SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Stakeholders Meeting”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

405 records · Page 23

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

VIPER Lunar Rover Agile Mission Systems

Agile development methods, which have gone from outlier to mainstream in software development, are poised to expand into all aspects of space mission development. Modern software development operates on a principle of continuous deployment, where progress is verified not with conventional metrics, but with a continuous build, available to key stakeholders, enabling direct examination of the state of the code base, and assessment of progress through demonstration of capability. Delivery times are measured in weeks, not months. Stakeholders are part of the process on an ongoing basis. The cost of change is comparatively low and requirements, which often are not precisely defined at the start of a project, may be iteratively refined in a series of agile development cycles. Agile methods are compatible with traditional system engineering methods and may be tailored to the space operations environment. The low cost of change and iterative development cycles of agile enable requirements to be defined as outcomes and constraints, with design details to be refined during the development cycle. We are now at a point where agile methods may be extended beyond software, to Mission Systems, including the Mission Operations System and the Ground Data System. For NASA’s VIPER Lunar Rover Mission, scheduled to land at a lunar pole in late 2023, we are developing the Mission System using agile methods. As in agile software, where the measure of progress is working code, in agile mission system development, the measure of capability is what we can demonstrate. Demonstrations over presentations. We demonstrate mission system capability using simulations. The concept of operations, from commanding, to driving the rover, to how we downlink images for evaluation for a near-real time command cycle, will be tested and proven in simulation, years before we begin the traditional simulation cycle for training. “Say it then simulate it.” We develop and refine our designs using simulations, with an emphasis on new components of the system that are not well known early. For example, the required duration of a mission planning cycle for a lunar surface asset such as VIPER, that operates twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, with continuous communications and a unique set of constraints based on the physics of the lunar poles and the line of site to Earth, is a unique problem in mission planning that is unlikely to be solved in a series of meetings. A small number of requirements specifying the outcomes may serve as the jumping off point to an agile development cycle, with demonstration in simulations. We have already demonstrated this process with simulations of rover driver decision time. VIPER is driven using near-real time command and control to waypoints. The driver decision time between waypoints is a fundamental enabling unit of productivity to accomplish the mission timeline. We have validated driver decision time in simulations of rover driving at the lunar South Pole, using the prototype mission tools for driving, command and control. The capability to develop and refine designs using simulations as part of agile Mission System development cycle changes the nature of team interactions, creating a focus on doing, rather than analyzing and documenting. Waterfall development cycles were, in part, a product of the significant cost of change in the early days of spaceflight. When the cost of change is high, it is vital to get your requirements right at the outset, because the system will be built to those specifications, and, when change is expensive, you better get it right early. However, modern technology has greatly lowered the cost of change, enabling iterative, rapid development cycles, in which key operations concepts may be tested and refined during development. Extending agile development to the Mission System for VIPER is a significant step in moving agile development methods for space operations beyond software, to the Mission System.

Agile↗

NASA NTRS2023

Adaptive Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) Reduces Risk of Software Impacting Safety in Artemis Missions

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is asking more of its human spaceflight programs than ever before through the collective Artemis Missions. The NASA Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) Program contributes to NASA’s human spaceflight goals by providing IV&V services for NASA’s critical spacecraft and ground software. The IV&V Program is tasked with providing assurance from both individual and integrated mission software perspectives. The Artemis IV&V organization is actively supporting six distinct development efforts: Orion, the Space Launch System (SLS), Exploration Ground Systems (EGS), Mission Control Center (MCC), the Lunar Gateway, and the Human Landing System (HLS), representing a wide diversity of developer organizations, management structures, and development approaches. With much of this extremely complex flight and ground software being essential to human safety both on the ground and in space, Artemis IV&V is likewise challenged to provide more value-added assurance to future Artemis missions within a constrained budget. To meet this challenge, Artemis IV&V employs a variety of novel and evolving “Adaptive IV&V” approaches for planning and executing IV&V analysis to increase both the efficiency and effectiveness of the IV&V Program’s assurance activities, and to address the difficulties imposed by assuring software for a large, highly integrated, multi-mission enterprise managed and executed by physically and organizationally distinct programs. Instilling agile principles like iterative planning cycles, self-organizing teams, and regular retrospectives, into IV&V planning and execution has led to a more rapid turnaround of a minimum viable assurance product and allowed for increased alignment of assurance activities with development progress. Adopting an assurance case methodology has led to greater consistency and clearer communication of assurance design and provided a foundation for long-term maintenance of assurance plans, products, and results across missions. The IV&V-developed Assurance / Safety Case Analytical Network (A-SCAN) framework and tool has enabled the quantification and tracking of system/software risk and confidence. These confidence measures provide a means to repeatedly express the impact of planned and completed assurance work and the remaining residual risk. Applied as part of a “Follow-the-Risk” organizational ethos, this allows consistent rightsizing of analysis rigor and intensity commensurate with the perceived risk of defects, as well as appropriate targeting of the highest risk areas of the software to find safety issues before they can manifest. Finally, the development of the IV&V Advanced Risk Reduction Integrated Software Test and Operations Tri-program Lightweight Environment (ARRISTOTLE), an integrated software-only simulation of Orion, SLS, and EGS systems, has made it possible to independently test integrated pad and flight scenarios and inject faults to observe how the Artemis multi-program, mission software behaves in degraded modes and in response to hazards. These adaptive IV&V investments have enabled Artemis IV&V to become more efficient and effective in IV&V planning and execution and respond more readily to changes in the risk landscape, increasing the breadth and depth of risk reduction possible within the available resources. Residual risk tracking allows IV&V to communicate more effectively with stakeholders, both internal and external at all levels, and inform key decision-making personnel. This evolving assurance design approach provides IV&V surety that work is performed in the highest risk, most value-added areas of the software, to keep our astronauts and ground crews safe and ensure mission success.

