radiative forcing. One key parameter describing hygroscopicity is the scattering enhancement factor, f(RH), defined as the ratio of the scattering coefficient at humidified relative humidity (RH) to its dry value. Here, we utilize the f(80 %) from ORACLES (ObseRvations of Aerosols above CLouds and their intEractionS) 2016 and 2018 airborne measurements to investigate the hygroscopicity of aerosols, its vertical distribution, its relationship with chemical composition, and its sensitivity to organic aerosol (OA) hygroscopicity over the southeast Atlantic (SEA) Ocean during the biomass burning (BB) season. We found that aerosol hygroscopicity remains steady above 2 km, with a mean f(80 %) of 1.40 ± 0.17. Below 2 km, aerosol hygroscopicity increases with decreasing altitude, with a mean f(80 %) of 1.51 ± 0.22, consistent with higher values of BB aerosol hygroscopicity found in the literature. The hygroscopicity parameter of OA (κ OA ) is retrieved from the Mie model with a mean value of 0.11 ± 0.08, which is in the middle to upper range compared to the literature. Higher OA hygroscopicity is related to aerosols that are more aged, oxidized, and present at lower altitudes. The enhanced biomass burning aerosol (BBA) hygroscopicity at lower altitudes is mainly due to a lower OA fraction, increased sulfate fraction, and greater κ OA at lower altitudes. We propose a parameterization that quantifies f(RH) with chemical composition and κOA based on Mie simulation of internally mixed OA–(NH 4 ) 2 SO 4 –BC mixtures. The good agreement between the predictions and the ORACLES measurements implies that the aerosols in the SEA during the BB season can be largely represented by the OA–(NH 4 ) 2 SO 4 –BC internal mixture with respect to the f(RH) prediction. The sensitivity of f(RH) to κ OA indicates that applying a constant κ OA is only suitable when the OA fraction is low and κ OA shows limited variation. However, in situations deviating these two criteria, κ OA can notably impact scattering coefficients and aerosol radiative effect; therefore, accounting for κ OA variability is recommended.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations This dataset contains model projections of new data center facilities in the contiguous United States (CONUS) through 2035 using the CERF – Data Centers model. Data center locations are modeled across four data center electricity demand growth scenarios (low, moderate, high, higher) and five market gravity scenarios (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). Projected locations are intended to be regional representations of feasible siting locations in the future to assess potential grid and water stress impacts. The data center load growth scenarios correspond with the rates outlined in EPRI (2024) and include 3.71%, 5%, 10%, and 15% annual growth of electricity demand for data centers from 2023 values in 37 states across the CONUS. Market gravity scenarios correspond to the relative importance of proximity to data center markets or high population areas compared to locational cost in the siting algorithm. 0% market gravity means that siting decisions were entirely determined by the locational cost in each feasible location. 100% market gravity means that only market proximity was considered when siting. Other scenarios have weight placed on both components where total weight always equals 100%. Locational cost is dependent on facility cooling type and corresponding electricity cost, taxes, and other factors. Facility cooling type is spatially determined where high water stress and/or areas with high summer wet bulb temperatures are assumed to operate with mechanical cooling for a higher fraction of the year rather than evaporative cooling. Feasible data center siting areas are based on geospatial suitability raster data developed with open-source information. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m of a federal airport runway Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands Because we use open-source information, proprietary information that can influence siting decisions such as individual tax agreements with cities, detailed fiber line connectivity, electric grid power capacity agreements, and others, are not currently accounted for in the modeling process. Using specific building locations and footprints in the dataset for local planning purposes is not advised. Technical Information Geospatial data is provided in geojson format using the Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) coordinate reference system. The datasets contain the following parameters: id - unique identification number within given scenario file growth_scenario – data center demand growth scenario market_gravity_weight – market gravity weight scenario (%) region – name of region (i.e., US State) total_cost_million_usd – locational siting cost ($million) campus_size_square_ft – total land acquired for data center facility (square ft) data_center_it_power_mw – IT power of data center facility (MW) mechanical_cooling_frac – fraction of year when data center uses mechanical cooling system water_cooling_frac– fraction of year when data center uses evaporative cooling system cooling_energy_demand_mwh – total annual facility energy demand for cooling (MWh) cooling_water_demand_mgy – total annual facility water demand for cooling (MG) cooling_water_consumption_mgy – total annual facility water consumed (MG) normalized_locational_cost – normalized total locational cost score for location normalized_gravity_score – normalized market gravity score for location weighted_siting_score – total weighted siting score of locational cost and gravity score geometry – polygon geometry of facility Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4.0 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall (ORCID:0000000328077088)↗
DOE OSTI2026

