Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “performance-based codes”

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.

10 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

Total System Performance Ratio—A Systems Based Approach for Evaluating HVAC System Efficiency

The prescriptive path is the most widely used approach for commercial code compliance in the United States. Though easy to implement, prescriptive approaches do not typically discriminate between minimally compliant, high-performing and poorly performing HVAC system configurations. Hence, to meet aggressive energy and carbon reduction goals, it is clear that energy codes will need to transition from prescriptive to performance-based approaches, a transition that is riddled with several challenges. This paper discusses a new HVAC system-based performance approach (HVAC System Performance) which provides a simpler solution to HVAV system evaluation compared to whole building performance, while keeping tradeoffs limited to specific building systems. The Total System Performance Ratio (TSPR) is a metric for evaluation of overall system efficiency instead of individual component efficiency, a solution which could also eventually facilitate the transition to a 100% performance-based code structure. TSPR is a ratio that compares the annual heating and cooling load of a building to the annual energy consumed by the building’s HVAC system. A calculation software tool has been developed for determining a building’s TSPR. Already incorporated into the 2018 Washington State Energy Code, this approach is also being evaluated by ASHRAE Standard 90.l Project Committee and has the potential to provide a comprehensive performance-based approach for HVAC system evaluation and analysis.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2021

HVAC System Performance for Energy Codes (Technical Brief)

The prescriptive path is likely the most widely used approach for commercial code compliance in the United States. Though easy to implement, the prescriptive approach does not discriminate between high-performing and poorly performing heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) system configurations that are both minimally compliant. To meet aggressive energy and carbon reduction goals, energy codes will need to transition from prescriptive to performance-based approaches, a transition that is riddled with several challenges. HVAC System Performance is a discipline performance path and provides a simpler solution to HVAC system evaluation compared to whole building performance, while keeping tradeoffs limited to specific building systems. The Total System Performance Ratio (TSPR) is a metric for evaluation of overall system efficiency instead of individual component efficiency, a solution that could also eventually facilitate the transition to a 100% performance-based code structure. TSPR is a ratio that compares the annual heating and cooling load of a building to the annual energy consumed by the building’s HVAC system. A web-based calculation tool has been developed for determining a building’s TSPR. Already incorporated into the 2018 Washington State Energy Code, this approach has also been evaluated by the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Project Committee and has the potential to provide a comprehensive performance-based approach for HVAC system evaluation and analysis

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2021

Deriving Simulation Parameters for Storage-Type Water Heaters Using Ratings Data Produced from the Uniform Energy Factor Test Procedure: Preprint

Building energy modeling (BEM) is commonly used to estimate the energy usage of residential buildings. Uses for BEM include calculating home energy ratings, demonstrating compliance with performance-based energy codes, and establishing whether designs meet voluntary program requirements, such as ENERGY STAR® qualified homes. BEM requires simulating subsystems within the building, including storage-type water heaters. To properly simulate the in-situ performance of residential storage water heaters, it is necessary to determine key water heater parameters, including the overall heat loss coefficient (UA) and conversion efficiency (?c) of the water heater, based on the rated efficiency of the water heater. The testing procedure and rating standard for residential water heaters have recently changed: the new rating standard provides a Uniform Energy Factor (UEF) rather than the Energy Factor (EF) used previously. This paper discusses how to derive the necessary model parameters from the ratings data produced from the latest test procedure.

30 DIRECT ENERGY CONVERSION↗
DOE OSTI2024

Commercial Zero Code Plug-In: Zero Energy and Operational Emissions Overlay for Model Energy Codes (Technical Brief)

Model energy codes (MEC) describe requirements needed to demonstrate building energy performance compliance. They can be readily adopted by states and local jurisdictions to support desirable energy efficiency investment in new buildings and major renovations. This report provides commercial building energy code language as an overlay to current MEC, which is recognized by the U.S. DOE as ASHRAE Standard 90.1 2022. The code language provides a performance-based compliance path for achieving net zero energy or net zero operational energy emissions buildings with MEC. The path requires meeting two compliance metric target values: 1) a required minimum level of efficiency and 2) a measure of zero energy or emissions. The supporting documentation illustrates the magnitude of needed efficiency improvement and the additional offsets to be achieved from renewable energy sources.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2021