Gerek A Whitman↗

NASA NTRS2023

Adaptive Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) Reduces Risk of Software Impacting Safety in Artemis Missions

Gerek Whitman↗

NASA NTRS2013

Conformal Ablative Thermal Protection System for Planetary and Human Exploration Missions:An Overview of the Technology Maturation Effort

The Office of Chief Technologist, NASA identified the need for research and technology development in part from NASAs Strategic Goal 3.3 of the NASA Strategic Plan to develop and demonstrate the critical technologies that will make NASAs exploration, science, and discovery missions more affordable and more capable. Furthermore, the Game Changing Development Program is a primary avenue to achieve the Agencys 2011 strategic goal to Create the innovative new space technologies for our exploration, science, and economic future. The National Research Council (NRC) Space Technology Roadmaps and Priorities report highlights six challenges and they are: Mass to Surface, Surface Access, Precision Landing, Surface Hazard Detection and Avoidance, Safety and Mission Assurance, and Affordability. In order for NASA to meet these challenges, the report recommends immediate focus on Rigid and Flexible Thermal Protection Systems. Rigid TPS systems such as Avcoat or SLA are honeycomb based and PICA is in the form of tiles. The honeycomb systems are manufactured using techniques that require filling of each (38 cell) by hand, and in a limited amount of time all of the cells must be filled and the heatshield must be cured. The tile systems such as PICA pose a different challenge as the low strain-to-failure and manufacturing size limitations require large number of small tiles with gap-fillers between the tiles. Recent investments in flexible ablative systems have given rise to the potential for conformal ablative TPS. A conformal TPS over a rigid aeroshell has the potential to solve a number of challenges faced by traditional rigid TPS materials. The high strain-to-failure nature of the conformal ablative materials will allow integration of the TPS with the underlying aeroshell structure much easier and enable monolithic-like configuration and larger segments (or parts) to be used. By reducing the overall part count, the cost of installation (based on cost comparisons between blanket and tile materials on shuttle) should be significantly reduced. The conformal ablator design will include a simplified design of seams between gore panels, which should eliminate the need for gap filler design, and should accommodate a wider range of allowable carrier structure imperfections when compared to a rigid material such as PICA.The Conformal TPS development project leverages the past investments made by earlier projects with a goal to develop and deliver a TRL 5 conformal TPS capable of 250 Wcm2 for missions such as MSL or COTS missions. The capabilities goal for the conformal TPS is similar to an MSL design reference mission (250 Wcm2) with matching pressures and shear environments. Both conformal and flexible carbon-felt based materials were successfully tested in stagnation aerothermal environments above 500 Wcm2 under earlier programs. Results on a myriad of materials developed during FY11 were used to determine which materials to start with in FY12. In FY12, the conformal TPS element focused on establishing materials requirements based on MSL-type and COTS Low Earth orbit (LEO) conditions (q 250 Wcm2) to develop and deliver a Conformal Ablative TPS. In FY13, development and refining metrics for mission utilization of conformal ablator technology along with assessment for potential mission stakeholders will be carried out.

