Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “load aggregation”

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.

311 records · Page 18
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

ComStock Measure Documentation: Thermostat Setbacks During Unoccupied Periods

This report assesses the potential for nationwide adoption of thermostat setbacks 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— Thermostat Setbacks During Unoccupied Periods—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 cases (e.g., filter to a specific county or building type).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2026

ComStock Measure Documentation: High-Efficiency Rooftop Unit

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 data sets 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 subhourly 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 data sets 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 - high-efficiency rooftop unit (RTU) - and briefly introduces key results. The full public data set can be accessed on the Comstock data lake or via the Data Viewer at comstock.nlr.gov. The public data set 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 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 OSTI2020

Determining Compression Characteristics of Honeycomb Material - 19674

The objective is to determine compression test characteristics of stainless steel honeycomb material to be able to represent honeycomb structures accurately in analytical models used to simulate hypothetical accident scenarios of shipping packages. Honeycomb is a material used primary in the aerospace industry due to its high strength-to-weight ratio. Because it doesn't have a shelf life and can withstand high heats, it is an excellent candidate for a structural material in package designs. Honeycomb has orthotropic material properties. The honeycomb currently being evaluated is made of metal ribbons spot welded together to form hexagon pattern between metal plates. The hexagon ribbons are brazed to the metal plates. The complexity of the honeycomb significantly lengthens the simulation time, which is further complicated when the brazing, welding, and imperfections of the material is considered. This means to affectively represent the honeycomb in simulation programs, such as Abaqus, the material needs to be approximated as a uniform orthotropic material. This requires material properties in each of the three directions, T, W, and L. The T direction is defined as the 'strong' direction, perpendicular to the honeycomb sheet. The L direction is parallel the ribbon and the W direction is perpendicular to the ribbon. Honeycomb has 3 different compression stages. Stage 1 is the initial compression where the honeycomb maintains its structural integrity and does not permanently deform from loads from normal operations. Stage 2 is when the initial buckling causes irreversible damage to the honeycomb. Stage 2 is the one we are most interested in because it absorbs the most energy from a hypothetical accident scenario. During Stage 2, the honeycomb fails layer-by-layer, indicating that the more layers, the longer material crushing is sustained, and thus the more energy that is absorbed. Stage 3 is final compression, similar to compressing solid metal. During stage 3 the stress increases with a diminishing rate of elongation and the honeycomb is completely failed where the plates between the honeycomb core sandwich the crushed honeycomb ribbon. The stress-strain graph bellow shows compression test of 3 different samples in the T direction. The red lines divide the three stages. The far left is Stage 1, the middle stage 2, and the right stage 3. The data collected is displayed in the table below. The expressions in the table represent the regression formula that represents each stage of the compression on a stress-strain graph. Stage 1 is assumed to intersect with the origin; data for stage 3 for the crush in W and L directions where unable to be gathered due to the nature of failure for those directions. Stage 1 and 2 are linear regressions while stage 3 is a degree 2, to best match the curve. Linear regression is used on stage 2 because ultimately that represents the energy absorbed. With more data, a degree n x 2 regression would be a more appropriate regression for stage 2, where n is the number of layers. The table below is the approximation of each scenario and stage. Each stage starts and ends at the intersection of the next stage. There where two main objectives for these tests: firstly to understand how honeycomb performs under extreme compression, and secondly to be able to numerically represent the honeycomb structure. Both of these where completed to varying degrees. It is important understood how the honeycomb fails. If it is crushed in the T direction it retains its integrity even after being crushed, however when crushed in the L and W crush direction, if it fails, it disintegrates, and loses all integrity. Also, the more layers the more time the material spends in stage 2. Failure is started by buckling, thus if there is any imperfection, the stress will not spike but transition straight into stage 2. The data collected and aggregated can be used for initial simulation of honeycomb used in packages. The initial testing has set the ground work for more data to be collected in order to verify results and to allow more confidence in the simulation results. This is only the initial data collected. The next steps is to continue to collect more data to verify results and to test more variants of honeycomb, with different brazing, layers, and shape.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2024

HydraGNN_Predictive_GFM_2024 - Ensemble of predictive graph foundation models for ground state atomistic materials modeling

