Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “static pressure reset”

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.

6 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

ComStock Measure Documentation: Fan Static Pressure Reset for Multizone Variable Air Volume Systems

This report assesses the potential for nationwide adoption of a duct static pressure reset in MZ VAV systems in appropriate applications. Building on the 3-year End-Use Load Profiles project to calibrate and validate the U.S. Department of Energy’s ResStock™ and ComStock™ models, this work produces national datasets that enable cities, states, utilities, and other stakeholders to answer a broad range of questions regarding their commercial building stock. ComStock is a highly granular, bottom-up model that uses various data sources, statistical sampling methods, and advanced building energy simulations to estimate the annual sub-hourly energy consumption of the commercial building stock across the United States. The “baseline” model intends to represent the U.S. commercial building stock as it existed in 2018. The methodology of the baseline model is discussed in the ComStock Reference Documentation. The goal of this work is to develop energy efficiency and demand flexibility measures that cover market-ready technologies and study their mass-adoption impact on the baseline building stock. “Measures” refers to various “what-if” scenarios that can be applied to buildings. The results for the baseline and measure scenario simulations are published in public datasets that provide insights into building stock characteristics, operational behaviors, utility bill impacts, and annual and sub-hourly energy usage by fuel type and end use. This report describes the modeling methodology for a single ComStock measure scenario—Fan Static Pressure Reset for Multizone Variable Air Volume (VAV) Systems—and briefly introduces key results. The full public dataset can be accessed on the ComStock data lake or via the Data Viewer at comstock.nrel.gov. The public dataset enables users to create custom aggregations of results for their use case (e.g., filter to a specific county or building type).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2025

Experimental test of model predictive control in a variable air volume system

Model predictive control (MPC) has been widely studied as a promising approach for improving energy efficiency and operational flexibility in buildings, yet its real-world performance for commercial variable air volume (VAV) systems remains insufficiently characterized. In particular, the impacts of model mismatch on control robustness, real-time computational burden, and device-level operation are rarely evaluated using long-term field data. Here, this study presents a comprehensive experimental evaluation of MPC applied to a full-scale VAV system in Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s Flexible Research Platform-2 building with constant cooling/heating temperature setpoints and no occupancy. The study offers three key advantages over existing work: (1) it uses a representative building in a full-scale experimental test, capturing realistic system dynamics and complexity; (2) it evaluates a relatively sophisticated MPC formulation using two different optimization solvers (Gurobi and PSO), fully accounting for computational complexity and methodological diversity; and (3) it systematically assesses potential negative impacts on various building devices, benchmark against a well-established baseline, ASHRAE Guideline 36 (G36). To isolate zone- and air-handling-unit–level supervisory control effects, the supply fan was operated with a fixed static pressure setpoint under all strategies, and the trim-and-response static pressure reset in G36 was not enabled. Results show that MPC maintained thermal comfort while improving energy efficiency. Abrupt solar radiation variations degraded performance. Computation times ranged from ∼1 s (Gurobi) to ∼ 70 s (PSO). Compared with G36, MPC achieves 33% energy savings and reduces median reheat coil output by approximately a factor of 5–10 for a representative cooling day under matched weather conditions. However, it increases the maximum discomfort deviation from 0.5 to 1°C and results in a 32% increase in staging frequency. In addition, PSO-based MPC introduced damper oscillations, also affecting actuator longevity.

ASHRAE guideline 36↗
DOE OSTI2025

DFAT: A web-based toolkit for estimating demand flexibility in building-to-grid integration

Demand Flexibility Assessment Tool (DFAT) is an open source web-based tool that estimates the demand flexibility potential of common control strategies in commercial buildings. The toolkit features a demand flexibility estimation tool that contains two calculators, basic and advanced, based on the level of input of customer data. The basic version calculates demand shed metrics for the control strategy “global temperature adjustment” and “cycle on/off compressors” using customer building information, local weather data, and electrical meter data. The advanced version, which uses detailed HVAC equipment data, calculates demand flexibility metrics for control strategies such as static pressure reset, global temperature adjustment, and cycle on/off compressors. In addition to the demand flexibility estimation tool, this toolkit offers a benchmarking tool that helps facility operators, aggregators, and utility resource managers assess demand flexibility opportunities, quantify/verify performance, and compare their performance against that of their peers.

Leong, Michael↗
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↗
DOE OSTI2024

Energy Saving Estimation of ASHRAE Guideline 36 Supervisory Setpoint Reset Controls in a Commercial Large Office Building

Designing, commissioning, and retrofitting HVAC control systems for energy efficiency is crucial, but the use of ad-hoc control sequences by designers and contractors, based on scattered information, results in diverse and sub-optimal sequences. ASHRAE Guideline 36 (G36) addresses the challenge by providing standardized, rule-based HVAC control sequences that prioritize energy efficiency. However, there is limited evaluation of their energy performance at the building level, with only a few studies primarily focused on HVAC airside systems in small-to-medium-sized commercial buildings. In this study, the energy performance of ASHRAE Guideline 36 control sequences was assessed using a large office building emulator in Chicago. The emulator features a central plant system with multiple chillers and boilers as well as multiple variable air volume (VAV) systems with terminal reheat. To achieve a high-fidelity representation, we developed a Spawn-of-EnergyPlus-based model for the large office building, maintaining the DOE prototype large office building setup but substituting the HVAC system with its Modelica counterpart. This substitution ensures that the building thermal load, HVAC system's dynamics, and detailed control sequences are all accurately represented. The study involved evaluating and implementing control strategies outlined in ASHRAE Guideline 36-2021 to replace conventional controls. These strategies include the demand-based supply air temperature and duct static pressure setpoint reset and the request logic for demand-based reset of chilled/hot water supply temperature setpoints and pipe static pressure setpoints. Energy performance was evaluated under various load conditions, including cooling, heating, and transitional seasons, both for individual control strategies and in combination. The results indicate that the collective control strategies retrofit yield greater energy savings than the sum of individual strategies, highlighting the synergistic benefits of incorporating both airside and plant-side control retrofits. Additionally, energy savings of up to 41% in the heating season, 18% in the shoulder season, and 20 % in the cooling season were observed compared to baseline control while maintaining the thermal comfort level.

ASHRAE Guideline 36, Commercial buildings, Control↗
DOE OSTI2026

Enter the AHU (36th Chamber of ASHRAE): A Multi-site Field Study of ASHRAE G36

Despite being recognized as the best practice for advanced building controls, ASHRAE Guideline 36 (G36) has seen slow adoption in retrofit cases. Decisionmakers lack credible field evidence to justify the time and person-power investment. Most prior analyses have relied on software simulations, which overlook implementation challenges and fail to persuade owners to move from models to real-world deployment. This paper presents a multi-site field study of G36 performance, drawing on measured results from 17 projects across diverse building types and climate zones. The analysis disaggregates outcomes by the most widely adopted air handling unit (AHU) based G36 strategies, including trim-and-respond approaches to supply air temperature (SAT) and duct static pressure (DSP) reset, and economizer controls. Results for controls re programming implementations are encouraging, with HVAC savings ranging from 2% - 49%, with a median of 18%. The range aligns with simulation study findings showing 1% - 46% savings through these three strategies. These findings show that even without capital investment in control infrastructure upgrades, existing building owners are reaping significant benefits from updating HVAC sequences of operation to industry best-practice solutions. The results give practitioners and decisionmakers a reference point on what to expect, which strategies deliver, and how field performance may compare to simulation.

Deshpande, Reva↗