Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “building”

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 523 records · Page 29
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2014

Strengthening Retrofit Markets for Comprehensive Savings in Multifamily Buildings (Interim Final Report)

Energy efficiency is vitally important in Maine. Nearly 70% of Maine households rely on fuel oil as their primary energy source for home heating, a higher share than in any other state. Coupled with the state's long, cold winters, Maine's dependence on oil renders homeowners particularly vulnerable to fluctuating fuel costs. With $\$$4.5 million in seed funding from the Energy Department's Better Buildings Neighborhood Program, the Governor's Energy Office (GEO), through Efficiency Maine Trust (the Trust), is spurring Maine landlords to lower their monthly energy bills and improve comfort for their tenants during the state's cold winter months and increasingly warmer summers. Maine's aging multifamily housing stock can be expensive to heat and costly to maintain. It is not unusual to find buildings with little or no insulation, drafty windows, and significant air leaks, making them ideal candidates for energy efficiency upgrades. Maine modeled its Multifamily Efficiency Program (MEP) after the state's highly successful Home Energy Savings Program (HESP) for single-family homes. HESP provided cash incentives and financing opportunities to owners of one-to four-unit structures, which resulted in thousands of energy assessments and whole-house energy upgrades in 225 communities. Maine's new MEP multifamily energy efficiency upgrade and weatherization initiative focuses on small to medium-sized (i.e., five to 20 units) apartment buildings. The program's energy efficiency upgrades will provide at least 20% energy savings for each upgraded multifamily unit. The Trust’s MEP relies on a network of approved program partners who help move projects through the pipeline from assessment to upgrade. MEP has two components: benchmarking and development of an Energy Reduction Plan (ERP). Using the ENERGY STAR® Portfolio Manager benchmarking tool, MEP provides an assessment of current energy usage in the building, establishes a baseline for future energy efficiency improvements, and enables tracking and monitoring of future energy usage at the building— all at no cost to the building owner. The ERP is developed by a program partner using either the Trust’s approved modeling or prescriptive tools; it provides detailed information about the current energy related conditions in the building and recommends energy efficiency, health, and safety improvements. The Trust's delivery contractor provides quality assurance and controls throughout the process. Through this effort, MEP's goal is to establish a self-sustaining, market-driven program, demonstrating the value of energy efficiency to other building owners. The increasing value of properties across the state will help incentivize these owners to continue upgrades after the grant period has ended. Targeting urban areas in Maine with dense clusters of multifamily units—such as Portland, Lewiston- Auburn, Bangor, and Augusta—MEP engaged a variety of stakeholder groups early on to design its multifamily program. Through direct emails and its website, program officials invited lending institutions, building professionals, engineering firms, equipment distributors, and local property owners associations to attend open meetings around the state to learn about the goals of the multifamily program and to help define its parameters. These meetings helped program administrators understand the diversity of the customer base: some owners are individuals with a single building, while other owners are groups of people or management companies with an entire portfolio of multifamily buildings. The diversity of the customer base notwithstanding, owners see MEP as an opportunity to make gains in their respective properties. Consistently high turnouts at stakeholder meetings fueled greater customer interest as awareness of the program spread through word of mouth. The program also gained traction by utilizing the program partner networks and building on the legacy of the Trust’s successful HESP for single-family residences. MEP offers significant incentives for building owners to participate in the upgrade program. Wholebuilding benchmarking services are available to most multifamily housing buildings free of charge. The service provides the building owner with an assessment of the building's current energy efficiency as compared to other multifamily buildings on a national scale, establishes a baseline to measure future improvements, and enables owners to track monthly energy consumption using the ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager. Once the benchmarking process is complete, the program links building owners with approved program partners (e.g., energy professionals, home performance contractors) to identify and implement specific energy-saving opportunities in the building. Program partners can also provide project quotes with estimated financing incentives and payback period calculations that enable building owners to make informed decisions. What's more, the Trust provides two financial incentives for successful completion of program milestones. The first is a per-unit incentive for completion of an approved ERP (i.e., $\$$100 per unit if a prescriptive path is followed, and $\$$200 per unit for a modeled ERP). Upon final inspection of the installed project scope of work, an incentive of $\$$1,400 per unit or 50% of installed cost—whichever is less—is paid. The Trust originally established a $\$$1 million loan-loss reserve fund (LLRF) to further enhance financing opportunities for qualified multifamily building owners. This funding mechanism was designed to connect building owners with lenders that retain the mortgages for their properties and encourages the lenders to offer financing for energy efficiency improvements. However, there has been no interest in the LLRF and therefore the LLRF has been reduced. Ultimately, MEP plans to build an online tool for building owners to assess opportunities to make upgrades in their multifamily units. The tool will include a performance rating system to provide a way for building owners to more easily understand energy use in their building, and how it could be improved with energy efficiency upgrades. Prospective tenants will also be able to use the rating system to make informed decisions about where to rent. Furthermore, the rating can be incorporated into real estate listings as a way for prospective home buyers and the real estate financial community to evaluate a home's operating costs. The Trust’s MEP has identified the state's most experienced energy professionals, vendors, suppliers, and contractors that install energy efficiency equipment in the multifamily sector to be qualified program partners. To be eligible for partnership, energy assessment professionals and contractors are required to have demonstrated experience in the multifamily sector and hold associated professional certifications, such as Building Operator Certification (BOC), Certified Energy Manager (CEM), Professional Engineer (PE), or Building Performance Institute (BPI) Multifamily Building Analyst. Widespread program interest has enabled the Trust to redirect funds that might otherwise be needed for program promotion to building capacity through contractor training. In addition to boosting professional training and certification opportunities, MEP teaches its partners how to market the multifamily program to prospective multifamily homeowners.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2014