A Risk-Informed Performance-Based Methodology to Manage Fire Protection Systems in Nuclear Facilities

Fire protection systems (FPSs) and features are installed in U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Hazard Category 1, 2, or 3 nuclear facilities to protect property (maximum possible fire loss thresholds), life, and nuclear safety (i.e., structures, systems, and components). These FPSs and features are designed and maintained in accordance with the prescriptive guidance provided in applicable building codes and National Fire Protection Association codes and standards. Management, operations, and maintenance activities of FPSs involve significant effort. A DOE facility’s documented safety analysis or other safety basis document could also rely on FPSs to provide either a safety significant or safety class function to mitigate fire hazards and minimize radiological consequences. In some cases, the designation of safety significant or safety class may be determined to provide a layer of defense-in-depth to minimize nuclear safety risks independent of the fire risk. DOE standards allow the use of performance-based design alternatives developed by the fire industry but do not consider the defense-in-depth layers of protection provided in DOE facilities to prevent or mitigate the risks associated with unintended release of radioactive materials into the environment. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory developed a decision-making methodology tailored for DOE non-reactor nuclear facilities to manage FPSs and features by integrating nuclear safety risk insights into a performance-based analysis. This risk-informed, performance-based (RIPB) methodology can be used to provide the technical basis for classifying an FPS as safety class and safety significant, tailoring administrative controls (e.g., technical safety requirements), and ranking the importance of FPSs to prioritize maintenance, upgrades, and replacement activities. The RIPB methodology is a graded approach to inform DOE facility owners and Fire Protection Program managers of the most risk-significant FPSs and equipment, and those systems would be cost-beneficial to relax rigor if there is a need to re-design the FPS coverage or deviate from DOE and National Fire Protection Association standards for those systems that would be less significant. This paper describes the framework used to develop the RIPB methodology and the outcome of implementing this methodology in a use-case nuclear facility. This paper also discusses the impact to DOE policies and standards and the safety margins and defense-in-depth measures credited in nuclear safety assessments in a facility’s documented safety analysis and the benefits of implementing an RIPB methodology in lieu of a prescriptive method to comply with fire protection requirements.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Consequence analyses of sabotage-induced radiological releases in high-temperature helium-cooled prismatic microreactors

Here, this study analyzes the radiological dose consequences of sabotage-induced accidents at three high-temperature helium-cooled prismatic microreactors (HTPMs) with thermal power ratings of 1, 10, and 50 MWt. Each HTPM employs uranium oxycarbide tristructural isotropic fuel enriched to 19.75 wt% high-assay low-enriched uranium. Simulations were conducted to estimate reactor core inventory at the point of fuel discharge––when the effective multiplication factor reduced to less than 1––representing peak radionuclide inventory. Postulated sabotage scenarios leading to reactor shutdown were analyzed at two intervals: immediately post-shutdown (0 h) and 3 days after shutdown using the SCALE code for radionuclide inventories and the RASCAL tool for dose consequences. Results show that although HTPMs benefit from inherent safety features and robust fuel design, radiological consequences scale with reactor power because of increased source term inventories. Smaller microreactors exhibited proportionally lower dose consequences. To support the economic and regulatory feasibility of microreactor deployment, this study emphasizes the value of a risk-informed, performance-based approach, as supported by regulations like 10 CFR Parts 100 and 53 in the United States. Microreactor developers should perform site-specific assessments of potential sabotage or low-probability, high-consequence events, especially when considering minimal on-site or full off-site emergency response.

Consequence↗
DOE OSTI2020

Evaluation of ASCE 4-16 and AISC 43-18 (Draft) for use in the Risk-Informed Performance-Based Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plant Structures, Systems, and Components