Thermal protection materials↗

DOE OSTI2021

Igiugig Site Visit Report

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) team conducted a site visit during January 23-25, 2019 with the Igiugig Village Council (IVC) and other stakeholders to assist the community of Igiugig in refining their long-term energy strategy. The agenda included a tour of the village, data collection, presentations, long-term visioning exercises, identification of energy scenarios, and a school presentation. Participants in the site visit activities spanned a range of local, regional, government, and industry participation. There were 24 attendees at the all-day community workshop on Thursday, January 24th, with participants from the IVC, NREL, Bristol Bay Native Association (BBNA), Bristol Bay Native Corporation (BBNC), Lake and Peninsula Borough, Alaska Energy Authority, Intergrid, ORPC, Deer Stone Consulting, the Southwest Alaska Municipal Conference, and University of Alaska Fairbanks - Alaska Center for Energy and Power. Igiugig is a well-organized rural Alaskan community, with a leadership team that appears to have broad community support. The use of consensus-based decision making is one tangible example of how the leadership team actively invokes and promotes community-focused thinking. The NREL team observed anecdotal evidence of how this approach seems to be strengthening the community: active participation in the visioning exercise, a student hosted fund-raiser dinner at the school, a clean and organized landfill, and well-maintained roads and buildings. Igiugig has wind, solar, and river hydrokinetic resources readily available within the community. Wind has shown to be a promising resource in the region, and has been integrated into microgrids around the state, but the community has had mixed success with wind technologies: some devices failed quickly and others continue to operate. The economics of solar energy are improving in Alaska, and economical solar projects are being installed around the state. Considering that economic activity in Igiugig peaks during the summer sport fishing season, solar could prove to be a valuable supplement to the electrical system. Igiugig has been a test site for two different river hydrokinetic devices, and they have began a third project to operate ORPC's RivGen device, which is delivering valuable device performance data, operations and maintenance experience, and design refinement information. Already, this device has made over 7-million revolutions, and delivered over 8 MWh of power to the community. Igiugig's river resource is fairly unique because it is available year-round and has the potential to provide reliable base-load power for months at a time. A preliminary investigation of this diverse resource mix suggests that Igiugig could achieve very high levels (70% or more) of annual renewable generation contributions. A critical step in pursuing this path is identifying the mix of energy assets (generation and storage) that best meets the community's budget, needs, and goals. The assets that a community installs early in their grid-modernization initiative can constrain the options that are economical at later stages, which may lead to sub-optimal solutions. This is where technical and economic analysis of potential scenarios (i.e., distinct mixes of energy assets) can be useful in identifying the most promising pathways so that a community can make informed and strategic decisions about the assets they install. These analyses are most accurate and informative when they are based on actual technology performance and cost data. As the RivGen project continues to operate and generate this data, we will be better prepared to evaluate the technology's long-term viability and to identify research areas that would improve it. Igiugig's energy projects are at the cutting edge of two intersecting technology areas: 1) deploying an operational river hydrokinetic turbine, and 2) integrating renewable energy sources to achieve very high percent renewables. If these projects are successful, the lessons learned and technologies developed could be valuable for other microgrids around the world. Igiugig's unique resource mix make it an ideal location for this work, and the community's organizational strength make it an ideal partner in this ground-breaking work. Ongoing support for technical assistance to manage and address technical challenges along the way will maximize the probability of project success.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2020