Analysis of the Chinese Market for Building Energy Efficiency

China will account for about half of the new construction globally in the coming decade. Its floorspace doubled from 1996 to 2011, and Chinese rural buildings alone have as much floorspace as all of U.S. residential buildings. Building energy consumption has also grown, increasing by over 40% since 1990. To curb building energy demand, the Chinese government has launched a series of policies and programs. Combined, this growth in buildings and renovations, along with the policies to promote green buildings, are creating a large market for energy efficiency products and services. This report assesses the impact of China’s policies on building energy efficiency and on the market for energy efficiency in the future. The first chapter of this report introduces the trends in China, drawing on both historical analysis, and detailed modeling of the drivers behind changes in floorspace and building energy demand such as economic and population growth, urbanization, policy. The analysis describes the trends by region, building type and energy service. The second chapter discusses China’s policies to promote green buildings. China began developing building energy codes in the 1980s. Over time, the central government has increased the stringency of the code requirements and the extent of enforcement. The codes are mandatory in all new buildings and major renovations in China’s cities, and they have been a driving force behind the expansion of China’s markets for insulation, efficient windows, and other green building materials. China also has several other important policies to encourage efficient buildings, including the Three-Star Rating System (somewhat akin to LEED), financial incentives tied to efficiency, appliance standards, a phasing out of incandescent bulbs and promotion of efficient lighting, and several policies to encourage retrofits in existing buildings. In the third chapter, we take “deep dives” into the trends affecting key building components. This chapter examines insulation in walls and roofs; efficient windows and doors; heating, air conditioning and controls; and lighting. These markets have seen significant growth because of the strength of the construction sector but also the specific policies that require and promote efficient building components. At the same time, as requirements have become more stringent, there has been fierce competition, and quality has at time suffered, which in turn has created additional challenges. Next we examine existing buildings in chapter four. China has many Soviet-style, inefficient buildings built before stringent requirements for efficiency were more widely enforced. As a result, there are several specific market opportunities related to retrofits. These fall into two or three categories. First, China now has a code for retrofitting residential buildings in the north. Local governments have targets of the number of buildings they must retrofit each year, and they help finance the changes. The requirements focus on insulation, windows, and heat distribution. Second, the Chinese government recently decided to increase the scale of its retrofits of government and state-owned buildings. It hopes to achieve large scale changes through energy service contracts, which creates an opportunity for energy service companies. Third, there is also a small but growing trend to apply energy service contracts to large commercial and residential buildings. This report assesses the impacts of China’s policies on building energy efficiency. By examining the existing literature and interviewing stakeholders from the public, academic, and private sectors, the report seeks to offer an in-depth insights of the opportunities and barriers for major market segments related to building energy efficiency. The report also discusses trends in building energy use, policies promoting building energy efficiency, and energy performance contracting for public building retrofits.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2018

