Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “code compliance”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Modular Multi-family Construction: A Field Study of Energy Code Compliance and Performance through Offsite Prefabrication

Prefabrication in a controlled, factory setting may improve the energy code compliance and energy performance of modular buildings compared to traditional site-built buildings. To test this premise, the work detailed in this DOE-funded commercial field study (EE0009082) compares the energy code compliance of 25 modular and 30 site-built multifamily buildings under construction in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Philadelphia and Seattle representing climate zones 3B, 3C, 4A and 4C respectively. This dataset includes full data on 20 modular and site-built buildings and partial data on 35 modular and site-built buildings that had started prior to or were completed after the 18-month data collection period. This study also compares the post-occupancy energy performance or energy use intensity (EUI) of an additional 23 modular multifamily buildings and 128 site-built multifamily buildings.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2024

A new database of building-space-specific internal loads and load schedules for performance based code compliance modeling of commercial buildings

Building-level loads and load profiles prescribed by current modeling rules save modelers time and avoid gaming during whole building performance modeling. However, recent studies show that they sometimes insufficiently capture the entire building performance due to the varied loads and load profiles for different space types. As a solution to this issue, this paper develops a database of building-space-specific loads and load profiles used in code compliance modeling. The existing sets of loads and load profiles are reviewed and the challenges behind using them for specific research topics are discussed. Then, the proposed method to develop the building-space-specific loads and load profiles is introduced. After that, the database for these building-space-specific loads and load profiles is presented. In addition, one case is studied to demonstrate the applications of these loads and load profiles. In this case study, three methods are used to develop building energy models: space-specific (using knowledge of the distribution and location of space types and applying the space-specific data in the developed database), building-level (assuming a lack of knowledge of the space types and using the building-level data in the developed database), and calculated-ratio (assuming knowledge of the distribution of space types but not their locations and calculating weighted average values based on the space-specific data in the developed database). Finally, the energy results simulated by using these three methods are compared, which show building-level methods can produce energy results up to 20% different than the space-specific methods. Finally, this paper discusses the application scope and maintenance of this new database.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2024

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↗
DOE OSTI2025

Market Driven Residential Energy Codes: Comparing Performance in a Changing Technological Environment

The research project is undertaken to better understand the changing relationship between the two basic methods of building energy code compliance – prescriptive and performance – and how those methods relate to each other with respect to advancements in building energy computer simulation standards and capabilities. The International Energy Efficiency Code (IECC) is a model code adopted by many jurisdictions across the United States. Historically, the prescriptive compliance methodology has been preferred in most jurisdictions. The prescriptive methodology requires meeting or exceeding specific efficiency minimums for each envelope component. This tends to be a simple method to teach and verify. A more involved prescriptive alternative called the Total UA alternative is sometimes used. This method requires some multiplication, summing, and comparison to compute, so it is done with a fairly simple computer program. However, advances in computer and building energy simulation technology have resulted in increased use of more detailed performance compliance methods. The performance compliance method establishes the annual energy cost threshold via hourly simulation models. The compliance threshold is determined with a comparison building model simulation with geometry similar to the proposed home and with energy feature parameters and efficiencies as specified in the IECC. This project examines relationships between the two methods of building energy code compliance, including: • Overall annual energy use based on utility bill analysis by compliance method • Code official work processes with respect to compliance methods • Gaps and issues associated with building code compliance methods • Simulated energy use difference between compliance methods • Code compliance cost as a function of compliance method • Code compliance labeling effectiveness for high performance residences • Getting to net zero energy use and net zero greenhouse gas emissions through high performance code alternatives • Electronic code permitting and compliance alternatives

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Methodology to Establish Performance Targets for Building Energy Codes

This report explains the underlying development of the U.S. NZE building sector performance targets reported in Federal Register Notice XX. This document also includes NZE performance targets for U.S. states, which were developed following the same procedures used to develop the national values. These national and state targets are intended to support the establishment and attainment of NZE goals over time. Where residential and commercial building energy code compliance mechanisms apply to new buildings and major renovations and dictate performance requirements, these targets reflect the recommended, minimum levels of performance. Appendix A provides the performance values and targets by U.S. state for residential and commercial buildings. These include each state’s adopted energy code performance, current published MEC performance value, and a nominal NZE code compliance performance target. The current code and NZE values can be compared to the state adopted code value to indicate the level of advancement needed to move towards recommended NZE building performance levels. Additional supplemental resources are available to support states and local governments ready to move from setting NZE policy goals to adopting NZE codes. More information about these resources and the actions states can take to achieve NZE buildings with energy codes are provided in the body of this document.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2026

