Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Additive Construction”

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 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2018

Zero Launch Mass Three Dimensional Print Head

NASA's strategic goal is to put humans on Mars in the 2030s. The NASA Human Spaceflight Architecture Team (HAT) and NASA Mars Design Reference Architecture (DRA) 5.0 has determined that in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) is an essential technology to accomplish this mission. Additive construction technology using in-situ materials from planetary surfaces will reduce launch mass, allow structures to be three dimensionally (3D) printed on demand, and will allow building designs to be transmitted digitally from Earth and printed in space. This will ultimately lead to elimination of reliance on structural materials launched from Earth (zero launch mass of construction consumables). The zero launch mass (ZLM) 3D print head project addressed this need by developing a system that 3D prints using a mixture of in-situ regolith and polymer as feedstock, determining the optimum mixture ratio and regolith particle size distribution, developing software to convert g-code into motion instructions for a FANUC robotic arm, printing test samples, performing materials testing, and printing a reduced scale habitable structure concept. This paper will focus on the ZLM 3D Print Head design, materials selection, software development, and lessons learned from operating the system in the NASA KSC Swamp Works Granular Mechanics & Regolith Operations (GMRO) Laboratory.

Regolith↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Selection, Production, and Properties of Regolith Polymer Composites for Lunar Construction

NASA’s Artemis Program seeks to establish a long-term presence on the Moon to enable scientific exploration and expand the cis-lunar economy by utilizing lunar resources through public-private and international partnerships. Over the next decades, a lunar spaceport will need to be established to provide the services and facilities that are necessary to achieve this goal. Robotic construction technologies using in-situ materials must be developed to build up enabling infrastructure such as launch/landing pads, blast protection, power/communications infrastructure, improved roads, improved operational surfaces, and radiation protection shelters. Kennedy Space Center’s Granular Mechanics and Regolith Operations laboratory at Swamp Works has partnered with SpaceFactory and LERA Consulting Structural Engineers to develop the architectural and structural design of an unpressurized lunar shelter. The shelter, called Lunar Infrastructure Asset (LINA), is designed to support 2.3 m of regolith overburden to protect astronauts and surface assets from radiation, meteoroid impact, thermal gradients/cycling, and to withstand moonquakes. LINA’s structural design criteria and the resulting structure design are detailed in separate papers. A Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) construction process using regolith polymer composites has been developed and is detailed in a separate publication. This paper presents material formulations and selection rationale for each of the composite components that were examined. Formulations include 70:30, 80:20, and 85:15 wt.% mixture ratios of lunar mare simulant Black Point-1 (BP-1): Polylactic Acid (PLA), 80:20 Lunar Highlands Simulant-1 (LHS-1): PLA and an 80:20 BP-1: PLA formulation with a flow enhancer additive. Test samples were printed in simulated lunar dirty thermal vacuum conditions (-190 °C, 10-3 torr). A series of tests were performed on each formulation to characterize the achieved mixture ratio, mechanical strength properties, off-gassing products during vacuum printing, and porosity and density of printed products. The LHS-1: PLA formulation yielded an advantageous combination of properties and was used in a final test that additively constructed a sub-scaled LINA on regolith simulant in dirty vacuum conditions. The materials and construction process presented in this paper are considered to be at Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 5 with additional testing necessary to characterize long term lunar environmental exposure effects.

lunar infrastructure↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Selection, Production, and Properties of Regolith Polymer Composites for Lunar Construction

NASA’s Artemis Program seeks to establish a long-term presence on the moon to enable scientific discoveries and utilization of lunar resources through public-private partnerships. Over the next decades, a lunar spaceport enabling regular transportation from and to Earth will need to be established to provide the services and facilities that are necessary to achieve this goal. Robotic construction technologies using in-situ materials must be developed to build up enabling infrastructure such as launch/landing pads, blast protection, power/communications towers, improved trafficability pathways and radiation protection shelters. Kennedy Space Center’s Granular Mechanics and Regolith Operations laboratory at Swamp Works has partnered with AI SpaceFactory to develop the architectural and structural design of an unpressurized shelter. The shelter, called Lina, is designed to protect astronauts and surface assets from radiation, meteoroid impact, moon quakes and thermal gradients. Lina’s structural design criteria and the resulting structure design are detailed in separate papers. A Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) construction process using regolith polymer composites has been developed. This paper presents the material formulations and selection rationale for each of the composite components. Formulations include 70:30, 80:20, and 85:15 wt.% mixture ratios of lunar mare simulant Black Point-1 (BP-1): Polylactic Acid (PLA), 80:20 Lunar Highlands Simulant (LHS-1): PLA and an 80:20 BP-1:PLA formulation with a processing aid/compatibilizer additive. Test samples were printed in simulated lunar dirty thermal vacuum conditions (~-180 °C, ~10 -3 torr). The test environment evolved throughout the duration of the print process. A series of tests were performed to characterize the mixture ratios achieved for each formulation, the off-gassing products during vacuum printing, the strength properties, and porosity of printed products. The LHS-1: PLA formulation yielded an advantageous combination of properties and was used in a final test that additively constructed a sub-scaled Lina on regolith simulant in dirty vacuum conditions.