NASA’s Pandora SmallSat Mission: Simulating the Impact of Stellar Photospheric Heterogeneity and Its Correction

Stellar photospheric heterogeneity is a dominant astrophysical systematic impacting exoplanet transmission spectroscopy. NASA’s Pandora SmallSat Mission is designed to address this challenge through contemporaneous visible-band photometry and near-infrared spectroscopy of exoplanet host stars. Here, we present an end-to-end simulation study quantifying Pandora’s ability to infer stellar photospheric properties and correct stellar contamination using out-of-transit observations. We construct eight representative stellar activity scenarios and generate 160 simulated Pandora datasets, incorporating time-dependent stellar spectra, instrument response, and noise. Given accurate models, Bayesian retrievals of joint visible photometry (0.4–0.7 μm) and near-infrared spectroscopy (0.9–1.6 μm, R ≈ 120) recover photospheric temperatures with typical uncertainties of ≈30 K, with no significant bias. Models with two spectral components (i.e., a quiescent photosphere and spots) are strongly favored in 95% of cases; one-component models are preferred when true spot filling factors fall below a detection threshold of ≈0.3%. We propagate the true and inferred stellar parameters to compute true, inferred, and residual contamination signals under physically motivated spot geometries. For simple spot distributions, contamination signals of 10 2 –10 3 ppm are reduced to ≲10 ppm—well below Pandora’s expected transmission spectroscopy precision (30–100 ppm). For more complex spot distributions, geometric degeneracies limit deterministic corrections, leaving residual contamination at the 10 3 ppm level that must be mitigated using additional constraints, such as spot-crossing events and joint stellar–planetary retrievals of transmission spectra. These results define regimes in which stellar contamination can be corrected from stellar observations alone and show how Pandora stellar observations can identify cases where additional information is required.

Astronomy and AstroPhysics↗
DOE OSTI2025

Package Data for CERF-Data Centers

This dataset contains sample input 100m resolution raster files for running the CERF-DC python package (see https://github.com/IMMM-SFA/cerf_data_centers) at the state level across the CONUS. Due to data availability constraints, some of the items included in this dataset are proxies or assumptions for siting factors used in the model. These are individually noted in the item descriptions and can be exchanged with more detailed information upon availability. Data Descriptions The following raster files are included in the data download: state_siting_region.tif — State areas identified by state FIPS code composite_siting_suitability.tif — Value of 1 indicates suitable siting location, 0 otherwise. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300m of a federal airport runway Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds Developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from developed lands land_value_dollar_per_sqft.tif — USD per square foot (sqft) derived from USDA $/acre land cost personal_property_tax_rate.tif — Personal property tax rate by state. Uses an assumed 0.0125 personal property tax rate for states with personal property tax, 0 for states without personal property tax. real_property_tax_rate.tif — Real property tax rate. Based on county level residential real estate property tax rates. sales_tax_rate.tif — Sales tax rate by state. mechanical_cooling_fraction.tif — Fraction of year (values between 0 and 1, inclusive) that the data center would be cooled through mechanical processes based on local water stress and humidity levels. water_cooling_fraction.tif — Fraction of year (values between 0 and 1, inclusive) that the data center would be cooled through evaporative (water cooled) processes based on local water stress and humidity levels. distance_to_substation.tif — Distance to nearest substation in hundreds of meters (i.e., value of 1 equals a distance of 100m). Offshore areas have a value of 0. industrial_electricity_rates_dollar_per_kwh.tif — USD/kWh industrial electricity rates. Represents the average industrial rate across all utilities that operate within a given county. Values are derived from the US Utility Rate Database. commercial_electricity_rates_dollar_per_kwh.tif — USD/kWh commercial electricity rates. Represents the average commercial rate across all utilities that operate within a given county. Values are derived from the US Utility Rate Database. data_center_market_locations.tif — Grid cells with positive values represent the centroid of existing data center market clusters. The value of non-zero grid cells represents the number of data centers in the market cluster. All other grid cells have a value of 0. Geospatial Metadata CRS: Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) Extent: -2415585.0000000023283064,-1441981.2605773280374706 : 2384414.9999999976716936,1708018.7394226719625294 Dimensions: X: 48000 Y: 31500 Bands: 1 Origin: -2415585.0000000023283064,1708018.7394226719625294 Pixel Size: 100,-100 Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4.0 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall↗
DOE OSTI2026