Low Count and Background Radionuclides Analysis - 20488

The US Department of Energy (DOE) is often faced with the need to evaluate radionuclides at low concentrations. When site sample data are likely to be close to threshold activity concentrations of interest, then the means by which the radiochemical analysis is performed and reported is critical. This situation can occur when differentiating from zero (presence/absence) for radionuclides that do not occur naturally, close comparison with environmental background for naturally occurring radionuclides, close comparison with a risk- or dose-based threshold concentrations of interest, or even comparisons across studies. There are several analytical issues that are of concern, but the two that appear to cause incorrect decisions to be made most often involve establishing detection limits and subtracting ambient background conditions in the laboratory. These issues are not critical when radionuclide activity concentrations are large relative to thresholds of concern, but they seem to be poorly understood when it matters. When the comparisons are important and are likely to be close to a threshold of interest, then the general contract with the analytical laboratories needs to be changed so that the right or appropriate data are obtained. The concern is that important decisions are made incorrectly more often as greater scrutiny is placed on DoE's radionuclide cleanup or monitoring decisions by the public and other stakeholders. Examples are presented of problems that have been observed for different projects, both within and outside the realm of DOE and NRC remediation and radioactive waste disposal problems, and solutions are offered that should lead to better data from which important decisions need to be made. The first example is from Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and involves radionuclide concentrations in soil and rock beneath LANL's Material Disposal Area (MDA) G. An initial review of the data led to a conclusion that americium and plutonium are a long way present beneath MDA G. A more thorough review of the data that accounted properly for ambient background and the detection limits that had been established led to the opposite conclusion. Another example is from the Nevada National Security Site where tritium results from one of the wells were unexpectedly high. Proper understanding and analysis of ambient background led to the conclusion that the increased concentrations were not so obvious, and that a different contract with the analytical laboratory was needed to provide more appropriate data to support a better determination. Other examples are used from regulatory review of projects in Nevada, where background levels and secular equilibrium for naturally occurring radionuclides are not established correctly because of analytical issues. The same basic issues have also been found to create difficulties analyzing historical data from the West Valley Demonstration Project. There is evidence in the data that the apparent lack of secular equilibrium where it is expected to exist is related to ambient background subtraction or other analytical issues. A final example is presented for analysis of Tc-99 in samples of depleted uranium. In this case, two different studies that were performed only three months apart provide quite different results. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the data quality objectives (DQO) process in the mid-1980's to establish decision performance criteria for data collection. EPA guidance (EPA G-4, for example) clearly distinguishes between DQOs and measurement performance objectives (MQOs) that should be addressed for laboratory analysis of samples. The language of DQOs and MQOs has become confused over time it seems, and the subsequent effects seem to include a lack of attention to decision performance and a routine approach to measurement quality. In order to better address radionuclide sample analysis when the concentrations are close to thresholds of concern, which might be zero for some radionuclides, background for others, and risk-based thresholds for yet others, it is important that routine laboratory analysis methods are adjusted, and that the project team and the laboratory work closely together to ensure that the data meets the MQO requirements of laboratory analysis and reporting of results, and that the MQOs effectively support project-specific DQOs. This basic approach will be applied in Los Alamos in the coming year to the collection of moisture data from underneath MDA T that will be analyzed for americium and neptunium isotopes. Proper understanding of the radiochemistry methods and reporting, and of appropriate statistical methods is critical to the success of such projects, ensuring that the right decisions are made. (authors)

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗

DOE OSTI2024

Innovating the next generation of commercial smart building software

Nearly 30% of commercial building energy use is wasted due to equipment faults and HVAC controls problems. The result is increased emissions, compromised comfort and productivity, and less reliable coordination of building power needs with a clean grid. The energy impact alone represents $17 billion in potential savings. Today’s smart building software provides a robust solution to address these operational deficiencies. Energy management and information systems (EMIS) are saving up to 9% on average, with two-year paybacks. They are being incorporated into energy management processes, commissioning services, and utility programs. As effective as they are, two barriers prevent even deeper benefits; limited personnel to fix problems once they are identified, and the expense and time to manually implement changes in control systems. In partnership with the research community, the EMIS industry is developing new capabilities to overcome these barriers. Moving beyond siloed products for either fault detection and diagnostics, or optimal control, these new capabilities empower users to not only automatically identify faults, but also to push corrective action, and control improvements to their buildings. In this paper, several areas for enhancements are documented: ‘one-time’ correction of faults such as setpoints, schedules, and economizer lockouts; short-term active testing for automated proportional integral derivative (PID) loop tuning and functional testing; and continuous supervisory control for demand flexibility and year-round efficiency. Results are presented from a pair of partner implementations out of a dozen providers integrating these enhancements into their products, including field tests from across the country, and insights into operator acceptance and integration into operations and maintenance practices.