Pennsylvania and Delaware Energy Code Field Studies (Final Technical Report (FTR)

Led by Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP) in partnership with Performance Systems Development (PSD), the project aimed to conduct energy code compliance field studies for single-family residential buildings in Pennsylvania and Delaware, as well as multifamily and commercial buildings in Pennsylvania. Using U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) approved methodologies, trained field teams conducted on-site observations and testing to document compliance with key energy efficiency measures, including building envelope insulation, air sealing, duct leakage, windows, and mechanical systems. Data from these studies would then be analyzed to identify construction trends and compliance gaps. The goals included published baseline data for each study, and a training roadmap tailored to each state’s needs. This roadmap would have guided outreach and training for builders, code officials, and other stakeholders on the specific code requirements that offered the greatest opportunity for improvement.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2024

SolarAPP+ Performance Review (2023 Data)

The Solar Automated Permit Processing Plus (SolarAPP+) platform is an online portal to facilitate and expedite rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) and battery storage permitting processes. SolarAPP+ allows PV contractors to upload system specifications, have that information automatically reviewed for code compliance, and receive instant approval for code-compliant systems, reducing authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) staff time needed for review. SolarAPP+ also provides inspection checklists to verify installation practices and adherence to approved designs. SolarAPP+ is available to AHJs at no cost. This report is part of an ongoing series of reviews of SolarAPP+ performance. Consistent with previous performance reviews, we summarize SolarAPP+ adoption trends to date and compare various metrics for PV systems permitted through SolarAPP+ versus systems permitted through traditional AHJ permitting processes. As of the end of 2023, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) had contacted over 1,700 AHJs with significant solar permitting volume regarding SolarAPP+. Of those, 793 AHJs had expressed interest in the platform as of the end of 2023. 161 AHJs had begun piloting the platform and 97 of these had publicly launched the platform by the end of 2023. In 2023, 668 installers submitted 18,906 permits through the SolarAPP+ platform, including 4,834 permits submitted as part of a solar plus storage program. SolarAPP+ permits accounted for around 43% of all permits issued in participating AHJs. We compare permitting timelines through SolarAPP+ to traditional AHJ permitting processes to assess the platform's performance. Consistent with previous SolarAPP+ performance reviews, we find that permitting timelines are significantly shorter for SolarAPP+ projects. Based on median timelines, a typical SolarAPP+ project is permitted and inspected 14.5 business days sooner than traditional projects. We estimate that automatic SolarAPP+ permitting saved around 7,200 hours of AHJ staff time in 2023. Finally, we estimate that SolarAPP+ eliminated over 150,000 business days in permitting-related delays in 2023.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2026

SolarAPP+ Performance Review (2024 Data)

The Solar Automated Permit Processing Plus (SolarAPP+) platform is an online portal to facilitate and expedite rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) and battery storage permitting processes. SolarAPP+ allows PV contractors to upload system specifications, have that information automatically reviewed for code compliance, and receive instant approval for code-compliant systems, reducing authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) staff time needed for review. SolarAPP+ also provides inspection checklists to verify installation practices and adherence to approved designs. This report is part of an ongoing series of reviews of SolarAPP+ performance. Consistent with previous performance reviews, we summarize SolarAPP+ adoption trends to date and compare various metrics for PV systems permitted through SolarAPP+ versus systems permitted through traditional AHJ permitting processes. As of the end of 2024, 799 AHJs had expressed interest in the platform, with 264 fully adopting (215) or piloting (49) the platform. In 2024, 861 installers submitted 37,393 permits through the SolarAPP+ platform, including 27,375 permits for PV+storage systems. SolarAPP+ permits accounted for around 43% of all permits issued in all participating AHJs, and more than 60% of all permits in several participating AHJs. We compare permitting timelines through SolarAPP+ to traditional AHJ permitting processes to assess the platform's performance. Consistent with previous SolarAPP+ performance reviews, we find that permitting timelines are significantly shorter for SolarAPP+ projects. Based on median timelines, a typical SolarAPP+ project is permitted and inspected 12 business days sooner than traditional projects. We estimate that automatic SolarAPP+ permitting saved around 18,400 hours of AHJ staff time in 2024. Finally, we estimate that SolarAPP+ eliminated over 100,000 business days in permitting-related delays in 2024.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Commercial Building Prototypes Based on ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2019 Appendix G PRM: Technical Support Document

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.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2024

National Fire Protection Association Spurs the Safe Adoption of EVs Through Education and Outreach