Voltron Compatible Whole Building Root-Fault Detection and Diagnosis

Buildings consume more than 40% of primary energy in the U.S. Malfunctioning sensors, components, and control systems, as well as degrading components in Heating, Ventilating and Air-conditioning (HVAC) and lighting systems are main reasons for energy waste and unsatisfactory indoor environment. Field studies have shown that an energy saving of 5-30% of total building energy consumption and improved indoor air quality can be achieved by simply applying automated fault detection and diagnosis (AFDD), followed by corrections even if these are not done in real time. Extensive research has been made on the development of component level AFDD tools in the past two decades. However, in recent years, the development of method for a whole building level AFDD has received much attention. Here, a whole building fault refers to a fault happening in one subsystem but impact on more than one subsystems, or has a significant impact on building performances, such as building’s energy consumption. Existing component level AFDD tools could fail to detect or give false alarm for faults that trigger abnormalities in multiple subsystems. Isolating such whole building faults, which have impacts on multiple subsystems, is also challenging by simply using component based AFDD solutions. On the other hand, it might be more cost-effective for medium- or small-sized commercial buildings that have subsystems (e.g. primary cooling subsystem, air loop subsystem, heating subsystem, lighting subsystem, etc.) to install one whole building level AFDD tool, rather than many component level AFDD tools, to focus on significant faults. The focus of this project is firstly to provide training opportunities in building AFDD research area for undergraduate students and to develop a workforce pipeline in building sciences. The objective of the proposed research activities is to develop cost-effective and scalable AFDD solutions for whole building level faults. The developed AFDD solution is VOLTTRONTM compatible to further increase its plug-n-play capacity and the market penetration. VOLTTRONTM is an open-source innovative distributed control and sensing software platform developed by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. A VOLTTRONTM compatible AFDD tool brings the benefits such as low-cost deployment, and better building to grid integration, etc. The performance of the developed whole building AFDD tools is evaluated using data collected from a mixed-use medium-sized university campus building. Another significant goal of this project is to engage undergraduate students in research activities and expose them to building control and AFDD fields. A demonstration building – Nesbitt Hall at Drexel University is identified for this study. This demonstration building has a typical HVAC system configuration, which includes a water-cooled chiller system, three variable air volume (VAV) air handling unit (AHU) systems, and a hydronic heating system. Faults, that are expected to have a whole building level impact, are artificially implemented in this demonstration building for three different seasons. Building data have been collected in this project, which include fault free building automation system (BAS) data and BAS data that contain system behaviors caused by artificially implemented and naturally occurred faults. These collected data are used to evaluate the developed whole building AFDD tools. A data-driven method, which includes a weather and schedule-based pattern matching (WPM) method and Feature based Principal Component Analysis (FPCA) method, is developed for whole building level fault detection. Parameter sensitivity tests, including snapshot window size, data sample searching pool size, etc., are implemented to evaluate the impacts of various WPM-FPCA parameters. A data-driven and expert knowledge/rule-based method using Bayesian Network (BN) and WPM is developed for whole building level fault diagnosis. The developed WPM-BN method, which includes a two-layer BN structure model and BN parameters, are either learned from baseline data or developed from expert knowledge. The developed whole building AFDD tools are evaluated using BAS data collected from the demonstration building. Using the evaluation data set, the WPM-FPCA fault detection method is evaluated under two different Principle Component (PC) retention rates, i.e., 0.65 retention rate and 0.95 retention rate. It is observed that when using 0.65 PC retention rate, the WPM-FPCA fault detection method achieves a 79% fault detection rate (this rate reaches to 85% when including the six make-up fault test cases discussed in the next bullet), while when using 0.95 PC retention rate, the WPM-FPCA fault detection method achieves 100% fault detection rate (this rate remains to be 100% when including the six make-up fault test cases). Under both PC retention rates, the WPM-FPCA fault detection method demonstrates 0% false alarm rates. Using the evaluation data set, the developed WPM-BN fault diagnosis method has successfully diagnosed thirteen (13) faults out of the fourteen (14) fault test cases. The one mis-diagnosed case exhibits fewer fault symptoms in different subsystems, when compared with other fault test cases. Overall speaking, the developed whole building AFDD solutions demonstrate satisfactory fault detection/diagnosis accuracy with very low false alarm rate. Lastly, a survey and market study has been performed to understand the existing AFDD market, including its gaps and needs.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
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↗
DOE OSTI2021