lunar infrastructure↗
DOE OSTI2025

Tunable and Robust Optical and Structural Properties of a Cooperative Squaraine-Dye Aggregate-DNA DX-DAE Tile System

Molecular excitons, which are excitations delocalized over multiple dyes in a wavelike manner, are of interest for a wide range of applications, including quantum information science. Numerous studies have templated a variety of synthetic dyes via a DNA scaffold to induce dye aggregation to create molecular excitons upon photoexcitation. Dye aggregate optical properties are critically dependent on relative dye geometry and local environment; therefore, an understanding of dye-dye and DNA-dye interactions is critical for advancing toward more complex DNA-dye systems. The extensively studied DNA Holliday junction (HJ) and less-studied double-crossover (DX) tile motif are fundamental test beds for designing complex and ultimately modular DNA-dye architectures. Here, we report the first study of single-linked squaraine dye aggregation and exciton delocalization on a larger and more stable (compared with the HJ) DX tile motif. We first highlight a few DNA-dye constructs that support single dyes and aggregates with distinct optical properties that are both tunable—through sample design, buffer conditions, and heat treatment—and robust to environment changes, including transfer to solid phase. Next, we assess several experimental and design considerations that demonstrate directed dye-driven assembly of a novel double-tile DNA configuration. Our results demonstrate that single-linked squaraine dyes templated to DX tiles provide a viable research path to design and evaluate dye aggregate networks that support exciton delocalization. We include herein the first report of exciton delocalization in the solid phase in a DNA-dye construct. Additionally, our findings indicate that dye aggregation impacts the assembly of the DNA-dye construct, and, in some cases, thereby cooperates with the DNA to determine a final robust system configuration. Finally, we show that a controlled annealing schedule can be employed to promote the homogeneous assembly of DNA-dye constructs. The findings in this study contribute to the understanding of DNA-dye systems and the relevant factors involved in their directed assembly to achieve specific constructs with desirable properties.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
NASA NTRS2019

NASA Centennial Challenge: 3D Printed Habitat, Phase 3 Final Results

NASA's Centennial Challenges program uses prize competitions with the goal of accelerating innovation in the aerospace industry. Competitions in the Centennial Challenges portfolio have previously focused on advancements in space robotics, regolith excavation, bio-printing, astronaut suit design, small satellites, and solar-powered vehicles. NASA's Three Dimensional (3D) Printed Habitat Centennial Challenge represents a partnership between NASA and the non-profit partner: Bradley University, with co-sponsors Caterpillar, Bechtel, Brick and Mortar Ventures, the American Concrete Institute, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) to spur development in automated additive construction technologies. The challenge asks teams to design and construct a scaled and simulated Martian habitat using indigenous materials and large scale 3D automated printing systems. Phase 1 of the competition, held in 2015, was an architectural design competition for habitat concepts that could be 3D printed. Phase 2, completed in 2017, asked teams to develop feedstocks from indigenous materials and hydrocarbon polymer recyclables, and demonstrate automated printing systems to manufacture these feedstocks into test specimens to assess mechanical strength. This paper will discuss the Phase 3 competition, focusing on technology outcomes that can potentially be infused into both terrestrial and planetary construction applications. The Phase 3 competition was divided into two sub-competitions: 1) virtual construction, where teams created a high fidelity building information model (BIM) of their 3D-printed habitat design and 2) the construction competition, which required teams to 3D print a structural foundation and subject materials samples to freeze/thaw testing and impact testing (level 1), produce a habitat element and complete a hydrostatic test (level 2), and additively manufacture a 1:3 scale habitat onsite in a head to head competition at Caterpillar, inc.'s Edwards Demonstration & Learning Center near Peoria, Illinois over the course of three days (level 3). While the Phase 2 competition focused primarily on the development of novel feedstocks and robotic printing systems, Phase 3 emphasized the scale-up of these systems and autonomous operation (demonstrating the capability to operate systems on precursor missions prior to the arrival of crew, or terrestrially in field operation settings where human tending of a manufacturing system may be limited). The Phase 3 virtual construction levels yielded a number of novel habitat designs, including both modular habitats and vertically-oriented habitat concepts. The Phase 3 construction competition also challenged teams to autonomously place penetrations and interfacing elements in additively manufactured structures. The paper will emphasize potential applications for the new materials and technologies developed under the umbrella of the competition within NASA's portfolio and in Earth-based applications such as disaster response and infrastructure improvement.