We provide the ensemble of fifteen pre-trained graph foundation models (GFMs) for atomistic materials modeling applications. Each one of the fifteen GFMs has been trained on five open-source datasets that (once aggregated) amount to over 154 million atomistic structures, which cover over two-thirds of the natural elements of the periodic table and that comprises a broad set of organic and inorganic compounds. This vast set of atomistic structures comprises ground state configurations that are dynamically stable (i.e., equilibrated structures with atomic forces approximately close to zero values) as well as dynamically unstable structures (i.e., non-equilibrium structures with non-negligible non-zero values of atomic forces). The ensemble of datasets aggregated does NOT include excited states. The datasets have been curated to remove atomistic structures with spectral norm of the force tensor above 100 eV/angstrom. Moreover, a linear term of the energy was computed for each dataset using a linear regression model that uses the chemical concentration of each natural element as regressor. The linear term predicted by the linear regression model has been subtracted from each original energy value to perform a re-alignment of the energy values across different electronic structures approximation theories performed to generate the diverse multi-source, multi-fidelity datasets. The folder "ADIOS_files" contains the set of pre-processed datasets in Adaptable I/O System (ADIOS) format (https://www.exascaleproject.org/research-project/adios/) that have been used for the development and training of GFMs in this work. The "ADIOS_files" directory contains 6 sub-directories named as follows: - ANI1x-v3.bp - MPTrj-v3.bp - OC2020-20M-v3.bp - OC2020-v3.bp - OC2022-v3.bp - qm7x-v3.bp Each sub-directory contains the pre-processed datasets converted in Adaptable I/O System (ADIOS) format (https://www.exascaleproject.org/research-project/adios/) that have been used to the development, training, and performance testing of the ensemble go predictive graph foundation models. Each GFM was developed using HydraGNN (https://github.com/ORNL/HydraGNN) as underlying graph neural network (GNN) architecture. The multi-task learning (MTL) capability of HydraGNN was used to simultaneously train the GFMs on labeled values for direct predictions of energy (a total system property of an atomistic structure that measures the chemical stability) and atomic forces (an atomic level property of an atomistic structure that measures the dynamical stability). The hyper parameters of the GFM have been tuned using scalable hyperparameter optimization (HPO) algorithms implemented in the software DeepHyper (https://github.com/deephyper/deephyper). The pre-training of each HPO trial was performed using distributed data parallelism (DDP) to scale the training across 128 compute nodes of the exascale OLCF supercomputer Frontier. Each HPO trial was trained only for 10 epochs and an early stopping was performed to avoid wasting significant computational resources on GNN architectures that were clearly underperforming. For each HPO trial, the 'omnistat' tool developed by (AMD Research - Advanced Micro Device) was used to measure the total energy consumption in kWh. The ensemble of GFMs was obtained by selecting the fifteen best performing HPO trials. Four models have been selected for their clear advantage in accuracy, and these are the GFMs with IDs 229, 156, 147, 260. Additional eleven models have been selected based on judicious balance between accuracy and energy consumption needed for training, and these are the GFMs with IDs 165, 78, 137, 1, 175, 171, 181, 67, 179, 167, 351. Each selected GFM of the ensemble was continued to cumulate a total of at most 30 epochs. In some cases, the total number of epochs actually performed was les than 30 due to two combined factors: (1) the size of the GFM (i.e., the number of model parameters to train) and (2) the total wall-clock time for which the computational resources could be allocated on OLCF-Frontier. The "Ensemble_of_models" directory contains 15 sub-directories named as follows: - gfm_0.229 - gfm_0.156 - gfm_0.147 - gfm_0.260 - gfm_0.165 - gfm_0.78 - gfm_0.137 - gfm_0.1 - gfm_0.175 - gfm_0.171 - gfm_0.181 - gfm_0.67 - gfm_0.179 - gfm_0.167 - gfm_0.351 Each one of these sub-directories refers to one of the fifteen HPO trials that have been selected to continue the pre-training with at most 30 epochs. With each sub-directory associated with a specific HPO trial, the following files can be found: - config.json: file for argument parsing to develop and train an HydraGNN architecture - gfm_0.ID_epoch_N.pk: file with model parameters for HPO ID trial after N epochs of training The ensemble of fifteen GFM architectures was used for (1) ensemble averaging to stabilize the predictions of energy and atomic forces after pre-training for post-processing analysis and (2) ensemble uncertainty quantification (UQ). The code used to develop, pre-train, and load the pre-trained models for post-processing analysis is available on the ORNL-GitHub at the following link: https://github.com/ORNL/HydraGNN/tree/Predictive_GFM_2024

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