Model America: Data and Models for every U.S. Building

The 5-year goal of the “Model America” concept was to generate a model of every building in the United States. This data repository delivers on that goal with "Model America v1". Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has developed the Automatic Building Energy Modeling (AutoBEM) software suite to process multiple types of data, extract building-specific descriptors, generate building energy models, and simulate them on High Performance Computing (HPC) resources. For more information, see AutoBEM-related publications (bit.ly/AutoBEM). There were 125,715,609 buildings detected in the United States. Of this number, 122,146,671 (97.2%) buildings resulted in a successful generation and simulation of a building energy model. This dataset includes the full 125 million buildings. Future updates may include additional buildings, data improvements, or other algorithmic model enhancements in "Model America v2". This dataset contains OSM and IDF zip files for every U.S. county. Each zip file contains the generated buildings from that county. The .csv input data contains the following data fields: 1. ID - the Unique Building Identifier (UBID), generated using the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) BuildingID framework 2. Centroid - building center location in latitude/longitude (from Footprint2D) 3. Footprint2D - building polygon of 2D footprint (lat1/lon1_lat2/lon2_...) 4. State_abbr - state name 5. Area - estimate of total conditioned floor area (ft2) 6. Area2D - footprint area (ft2) 7. Height - building height (ft) 8. NumFloors - number of floors (above-grade) 9. WWR_surfaces - percent of each facade (pair of points from Footprint2D) covered by fenestration/windows (average 14.5% for residential, 40% for commercial buildings) 10. CZ - ASHRAE Climate Zone designation 11. BuildingType - DOE prototype building designation (IECC=residential) as implemented by OpenStudio-standards 12. Standard - building vintage This data is made free and openly available in hopes of stimulating any simulation-informed use case. Data is provided as-is with no warranties, express or implied, regarding fitness for a particular purpose. We wish to thank our sponsors which include Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD), U.S. Dept. of Energy’s (DOE) Building Technologies Office (BTO), Office of Electricity (OE), Biological and Environmental Research (BER), and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Update (September 23, 2025): We corrected the ID field in all state-level.csv input files to ensure one-to-one consistency with the corresponding .osm and .idf output files. The schema and file structure are unchanged; only the values in the ID column were modified. No files were added or removed, and the .zip bundles (containing .osm / .idf) are unchanged. The corrected .csv inputs were re-extracted in March 2025 from the original data generated ~ 2021 (Theta supercomputer runs), and published here to align input IDs with model outputs. Update (September 6, 2026): The Model America dataset was updated to replace the previous building ID field with the Unique Building Identifier (UBID), using the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) BuildingID framework. UBIDs provide standardized, location-based identifiers for individual building footprints and improve interoperability with other building and geospatial datasets. The data files containing the previous building identifiers were updated to include UBIDs. This update standardizes building identification; the underlying Model America building characteristics and energy simulation results were not recomputed as part of this update.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Development and Validation of Smart Building Technology Modules for Academic and Professional Education (Final Technical Report)

Smart building technologies can improve building energy efficiency and resilience, reduce carbon emissions, and provide load flexibility to the grid. However, in both college curricula and building professionals’ continuing education, there is a lack of systematic instruction on smart building technologies. Slipstream, partnering with Texas A&M University (TAMU), the Society of Building Science Educators (SBSE), and the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), developed a semester-long smart building curriculum for college students and 16 training videos for building professionals and the general public. The education and training cover the drivers and benefits of smart building technologies, key building energy systems, the latest sensor technologies and IoT devices, and focus on topics related to smart building controls (i.e., energy management information systems, smart building control platforms, cybersecurity, grid-interactive-efficient buildings [GEBs], smart building control methods, and occupant-centric control). The smart building curriculum for college students was taught at TAMU in the Spring semester of 2024 as part of the validation process. Student feedback was collected and summarized in a validation report by TAMU. The curriculum material was also reviewed by SBSE faculty who are interested in teaching smart building technology-related courses. Suggestions on revisions and better adoption of the materials by other faculty across the architectural, engineering, and construction (AEC) domains were compiled in a distinct validation report by SBSE. The SBSE validation report was used to create structured subsets of the curriculum material for adoption at different levels in different sub-disciplines. These subsets are categorized and offered on the SBSE website (https://www.sbse.org/courses/Smart-Building-Technologies). The 16 training videos for building professionals and the general public were previewed by 17 industry experts, and feedback and suggested changes were incorporated into the final version of these videos. The videos are organized into a smart building technology training course and published on the Whole Building Design Guide website (https://www.wbdg.org/ce/doe/bto/sbtt), which is hosted by the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS). Project team members created marketing materials to promote the awareness of these free, publicly available education and training resources. Outreach and marketing activities included creating short promotional videos, building project webpages, making project announcements on social media, conducting an email campaign, and directly reaching out to faculties and building professionals. This report describes the project approach, provides outlines of the training materials, along with links to resources, and identifies lessons learned in creating the content. We also suggest ways to scale the instruction of smart building concepts to empower the workforce to accelerate the adoption of smart building technologies in the real world.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2014