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations This dataset contains model projections of new data center facilities in the contiguous United States (CONUS) through 2035 using the CERF – Data Centers model. Data center locations are modeled across four data center electricity demand growth scenarios (low, moderate, high, higher) and five market gravity scenarios (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). Projected locations are intended to be regional representations of feasible siting locations in the future to assess potential grid and water stress impacts. The data center load growth scenarios correspond with the rates outlined in EPRI (2024) and include 3.71%, 5%, 10%, and 15% annual growth of electricity demand for data centers from 2023 values in 37 states across the CONUS. Market gravity scenarios correspond to the relative importance of proximity to data center markets or high population areas compared to locational cost in the siting algorithm. 0% market gravity means that siting decisions were entirely determined by the locational cost in each feasible location. 100% market gravity means that only market proximity was considered when siting. Other scenarios have weight placed on both components where total weight always equals 100%. Locational cost is dependent on facility cooling type and corresponding electricity cost, taxes, and other factors. Facility cooling type is spatially determined where high water stress and/or areas with high summer wet bulb temperatures are assumed to operate with mechanical cooling for a higher fraction of the year rather than evaporative cooling. Feasible data center siting areas are based on geospatial suitability raster data developed with open-source information. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m of a federal airport runway or within an airport area boundary Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) GAP status 1, 2, or 3 areas US National Parks Wetlands USFWS critical habitats BIA land areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands Because we use open-source information, proprietary information that can influence siting decisions such as individual tax agreements with cities, detailed fiber line connectivity, electric grid power capacity agreements, and others, are not currently accounted for in the modeling process. Using specific building locations and footprints in the dataset for local planning purposes is not advised. Technical Information Geospatial data is provided in geojson format using the Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) coordinate reference system. The datasets contain the following parameters: id - unique identification number within given scenario file growth_scenario – data center demand growth scenario market_gravity_weight – market gravity weight scenario (%) region – name of region (i.e., US State) total_cost_million_usd – locational siting cost ($million) campus_size_square_ft – total land acquired for data center facility (square ft) data_center_it_power_mw – IT power of data center facility (MW) mechanical_cooling_frac – fraction of year when data center uses mechanical cooling system water_cooling_frac– fraction of year when data center uses evaporative cooling system cooling_energy_demand_mwh – total annual facility energy demand for cooling (MWh) cooling_water_demand_mgy – total annual facility water demand for cooling (MG) cooling_water_consumption_mgy – total annual facility water consumed (MG) normalized_locational_cost – normalized total locational cost score for location normalized_gravity_score – normalized market gravity score for location weighted_siting_score – total weighted siting score of locational cost and gravity score geometry – polygon geometry of facility Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4.0 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall (ORCID:0000000328077088)↗
DOE OSTI2024