As electric vehicles (EV) and their charging infrastructure steadily increase in popularity across the U.S., growing pains still exist, impeding their true potential for growth. The barriers include a general lack of knowledge around EV systems, range anxiety, electrical workplace safety practices, code compliance and inspection for charging stations, maintenance garages and workers, insurance concerns, and the potential risks associated with damaged lithium-ion batteries (fires, re-ignition, water immersion, and stranded energy).NFPA partnered with SMEs, training development organizations, and Clean City Coalitions to create a series of common online trainings for each EV ecosystem sector, educating communities on the realities of EV proliferation, myths, facts, statistics, codes, and basic information for each sector to become versed in EV knowledge. We also constructed a workshop program for the many EV stakeholders who should be involved in setting up a strategic, cohesive outlook for the participating towns and cities.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Alchemy: A Model-Based Approach for 2D to 3D Autonomous Nuclear System Design

Engineering design of nuclear power plant (NPP) piping and equipment systems frequently bypasses crucial 2D system planning, instead moving straight to 3D modeling. This often leads to designs that exceed building envelope constraints, forcing expensive and time-consuming redesigns. When 2D modeling is employed, it typically involves labor-intensive manual workflows that convert 2D drawings into 3D models, resulting in inefficiencies and errors across design iterations. These workflows further suffer from poor software interoperability and dependence on proprietary software ecosystems, thereby contributing to schedule delays and cost overruns. This paper presents Alchemy, an autonomous framework that transforms 2D system definitions into Industry Foundation Classes (IFC)-compliant 3D building information models (BIMs) for expediting nuclear facility design at the conceptual preliminary phase. Using a model-based approach, the framework treats the 2D system diagram as the central reference model employed to automatically generate all subsequent outputs, ensuring consistency between the system definition and the resulting physical design. A web-based interface enables engineers to define hierarchical system topologies including associated equipment, geometric properties, and connectivity requirements. A two-phase equipment layout optimization algorithm automatically computes collision-free spatial configurations within predefined building envelopes. An artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted pipe routing module then generates orthogonal, collision-free routing paths, allowing the user to select either an A* search-based method or an Ant Colony Optimization (ACO)-based method. All outputs are authored natively in IFC format, relying on open-source technologies and standardized formats in order to ensure extensibility and eliminate proprietary software dependencies. The proposed framework is validated on two representative pressurized-water reactor (PWR)-based case studies, for which it autonomously generates IFC-compliant 3D models in minutes, drastically reducing workflows that typically require hours of manual effort. The generated model demonstrates topologically correct equipment placement, physically plausible spatial relationships, and collision-free pipe routing consistent with known PWR loop configurations. This work represents a foundational step toward digital engineering for nuclear facility preliminary design, with future ongoing development targeting design code compliance and expanded system complexity.

97 - MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2024

Estimating internal moisture generation rates in recently constructed, occupied homes in the southeastern United States

Internal moisture generation (IMG), or moisture generated by building occupants via activities such as respiration, cooking, bathing, and cleaning, is a critical input required for design, analysis, and simulation of building enclosure and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. Based on previously published values, ASHRAE Standard 160-2021 provides guidance for estimating IMG rates for moisture control design analysis, which is based on occupied home datasets collected in the 1980s and 1990s. Residential energy use simulation software also utilizes estimates for IMG for energy rating, energy analysis, and code compliance calculations, as specified in ANSI/RESNET/ICC Standard 301. Data quantifying IMG rates in newer homes is useful in determining the continued relevance of current design and simulation guidance, and whether the guidance represents conditions found in new housing stock. ASHRAE Research Project 1844, conducted by the Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC), a research institute of the University of Central Florida, estimated IMG rates in newer occupied homes built since 2013 in the southeastern US using a moisture balance model approach. Furthermore, the project obtained occupied home data in cooperation with a US Department of Energy Building America research project to characterize indoor air quality (IAQ) in newer US homes, along with presence, functionality, and occupant use of control measures. Full-scale laboratory homes operating with known IMG rates were used to validate a moisture balance model and quantify the accuracy of estimates obtained when the model is applied to data from occupied homes with unknown IMG rates.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2025

pnnl/90.1-PRM_ECB-ReviewManual

The 90.1 Energy Cost Budget and Performance Rating Method Submittal Review Manual (the Manual) is a comprehensive reference for reviewing modeling based energy code compliance submittals.