Regional Analysis of Building Distributed Energy Costs and CO2 Abatement: A U.S. - China Comparison

The following paper conducts a regional analysis of the U.S. and Chinese buildings? potential for adopting Distributed Energy Resources (DER). The expected economics of DER in 2020-2025 is modeled for a commercial and a multi-family residential building in different climate zones. The optimal building energy economic performance is calculated using the Distributed Energy Resources Customer Adoption Model (DER CAM) which minimizes building energy costs for a typical reference year of operation. Several DER such as combined heat and power (CHP) units, photovoltaics, and battery storage are considered. The results indicate DER have economic and environmental competitiveness potential, especially for commercial buildings in hot and cold climates of both countries. In the U.S., the average expected energy cost savings in commercial buildings from DER CAM?s suggested investments is 17percent, while in Chinese buildings is 12percent. The electricity tariffs structure and prices along with the cost of natural gas, represent important factors in determining adoption of DER, more so than climate. High energy pricing spark spreads lead to increased economic attractiveness of DER. The average emissions reduction in commercial buildings is 19percent in the U.S. as a result of significant investments in PV, whereas in China, it is 20percent and driven by investments in CHP. Keywords: Building Modeling and Simulation, Distributed Energy Resources (DER), Energy Efficiency, Combined Heat and Power (CHP), CO2 emissions 1. Introduction The transition from a centralized and fossil-based energy paradigm towards the decentralization of energy supply and distribution has been a major subject of research over the past two decades. Various concerns have brought the traditional model into question; namely its environmental footprint, its structural inflexibility and inefficiency, and more recently, its inability to maintain acceptable reliability of supply. Under such a troubled setting, distributed energy resources (DER) comprising of small, modular, electrical renewable or fossil-based electricity generation units placed at or near the point of energy consumption, has gained much attention as a viable alternative or addition to the current energy system. In 2010, China consumed about 30percent of its primary energy in the buildings sector, leading the country to pay great attention to DER development and its applications in buildings. During the 11th Five Year Plan (FYP), China has implemented 371 renewable energy building demonstration projects, and 210 photovoltaics (PV) building integration projects. At the end of the 12th FYP, China is targeting renewable energy to provide 10percent of total building energy, and to save 30 metric tons of CO2 equivalents (mtce) of energy with building integrated renewables. China is also planning to implement one thousand natural gas-based distributed cogeneration demonstration projects with energy utilization rates over 70percent in the 12th FYP. All these policy targets require significant DER systems development for building applications. China?s fast urbanization makes building energy efficiency a crucial economic issue; however, only limited studies have been done that examine how to design and select suitable building energy technologies in its different regions. In the U.S., buildings consumed 40percent of the total primary energy in 2010 [1] and it is estimated that about 14 billion m2 of floor space of the existing building stock will be remodeled over the next 30 years. Most building?s renovation work has been on building envelope, lighting and HVAC systems. Although interest has emerged, less attention is being paid to DER for buildings. This context has created opportunities for research, development and progressive deployment of DER, due to its potential to combine the production of power and heat (CHP) near the point of consumption and delivering multiple benefits to customers, such as cost

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2013

Virtual Design Studio (VDS) - Development of an Integrated Computer Simulation Environment for Performance Based Design of Very-Low Energy and High IEQ Buildings