This report describes the assessment of ASCE Standards 4-16 and 43-18 (Draft) for use in the Risk-Informed Performance-Based (RIPB) seismic design of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) at nuclear power plants. This work was performed for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Office of Regulatory Research (RES), to support potential endorsement of these industry standards for the design of nuclear power plants based on the RIPB approach. Currently, the NRC endorses a deterministic design approach for demonstrating the design adequacy of SSCs based on the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800) and NRC Regulatory Guides. In the RIPB approach, the design criteria are developed to achieve a target performance goal, which is defined by the annual frequency of occurrence of the design basis earthquake (i.e., Seismic Design Category) and the acceptable level of structural performance (i.e., Limit State) for the SSCs. ASCE 4-16 provides methods for performing a seismic analysis of structures to obtain the seismic response of these structures (e.g., building displacements, accelerations, in-structure response spectra) which are used in the design of the SSCs. It also provides methods for performing seismic analysis of SSCs to determine the seismic demands (e.g. member forces and displacements) needed to design individual SSCs. ASCE 43-18 (Draft) provides the criteria for the seismic design of SSCs using the seismic demands developed in ASCE 4-16. The use of ASCE Standard 43-18 (Draft), along with ASCE 4-16, provides the criteria for the seismic design of the SSCs. ASCE 43-18 (DRAFT) relies on other consensus codes and standards such as ACI 349 for reinforced concrete, AISC/N690 for steel structures, ASME Section III for pressure-retaining mechanical components and Containments, and IEEE-344 for Class 1E equipment. The goal of this technical review was to assess the adequacy of the provisions in these standards for use by the NRC in developing regulatory guidance for design of SSCs in nuclear power plants, based on the RIPB approach. The research reported herein describes the basis for acceptance of the new standards and identifies areas where additional staff guidance is needed for the seismic design of SSCs at nuclear power plants. This technical review has determined that ASCE 4-16 and ASCE 43-18 (Draft) provide an appropriate framework for the seismic design of SSCs at nuclear power plants using a Risk-Informed Performance-Based approach. However, some of the criteria therein warrant exceptions, qualifications, and/or clarifications.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2025

Diversion Path Analysis: A Proposed Methodology to Develop an MC&A Approach for Liquid-Fueled Molten Salt Reactors

Nuclear material control and accounting (MC&A) is a critical element of both the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and US Department of Energy (DOE)’s domestic safeguards and security requirements. NRC licensees are required, under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 74 to establish and maintain an MC&A program that captures and records the quantities and locations of special nuclear material (SNM) at the facility. Along with physical protection, MC&A is a key element of domestic nuclear material safeguards that enables the NRC to ensure that SNM is controlled and accounted for. SNM, per 10 CFR Part 74, refers to plutonium, 233 U, and uranium enriched in the isotope 233 U or 235 U, but does not include source material. Periodic physical inventories, coupled with material balance evaluations, are effective and demonstrated tools to account for and detect theft or diversion of SNM in facilities containing SNM in bulk material form (i.e., not in discrete, countable items). Historically in the United States, these types of facilities have included fuel fabrication, conversion, and enrichment facilities. In comparison, reactors have relied on item counting of assemblies and control of SNM while in containment (e.g., a sealed reactor pressure vessel) because, to date, reactor fuel has been in item form. In liquid-fueled molten salt reactors (MSRs), unlike traditional light water reactors (LWRs) or bulk facilities, bulk SNM quantities can change significantly during operation as a result of depletion and transmutation. This introduces challenges to the use of traditional periodic physical inventories and material balance evaluations to detect theft or diversion of SNM in reactors that use SNM in bulk material form. Liquid-fueled (i.e., salt-fueled) MSR facilities are MSRs that use SNM within a salt eutectic as the fuel. The SNM is in a bulk material form any time it is outside of fresh or spent fuel storage containers. Some examples of when SNM will be in bulk form in the facility are during addition of fuel to the reactor system, while fuel is circulating in operation, and while fuel is in a drain tank. Periodic physical inventories and material balance evaluations can likely be effectively applied to many portions of an MSR facility, including all areas where depletion and transmutation are not significantly changing the quantities of SNM within the control area. Within an MSR facility, this would include fresh fuel receipt and loading, waste streams that may contain SNM, irradiated fuel storage outside of the reactor core, and any irradiated fuel processing that may happen after SNM has been removed from the reactor. All of these process steps could rely on measurements of SNM quantities compared with documented inventories. Any discrepancies from predicted (i.e., book) inventories and measured inventories could be quantified as inventory differences, consistent with traditional MC&A guidance from the NRC (e.g., in NUREG-1065 Revision 2, NUREG-2159 Revision 1, and RG 5.29 Revision 2). Within the reactor system, additions and removals to the book inventory include depletion of the SNM (e.g., fission of 235 U), which complicates the use of physical inventories. SNM control, however, can also likely be effectively applied to detect theft of SNM throughout a liquid-fueled MSR facility. To complement these approaches, prior technical reports have identified that a diversion path analysis may be a useful, risk-informed, and performance-based tool to determine suitable elements of an MC&A approach for the reactor system within a liquid-fueled MSR facility.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Consequence analyses of sabotage-induced radiological releases in sodium-cooled fast microreactors