Xu, Weili [PNNL]↗
DOE OSTI2026

Understanding the Costs and Barriers of Residential Electrical Panel and Service Upgrades

Upgrading electrical panels and services in U.S. homes represents a significant barrier to building modernization, imposing considerable costs, delays, and procedural uncertainties on homeowners, contractors, utilities, and building departments. Although cost databases document individual infrastructure activities, they rarely capture the integrated, whole-project perspective required to understand how electrical upgrades are planned, executed, and regulated. Existing research is often geographically constrained, narrowly scoped, or derived from limited samples, leaving significant knowledge gaps unaddressed. This study examines the timelines and costs associated with residential electrical panel and service upgrades using data from a national cross- sectional survey conducted in summer 2025. The survey captured responses from 140 stakeholders across 34 states, including building industry professionals, utility staff, and building department staff. Findings indicate that project duration and cost increase substantially with building size though patterns vary by infrastructure type. Most single-family and small multifamily projects were completed within 30 days, whereas medium and large multifamily buildings show longer and less predictable timelines. Service rating increases modestly extend project duration, but building type and size were the primary determinants of delays. Cost patterns were similar: customer-side equipment and panel replacements scale predictably with building size, while utility-side costs are highly variable, often triggered by threshold-driven infrastructure upgrades such as transformer replacements. Permit fees vary considerably between jurisdictions but generally represent a minor proportion of total project costs. These findings identify electrical upgrades as a significant barrier to residential building costs and highlight the need for improved stakeholder coordination, streamlined permitting, and strategies that reduce upgrade requirements while maintaining safety and code compliance.

Casquero-Modrego, Nuria↗
DOE OSTI2024

Measuring Impact: Evaluating Thermal Zoning Simplification on Energy Efficiency Measures Analysis

Building Energy Modeling (BEM) is a versatile tool for designing, retrofitting, ensuring code compliance, obtaining certifications, qualifying for incentives, and enabling real-time building control. However, capturing all the details of building geometry for thermal zoning can be time-consuming, costly, and sometimes computationally challenging. As a result, modelers have been applying zoning simplification based on factors such as space functions and internal loads, as well as relying on their experience and judgment while adhering to zoning rules outlined in industry standards. Despite the prevalence of this common practice, a notable gap exists in the literature regarding studies quantifying the influence of simplified thermal zoning on the evaluation of Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs). Recognizing this gap, this paper seeks to contribute to the field by enhancing the understanding of how the simplification of thermal zoning influences the evaluation of EEMs against a baseline design. The study utilized a medium office prototype model with a detailed floor plan featuring over 20 zones per floor covering diverse functional spaces with varying internal loads and occupancy schedules. A standard thermal zoning strategy outlined in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Appendix G was employed as the simplified zoning method. This strategy condenses the zoning into a core zone and four perimeter zones per floor. It was compared with the detailed zoning approach, which involves one zone per space. Common Energy EEMs, such as enhanced envelope, high-efficiency appliances and equipment, and HVAC controls, were individually implemented and evaluated. The results indicate that the performance comparison between the two zoning methods varies depending on the type of measures considered. Basic measures, such as adding wall insulation, demonstrate similar energy impacts, while advanced HVAC control measures, such as static pressure reset, exhibit a more substantial difference that cannot be overlooked.

Xie, Jiarong↗
NASA NTRS1984

Recertification analysis and inspection planning for environmental test facilities

Program development and implementation for recertification of pressure vessels used at NASA facilities are outlined, together with inspection procedures. The recertification is carried out in three phases: analysis, inspection planning, and long term inspection plans and management. A data base was developed for each piece of equipment and the associated performance parameters. Either documentation was obtained or NDT was performed on the vessels to confirm design and Code compliance. A Failure Modes and Effects Analysis technique was used to target recurring inspection items and guidelines were drawn up for inspections of parts and systems and intervals between inspections. The steps taken in establishing the program are considered applicable in both research and industrial situations.

Rebeck, K. J.↗
NASA NTRS2019

LTF/Fluid and Cryogenic Systems Branch

Functions of the Branch: Cross-Cutting Fluids Engineering; Research and Technology Development of Cryogenic Fluid Management (CFM) Systems; Component and System level; Design, Development Test and Evaluation (DDT&E) for Fluid, CFM, Propellant and Gaseous Systems; Fluid Component Specification and Selection; Code Compliance of Pressurized Systems; Fluid/Cryogenic System Performance Analysis and Trade Studies; Hazards Analysis and Risk Assessment of Fluidic Systems; Fluids Modeling and Simulation Capabilities

Fluid↗
DOE OSTI2025

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↗