Casillas, Armando↗

DOE OSTI2023

Onshore U.S. Carbon Pipeline Deployment: Siting, Safety, and Regulation

Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technology has significant potential to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mitigate the impact of climate change, particularly in hard to decarbonize industrial and commercial sectors. CCUS involves capturing carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) from industrial processes or power generation and utilizing it for other purposes, such as enhanced oil recovery (EOR), or storing the captured CO 2 underground. CCUS technology can reduce the environmental impact of continued fossil fuel use while smoothing the transition to a low-carbon economy. CCUS can create new economic opportunities, such as the development of new industries and job creation, and can enhance energy security by diversifying energy sources. For these reasons, enabling CCUS has become a key objective of the Biden-Harris administration’s clean energy policy and has received bipartisan support. Despite its environmental and economic potential, CCUS faces multiple barriers to widespread deployment. One of the main challenges is the high cost and technical difficulty of implementing and operating large-scale CCUS infrastructure. CCUS remains a relatively expensive way to reduce carbon emissions (e.g., compared to solar photovoltaic technology’s displacement of coal generation). Additionally, financial incentives and supportive policies like those enacted to support solar photovoltaic development, especially at the state level, are inconsistent or nonexistent, which can discourage investment in CCUS projects. There are also technical challenges associated with safe and secure underground CO 2 storage and the development of new carbon utilization technologies. Public opposition to various aspects of CCUS technologies, ranging from concerns that CCUS will extend reliance on fossil fuels to CCUS infrastructure being sited in disadvantaged communities, is a growing challenge. This paper focuses on another significant barrier to broad CCUS deployment: the need for considerable expansion of the dedicated land-based CO 2 pipeline network in the United States to meet CCUS goals and the unique regulatory challenges to its development. To reach carbon emissions targets in the United States by 2050, CCUS technology will need to be supported by tens of thousands of miles of CO 2 pipelines. Estimates range from a minimum of roughly 29,000 pipeline miles (according to a 2020 Great Plains Institute study) to 66,000 pipeline miles (as per a 2021 Princeton University–led study). As of October 2022, however, the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) reports fewer than 5,400 miles of U.S. pipelines carrying CO 2 . This deficit—and what it means for the prospect of moving substantially larger quantities of CO 2 from source to use or storage—threatens to stifle the development of CCUS projects and technologies identified as an important tool to meet emissions targets. The current regulatory landscape facing CO 2 pipeline development can best be described as uncertain. At the federal level, the U.S. DOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) oversees safety regulation of pipelines transporting hazardous materials, including CO 2 upon commencement of operation. However, PHMSA’s definition of CO 2 as “a fluid consisting of more than 90 percent CO 2 molecules compressed to a supercritical state” has not been updated since its 1991 addition to the Federal Register. Because CO 2 can be transported in a gaseous, liquid, or supercritical state (indeed, the physical state of CO 2 can fluctuate within a single pipeline due to environmental changes), doubts persist about the extent of PHMSA’s purview—and raise questions about what, if anything, states should do to address this apparent gap. PHMSA has begun a major revision of its existing rules, but the agency does not expect a first draft before 2024. Economic oversight of CO 2 pipelines is even less clear. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and Surface Transportation Board (STB)—which regulate the rates of interstate oil/natural gas and non-energy pipelines, respectively—have both declined jurisdiction over interstate CO 2 pipelines. This presumably leaves economic regulation to state and/or local governments, but few if any states have the laws or resources in place to oversee just and reasonable rates. Further, the interstate nature of CO 2 pipeline development creates questions around how different states should align their rate-making decisions. Onshore U.S. Carbon Pipeline Deployment: Siting, Safety, and Regulation Currently, regulatory responsibilities regarding CO 2 pipeline siting and permitting fall to state and local governments. The variety of laws and regulations across the country, however, creates a maze of requirements for pipeline developers to navigate. To secure necessary permits, most states require pipeline companies to be “common carriers” that provide transport service to the public at uniform rates. However, the specific definition of that term varies. Some states require clear evidence that a pipeline services the public, while others automatically deem any pipeline company transporting energy products or hazardous materials to be a “common carrier”—with little consideration for accessibility to third parties. Other states have eschewed common-carrier terminology entirely, placing private and publicly accessible pipelines on equal footing. Much like the variation in common-carrier requirements, laws governing eminent domain authority to secure rights-of-way (ROW) to commence construction on a planned pipeline route differ by state. Several states have no laws or rules governing CO 2 pipelines. In addition to creating questions about whether long-standing rules for other pipelines (e.g., natural gas or petroleum products) apply to CO 2 , this policy vacuum leaves local governments as the sole authority over sections of pipe within their boundaries. With dozens of counties along a given route, the probability of inconsistent regulation of the same pipeline is significant. Even in states with CO 2 pipeline laws in place, local regulatory attempts to address rising concerns over pipeline routing and safety have triggered lawsuits by pipeline companies seeking to delimit areas of federal, state, and local government responsibility. Meanwhile, legislators across the country have introduced bills to restrict the application of eminent domain to CO 2 pipeline projects, which could threaten a key means of securing ROW that companies cannot secure through negotiation with landowners. Taken separately, any of these regulatory issues—the narrow federal definition of CO 2 , FERC’s and STB’s decisions that CO 2 pipelines are not within their jurisdiction, and the considerable variation in state and local governments’ laws regulating CO 2 pipeline technologies—are extremely difficult to resolve. Adding the required scale of CO 2 pipeline expansion and the currently identified narrow window of time in which to reach climate target goals, the task becomes even more difficult—and raises a host of urgent questions for regulators. How should CO 2 be defined in federal regulations to ensure consistent safety standards across the country? What is the potential impact radius of a CO 2 pipeline rupture, and how should that inform local emergency response? In the absence of centralized federal oversight, what should state legislatures do to increase alignment for interstate CO 2 pipeline projects? This paper intends to serve as a primer for regulators and stakeholders who seek to better understand the regulatory challenges and opportunities facing this critical infrastructure.

42 ENGINEERING↗

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↗