Construction↗
NASA NTRS2019

Nasa Centennial Challenge: Three Dimensional (3d) Printed Habitat, Phase 3

NASA's Centennial Challenges program uses prize competitions with the goal of accelerating innovation in the aerospace industry. Competitions in the Centennial Challenges portfolio have previously focused on advancements in space robotics, regolith excavation, bio-printing, astronaut suit design, small satellites, and solar-powered vehicles. NASA's Three Dimensional (3D) Printed Habitat Centennial Challenge represents a partnership between NASA and the non-profit partner: Bradley University, with co-sponsors Caterpillar, Bechtel, Brick and Mortar Ventures, the American Concrete Institute, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) to spur development in automated additive construction technologies. The challenge asks teams to design and construct a scaled and simulated Martian habitat using indigenous materials and large scale 3D automated printing systems. Phase 1 of the competition, held in 2015, was an architectural design competition for habitat concepts that could be 3D printed. Phase 2, completed in 2017, asked teams to develop feedstocks from indigenous materials and hydrocarbon polymer recyclables, and demonstrate automated printing systems to manufacture these feedstocks into test specimens to assess mechanical strength. This paper will discuss the Phase 3 competition, focusing on technology outcomes that can potentially be infused into both terrestrial and planetary construction applications. The Phase 3 competition was divided into two sub-competitions: 1) virtual construction, where teams created a high fidelity building information model (BIM) of their 3D-printed habitat design and 2) the construction competition, which required teams to 3D print a structural foundation and subject materials samples to freeze/thaw testing and impact testing (level 1), produce a habitat element and complete a hydrostatic test (level 2), and additively manufacture a 1:3 scale habitat onsite in a head to head competition at Caterpillar, inc.'s Edwards Demonstration & Learning Center near Peoria, Illinois over the course of three days (level 3). While the Phase 2 competition focused primarily on the development of novel feedstocks and robotic printing systems, Phase 3 emphasized the scale-up of these systems and autonomous operation (demonstrating the capability to operate systems on precursor missions prior to the arrival of crew, or terrestrially in field operation settings where human tending of a manufacturing system may be limited). The Phase 3 virtual construction levels yielded a number of novel habitat designs, including both modular habitats and vertically-oriented habitat concepts. The Phase 3 construction competition also challenged teams to autonomously place penetrations and interfacing elements in additively manufactured structures. The paper will emphasize potential applications for the new materials and technologies developed under the umbrella of the competition within NASA's portfolio and in Earth-based applications such as disaster response and infrastructure improvement.

Centennial challenge↗
DOE OSTI2022

Reducing the Overnight Capital Cost of Advanced Reactors Using Equipment-Level Seismic Protective Systems

Consideration of the effects of earthquake shaking on the design and construction of nuclear power plants adds substantially to the overnight capital cost, with anecdotal estimates as high as 35+%, attributed to additional construction materials, need for one-off and sub-optimal designs of equipment due to conflicting design choices, the high cost of seismic qualification of equipment, and regulatory review. Safety-critical equipment in large light water reactors is designed and qualified for seismic demands imposed by the supporting reactor building, optimal mechanical designs are not possible, and designs of a given piece of equipment may vary with height above grade. Similar negative impacts are expected for advanced reactors unless the seismic design paradigm is changed. The overarching goal of this transformational MEITNER project, which involved a multidisciplinary engineering team and designers of three fundamentally different advanced reactors, was to adapt proven seismic isolation and damping technologies to operationalize modular protective systems for safety-class equipment inside advanced reactor buildings. Such seismic protective systems would be tightly integrated into design development for reactor support systems and balance-of-plant construction. The adoption of the technology, which is widely used in non-nuclear sectors, would simplify plant design, enable the use of standardized equipment and buildings, optimized for operational performance, and reduce plant size and weight. The need for site-specific equipment would be eliminated, enabling identical equipment to be used across multiple plants sited across the US and economies of scale, and catalyzing new interest and investment. The equipment-based protective systems would allow siting of advanced reactors in regions of high seismic hazard.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
NASA NTRS2017