Analysis of three sodium-cooled fast microreactors (SFMs) with thermal powers of 10, 30, and 50 MWt showed that smaller reactors result in lower radiological consequences during a postulated sabotage-induced event because of their reduced core inventory. All SFMs used U-10Zr metal fuel enriched to 15 wt% high-assay low-enriched uranium and operated until their respective effective multiplication factor (k eff ) reduced to less than 1 or until the end of their operational lifespan. Sabotage scenarios were simulated at this point, when the fuel inventory within the core contains the highest-level of radioactivity. Radionuclide core inventories were calculated using the SCALE code at shutdown and 3 days post-shutdown. Dose consequence analyses were performed for three sabotage scenarios using the RASCAL tool. As microreactor developers plan for minimal on-site or complete off-site emergency response, it remains essential to evaluate their physical protection needs and potential hazards, including assessing postulated sabotage-induced events that could become more relevant. SFM licensees should identify a credible worst-case, major accident, estimate release source terms, and perform dose consequence analyses to evaluate site-specific physical protection measures. In conclusion, this recommendation supports a risk-informed, performance-based approach, aligning with applicable regulatory requirements, i.e., 10 CFR Parts 100 and 53 rulemaking in the United States.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗
DOE OSTI2026

Radiological Releases from Novel Fuel Forms in Advanced Reactors During Severe Accidents for Consequence Analyses

Various advanced reactor developers are exploring the potential for reductions in the size of physical security forces and emergency planning zones. These reductions are based on robust fuel forms and inherently safe reactor designs. However, such reductions in physical protection measures could increase the risk of sabotage. To assess the possibility of reducing these measures, sabotage-induced radiological consequence analyses were carried out. These analyses considered accident scenarios that were beyond design basis accidents and overly conservative (Shah, 2025a; Shah, 2025b; Shah and Hartanto, 2026), yielding very large release fractions. These fractions, which can be used to evaluate physical protection and emergency planning requirements, have been crudely determined and applied as demonstrations for a sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR) (Shah and Hartanto, 2025a), a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) (Shah and Hartanto, 2025b), a heat pipe–cooled reactor (HPR) (Shah and Hartanto, 2025c), and a molten salt–cooled reactor (MSR) (Shah et al., 2026). A Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) team used MELCOR—a fully integrated severe accident analysis code—to demonstrate the code’s capability to analyze advanced (i.e., not light water–cooled) reactors (including a fluoride salt–cooled high-temperature reactor [FHR]) and calculate radiological releases to the environment during severe accidents (Wagner et al., 2022a, 2022b, 2022c, 2023a, and 2023b). Although the analyses were carried out to demonstrate MELCOR’s growing capability, the release source terms were estimated for advanced reactors, providing valuable insights into the accident progression and radiological releases. These findings from prior SNL studies, including estimated source terms and related sensitivity studies, were leveraged to derive source terms for postulated sabotage-induced accidents. Insights from these sensitivity studies informed the scaling of SNL’s estimated source terms for the defined accident scenarios. The derived release fractions for the severe accident scenarios for the respective reactor designs can be used to perform more nuanced dose consequence analyses to evaluate the reactors’ physical protection and emergency planning zone requirements. These analyses are in accordance with the risk-informed, performance-based approach proposed under 10 CFR Part 53. This study builds on the prior source term analyses and associated sensitivity studies by SNL to derive time-dependent and design-informed release fractions. Section 2 describes the diverse advanced reactor designs analyzed by the SNL team. Section 3 discusses the severe accident analyses, the release fractions calculated, and the limitations and assumptions of the demonstration project. Section 4 presents the release percentages derived for the hypothetical sabotage-induced severe accidents at the advanced reactors. Section 5 summarizes the study’s findings and conclusions.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