Overview of ASDEX upgrade results in view of ITER and DEMO

Experiments on ASDEX Upgrade (AUG) in 2021 and 2022 have addressed a number of critical issues for ITER and EU DEMO. A major objective of the AUG programme is to shed light on the underlying physics of confinement, stability, and plasma exhaust in order to allow reliable extrapolation of results obtained on present day machines to these reactor-grade devices. Concerning pedestal physics, the mitigation of edge localised modes (ELMs) using resonant magnetic perturbations (RMPs) was found to be consistent with a reduction of the linear peeling-ballooning stability threshold due to the helical deformation of the plasma. Conversely, ELM suppression by RMPs is ascribed to an increased pedestal transport that keeps the plasma away from this boundary. Candidates for this increased transport are locally enhanced turbulence and a locked magnetic island in the pedestal. The enhanced D-alpha (EDA) and quasi-continuous exhaust (QCE) regimes have been established as promising ELM-free scenarios. Here, the pressure gradient at the foot of the H-mode pedestal is reduced by a quasi-coherent mode, consistent with violation of the high-n ballooning mode stability limit there. This is suggestive that the EDA and QCE regimes have a common underlying physics origin. In the area of transport physics, full radius models for both L- and H-modes have been developed. These models predict energy confinement in AUG better than the commonly used global scaling laws, representing a large step towards the goal of predictive capability. A new momentum transport analysis framework has been developed that provides access to the intrinsic torque in the plasma core. In the field of exhaust, the X-Point Radiator (XPR), a cold and dense plasma region on closed flux surfaces close to the X-point, was described by an analytical model that provides an understanding of its formation as well as its stability, i.e., the conditions under which it transitions into a deleterious MARFE with the potential to result in a disruptive termination. With the XPR close to the divertor target, a new detached divertor concept, the compact radiative divertor, was developed. Here, the exhaust power is radiated before reaching the target, allowing close proximity of the X-point to the target. No limitations by the shallow field line angle due to the large flux expansion were observed, and sufficient compression of neutral density was demonstrated. With respect to the pumping of non-recycling impurities, the divertor enrichment was found to mainly depend on the ionisation energy of the impurity under consideration. In the area of MHD physics, analysis of the hot plasma core motion in sawtooth crashes showed good agreement with nonlinear 2-fluid simulations. This indicates that the fast reconnection observed in these events is adequately described including the pressure gradient and the electron inertia in the parallel Ohm’s law. Concerning disruption physics, a shattered pellet injection system was installed in collaboration with the ITER International Organisation. Thanks to the ability to vary the shard size distribution independently of the injection velocity, as well as its impurity admixture, it was possible to tailor the current quench rate, which is an important requirement for future large devices such as ITER. Progress was also made modelling the force reduction of VDEs induced by massive gas injection on AUG. The H-mode density limit was characterised in terms of safe operational space with a newly developed active feedback control method that allowed the stability boundary to be probed several times within a single discharge without inducing a disruptive termination. Regarding integrated operation scenarios, the role of density peaking in the confinement of the ITER baseline scenario (high plasma current) was clarified. The usual energy confinement scaling ITER98(p,y) does not capture this effect, but the more recent H20 scaling does, highlighting again the importance of developing adequate physics based models. Advanced tokamak scenarios, aiming at large non-inductive current fraction due to non-standard profiles of the safety factor in combination with high normalised plasma pressure were studied with a focus on their access conditions. A method to guide the approach of the targeted safety factor profiles was developed, and the conditions for achieving good confinement were clarified. Based on this, two types of advanced scenarios (‘hybrid’ and ‘elevated’

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Package Data for CERF-Data Centers

This dataset contains sample input 100m resolution raster files for running the CERF-DC python package (see https://github.com/IMMM-SFA/cerf_data_centers) at the state level across the CONUS. Due to data availability constraints, some of the items included in this dataset are proxies or assumptions for siting factors used in the model. These are individually noted in the item descriptions and can be exchanged with more detailed information upon availability. Data Descriptions The following raster files are included in the data download: state_siting_region.tif — State areas identified by state FIPS code composite_siting_suitability.tif — Value of 1 indicates suitable siting location, 0 otherwise. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m of a federal airport runway or within an airport area boundary Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) GAP status 1, 2, or 3 areas US National Parks Wetlands USFWS critical habitats BIA land areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands land_value_dollar_per_sqft.tif — USD per square foot (sqft) derived from USDA $/acre land cost personal_property_tax_rate.tif — Personal property tax rate by state. Uses an assumed 0.0125 personal property tax rate for states with personal property tax, 0 for states without personal property tax. real_property_tax_rate.tif — Real property tax rate. Based on county level residential real estate property tax rates. sales_tax_rate.tif — Sales tax rate by state. mechanical_cooling_fraction.tif — Fraction of year (values between 0 and 1, inclusive) that the data center would be cooled through mechanical processes based on local water stress and humidity levels. water_cooling_fraction.tif — Fraction of year (values between 0 and 1, inclusive) that the data center would be cooled through evaporative (water cooled) processes based on local water stress and humidity levels. distance_to_substation.tif — Distance to nearest substation in hundreds of meters (i.e., value of 1 equals a distance of 100m). Offshore areas have a value of 0. industrial_electricity_rates_dollar_per_kwh.tif — USD/kWh industrial electricity rates. Represents the average industrial rate across all utilities that operate within a given county. Values are derived from the US Utility Rate Database. commercial_electricity_rates_dollar_per_kwh.tif — USD/kWh commercial electricity rates. Represents the average commercial rate across all utilities that operate within a given county. Values are derived from the US Utility Rate Database. data_center_market_locations.tif — Grid cells with positive values represent the centroid of existing data center market clusters. The value of non-zero grid cells represents the number of data centers in the market cluster. All other grid cells have a value of 0. Geospatial Metadata CRS: Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) Extent: -2415585.0000000023283064,-1441981.2605773280374706 : 2384414.9999999976716936,1708018.7394226719625294 Dimensions: X: 48000 Y: 31500 Bands: 1 Origin: -2415585.0000000023283064,1708018.7394226719625294 Pixel Size: 100,-100 Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4.0 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall↗
DOE OSTI2020

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↗