NASA Centennial Challenge: Three Dimensional (3D) Printed Habitat, Phase 2

The NASA Centennial Challenges: 3D-Printed Habitat Challenge seeks to develop the fundamental technologies necessary to manufacture an off-world habitat using mission recycled materials and/or local indigenous materials. The vision is that autonomous habitat manufacturing machines will someday be deployed to the Moon or Mars to construct shelters for human habitation. NASA and Bradley University, are holding a new US$ 2.5 million competition to design and build a 3-D printed habitat for deep space exploration, including the agency's journey to Mars. The multi-phase 3-D Printed Habitat Challenge, part of NASA's Centennial Challenges program, is designed to advance the additive construction technology needed to create sustainable housing solutions for Earth and beyond. The first phase of the competition ran through Sept. 27, 2015. This phase, a design competition, called on participants to develop state-of-the-art architectural concepts that take advantage of the unique capabilities 3-D printing offers. The top 3 prizes with a prize purse of $40,000 were awarded at the 2015 World Maker Faire in New York. The second phase of the competition is called the Structural Member Competition and it is divided into three levels happening in the spring and summer of 2017. The Compression Test Competition (Level 1) focuses on the fabrication technologies needed to manufacture structural components from a combination of indigenous materials and recyclables, or indigenous materials alone. For Level 1, teams will develop 3D printable materials, build a 3D printing machine, and print two specimens: a truncated cone and a cylinder. The Level 2 Beam Member Competition is the second of three sub-competitions within the overall Structural Member Competition. For Level 2, teams will print a beam that will be tested. The Level 3 Head to Head Competition is the third of three sub-competitions within the overall Structural Member Competition. For Level 3, teams will develop 3D printable materials, use a 3D printing machine, and print three compression specimens of the elected material, three flexural specimens of the elected material, and one dome structure. Tests conducted on the specimens and the dome structure will determine Level 3 scores and awards. On Earth these same habitat manufacturing capabilities could be used to produce housing wherever affordable housing is needed and access to conventional building materials and skills is limited. Terrestrially, it is envisioned that local indigenous materials (dirt, clay, sand, etc.) could be combined with readily available recyclable materials and used to construct semi-permanent shelters against environmental elements for human habitation. The goal of the 3D-Printed Habitat Challenge is to foster the development of new technologies necessary to additively manufacture a habitat using local indigenous materials with, or without, recyclable materials. This paper will summarize the Level 2 results of this NASA Centennial Challenge competition and it will discuss related technology advancement.

3D printing↗
NASA NTRS2002

Sliding-Mode Control Applied for Robust Control of a Highly Unstable Aircraft

An investigation into the application of an observer based sliding mode controller for robust control of a highly unstable aircraft and methods of compensating for actuator dynamics is performed. After a brief overview of some reconfigurable controllers, sliding mode control (SMC) is selected because of its invariance properties and lack of need for parameter identification. SMC is reviewed and issues with parasitic dynamics, which cause system instability, are addressed. Utilizing sliding manifold boundary layers, the nonlinear control is converted to a linear control and sliding manifold design is performed in the frequency domain. An additional feedback form of model reference hedging is employed which is similar to a prefilter and has large benefits to system performance. The effects of inclusion of actuator dynamics into the designed plant is heavily investigated. Multiple Simulink models of the full longitudinal dynamics and wing deflection modes of the forward swept aero elastic vehicle (FSAV) are constructed. Additionally a linear state space models to analyze effects from various system parameters. The FSAV has a pole at +7 rad/sec and is non-minimum phase. The use of 'model actuators' in the feedback path, and varying there design, is heavily investigated for the resulting effects on plant robustness and tolerance to actuator failure. The use of redundant actuators is also explored and improved robustness is shown. All models are simulated with severe failure and excellent tracking, and task dependent handling qualities, and low pilot induced oscillation tendency is shown.

Vetter, Travis Kenneth↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the District of Columbia

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the District of Columbia. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Alabama

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Alabama. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Alaska

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Alaska. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Arizona

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Arizona. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Arkansas

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Arkansas. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of California

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of California. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Colorado

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Colorado. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