Executive Summary The objective of this study was to develop a “Virtual Design Studio (VDS)”: a software platform for integrated, coordinated and optimized design of green building systems with low energy consumption, high indoor environmental quality (IEQ), and high level of sustainability. This VDS is intended to assist collaborating architects, engineers and project management team members throughout from the early phases to the detailed building design stages. It can be used to plan design tasks and workflow, and evaluate the potential impacts of various green building strategies on the building performance by using the state of the art simulation tools as well as industrial/professional standards and guidelines for green building system design. Engaged in the development of VDS was a multi-disciplinary research team that included architects, engineers, and software developers. Based on the review and analysis of how existing professional practices in building systems design operate, particularly those used in the U.S., Germany and UK, a generic process for performance-based building design, construction and operation was proposed. It distinguishes the whole process into five distinct stages: Assess, Define, Design, Apply, and Monitoring (ADDAM). The current VDS is focused on the first three stages. The VDS considers building design as a multi-dimensional process, involving multiple design teams, design factors, and design stages. The intersection among these three dimensions defines a specific design task in terms of “who”, “what” and “when”. It also considers building design as a multi-objective process that aims to enhance the five aspects of performance for green building systems: site sustainability, materials and resource efficiency, water utilization efficiency, energy efficiency and impacts to the atmospheric environment, and IEQ. The current VDS development has been limited to energy efficiency and IEQ performance, with particular focus on evaluating thermal performance, air quality and lighting environmental quality because of their strong interaction with the energy performance of buildings. The VDS software framework contains four major functions: 1) Design coordination: It enables users to define tasks using the Input-Process-Output flow approach, which specifies the anticipated activities (i.e., the process), required input and output information, and anticipated interactions with other tasks. It also allows task scheduling to define the work flow, and sharing of the design data and information via the internet. 2) Modeling and simulation: It enables users to perform building simulations to predict the energy consumption and IEQ conditions at any of the design stages by using EnergyPlus and a combined heat, air, moisture and pollutant simulation (CHAMPS) model. A method for co-simulation was developed to allow the use of both models at the same time step for the combined energy and indoor air quality analysis. 3) Results visualization: It enables users to display a 3-D geometric design of the building by reading BIM (building information model) file generated by design software such as SketchUp, and the predicted results of heat, air, moisture, pollutant and light distributions in the building. 4) Performance evaluation: It enables the users to compare the performance of a proposed building design against a reference building that is defined for the same type of buildings under the same climate condition, and predicts the percent of improvements over the minimum requirements specified in ASHRAE Standard 55-2010, 62.1-2010 and 90.1-2010. An approach was developed to estimate the potential impact of a design factor on the whole building performance, and hence can assist the user to identify areas that have most pay back for investment. The VDS software was developed by using C++ with the conventional Model, View and Control (MVC) software architecture. The software has been verified by using a simple 3-zone case building. The application of the VDS concepts and framework for building design and performance analysis has been illustrated by using a medium-sized, five story office building that received LEED Platinum Certification from USGBC.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2021

Model America - data and models of every U.S. building

The 5-year goal of the 'Model America' concept was to generate a model of every building in the United States. This data repository delivers on that goal. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has developed the Automatic Building Energy Modeling (AutoBEM) software suite to process multiple types of data, extract building-specific descriptors, generate building energy models, and simulate them on High Performance Computing (HPC) resources. For more information, see AutoBEM-related publications (bit.ly/AutoBEM). There were 125,714,640 buildings detected in the United States and this dataset contains 122,930,327 (97.8%) buildings which resulted in a successful simulation. Future, annual updates have been proposed that may include additional buildings, data improvements, or other algorithmic enhancements. This dataset of 122.9 million buildings includes: Models (state_county.zip) - OpenStudio (v3.1.0) and EnergyPlus (v9.4) building energy models. Please note that the download requires the free Globus Connect Personal (https://www.globus.org/globus-connect-personal); Each model has approximately 3,000 building input descriptors that can be extracted. Please see the EnergyPlus(v9.4) 2,784-page Input/Output Reference Guide (https://energyplus.net/sites/all/modules/custom/nrel_custom/pdfs/pdfs_v9.4.0/InputOutputReference.pdf) for everything that can be retrieved or simulated from these models. These models were derived from the following metadata, which is not included in this dataset: 1. ID - unique building ID 2. County - county name 3. State - state name 4. CZ - ASHRAE Climate Zone designation 5. Clim_Zone - text label of climate zone 6. est_year - estimated year of construction 7. est_commercial - estimated building type (0=residential, 1=commercial) 8. Centroid - building center location in latitude/longitude (from Footprint2D) 9. Footprint2D - building polygon of 2D footprint (lat1/lon1_lat2/lon2_...) 10. Height - building height (meters) 11. Area2D - footprint area (ft2) 12. BuildingType - DOE prototype building designation (IECC=residential) as implemented by OpenStudio-standards 13. WWR_surfaces - percent of each facade (pair of points from Footprint2D) covered by fenestration/windows (average 14.5% for residential, 40% for commercial buildings) 14. NumFloors - number of floors (above-grade) 15. Area - estimate of total conditioned floor area (ft2) 16. Standard - building vintage. These models are made free and openly available in hopes of stimulating any simulation-informed use case. Data is provided as-is with no warranties, express or implied, regarding fitness for a particular purpose. We wish to thank our sponsors which include Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD), U.S. Dept. of Energy's (DOE) Building Technologies Office (BTO), Office of Electricity (OE), Biological and Environmental Research (BER), and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). This research used resources of the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility, which is a DOE Office of Science User Facility supported under Contract DE-AC02-06CH11357. Please cite as: New, Joshua R., Adams, Mark, Bass, Brett, Berres, Anne, and Clinton, Nicholas (2021). 'Model America - data and models of every U.S. building. [Data set].' Constellation, doi.ccs.ornl.gov/ui/doi/339, April 14, 2021

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
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 OSTI2014

Data and Analytics to Inform Energy Retrofit of High Performance Buildings

Buildings consume more than one-third of the world?s primary energy. Reducing energy use in buildings with energy efficient technologies is feasible and also driven by energy policies such as energy benchmarking, disclosure, rating, and labeling in both the developed and developing countries. Current energy retrofits focus on the existing building stocks, especially older buildings, but the growing number of new high performance buildings built around the world raises a question that how these buildings perform and whether there are retrofit opportunities to further reduce their energy use. This is a new and unique problem for the building industry. Traditional energy audit or analysis methods are inadequate to look deep into the energy use of the high performance buildings. This study aims to tackle this problem with a new holistic approach powered by building performance data and analytics. First, three types of measured data are introduced, including the time series energy use, building systems operating conditions, and indoor and outdoor environmental parameters. An energy data model based on the ISO Standard 12655 is used to represent the energy use in buildings in a three-level hierarchy. Secondly, a suite of analytics were proposed to analyze energy use and to identify retrofit measures for high performance buildings. The data-driven analytics are based on monitored data at short time intervals, and cover three levels of analysis ? energy profiling, benchmarking and diagnostics. Thirdly, the analytics were applied to a high performance building in California to analyze its energy use and identify retrofit opportunities, including: (1) analyzing patterns of major energy end-use categories at various time scales, (2) benchmarking the whole building total energy use as well as major end-uses against its peers, (3) benchmarking the power usage effectiveness for the data center, which is the largest electricity consumer in this building, and (4) diagnosing HVAC equipment using detailed time-series operating data. Finally, a few energy efficiency measures were identified for retrofit, and their energy savings were estimated to be 20percent of the whole-building electricity consumption. Based on the analyses, the building manager took a few steps to improve the operation of fans, chillers, and data centers, which will lead to actual energy savings. This study demonstrated that there are energy retrofit opportunities for high performance buildings and detailed measured building performance data and analytics can help identify and estimate energy savings and to inform the decision making during the retrofit process. Challenges of data collection and analytics were also discussed to shape best practice of retrofitting high performance buildings.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2024

Smart Building Technology Training Modules for Academic and Professional Education

Smart building technologies are a new suite of resources that improve building energy efficiency and resilience, reduce carbon emissions, and provide load flexibility to the grid. However, in both college curricula and building professionals’ continuing education, there is a lack of systematic instruction on smart building technologies–topics that include smart building concepts, key components, smart building controls, “Internet of Things” (IoT) devices, and how to integrate multiple energy systems including distributed energy resources (DER). This major gap in smart building education prevents stakeholders from understanding and adopting smart building technologies in building design and operations. Slipstream leads a DOE-funded project developing a semester-long smart building curriculum for college students and adapting the contents into 16 training videos for building professionals and the general public. The education and training cover the drivers and benefits of smart building technologies, key building energy systems, the latest sensor technologies and IoT devices, and focus on topics related to smart building controls (i.e., energy management information systems, smart building control platforms, cybersecurity, grid-interactive-efficient buildings (GEBs), smart building control methods, and occupant-centric control. This paper describes the project approach, provides outlines of the training materials, and identifies lessons learned in creating the content. We also suggest ways to scale the instruction of smart building concepts to empower the workforce to accelerate the adoption of smart building technologies in the real world.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