Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Standard”

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 793 records · Page 44
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Radiative cooling textiles using industry-standard particle-free nonporous micro-structured fibers

Abstract Thermal radiation is a major dissipative pathway for heat generated by the human body and offers a significant thermoregulation mechanism over a wide range of conditions. We could use this in garment design to enhance personal cooling, which can improve the wearing comfort of garments or even result in energy savings in buildings. At present, however, radiative cooling has received insufficient attention in commercial design and production of textiles for wearable garments. Textiles that efficiently transmit the radiative heat were recently demonstrated, but either do not utilize standard weaving and knitting processes for wearable garments or require substantial process modifications. Here, we demonstrate the design and implementation of large-scale radiative cooling textiles for localized cooling management and enhanced thermal comfort using industry-standard particle-free nonporous micro-structured fibers that are fully compatible with standard textile materials and production methods. The micro-structured fibers, yarns and fabrics are part of a hierarchical photonic structure design that renders the textiles highly infrared transparent (up to > 0.8) while assuring visual opacity (up to 0.99). We design radiative cooling textiles with first-principles electromagnetic methods and fabricate them using commercial textile materials and formation facilities. Our “fabless” approach is confirmed by very good quantitative agreement between design and measurements. The resulting fabrics exhibit wearability properties expected of wearable textiles, and lower skin temperature by ≥ 3 °C compared to conventional textiles, which offers the potential for > 30 % energy savings in buildings and increases wearing comfort by significantly reducing the reliance on latent heat dissipation for thermoregulation.

Catrysse, Peter B.↗
DOE OSTI2018

A New Standard DNA Damage (SDD) Data Format

Our understanding of radiation-induced cellular damage has greatly improved over the past few decades. Despite this progress, there are still many obstacles to fully understand how radiation interacts with biologically relevant cellular components, such as DNA, to cause observable end points such as cell killing. Damage in DNA is identified as a major route of cell killing. One hurdle when modeling biological effects is the difficulty in directly comparing results generated by members of different research groups. Multiple Monte Carlo codes have been developed to simulate damage induction at the DNA scale, while at the same time various groups have developed models that describe DNA repair processes with varying levels of detail. These repair models are intrinsically linked to the damage model employed in their development, making it difficult to disentangle systematic effects in either part of the modeling chain. These modeling chains typically consist of track-structure Monte Carlo simulations of the physical interactions creating direct damages to DNA, followed by simulations of the production and initial reactions of chemical species causing so-called “indirect” damages. After the induction of DNA damage, DNA repair models combine the simulated damage patterns with biological models to determine the biological consequences of the damage. To date, the effect of the environment, such as molecular oxygen (normoxic vs. hypoxic), has been poorly considered. We propose a new standard DNA damage (SDD) data format to unify the interface between the simulation of damage induction in DNA and the biological modeling of DNA repair processes, and introduce the effect of the environment (molecular oxygen or other compounds) as a flexible parameter. Such a standard greatly facilitates intermodel comparisons, providing an ideal environment to tease out model assumptions and identify persistent, underlying mechanisms. Through inter-model comparisons, this unified standard has the potential to significantly advance our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of radiation-induced DNA damage and the resulting observable biological effects when radiation parameters and/or environmental conditions change.

63 RADIATION, THERMAL, AND OTHER ENVIRON. POLLUTAN↗
DOE OSTI2023

Chemical Blast Standard (1 kg)

Chemical explosions create blast waves with large overpressure disturbances. It is important to develop a standard blast model based on data to accurately predict acoustic blast-wave amplitudes near detonations and invert for explosion energy from distant observations of blast-wave signals. However, open data from large, controlled chemical explosions with reliable ground truth can be challenging to find. The lack of access to such data could limit the number of contributions to related research and potentially stifle the rate of discoveries or validation of existing models. Here, to address these data scarcity problem, we have curated and compiled a standardized set of 817 blast-wave waveforms from 19 distinct high-explosive events. The blast-wave waveforms are standardized to a 1 kg trinitrotoluene explosion using scaling laws and corrections for location effects. A brief overview of the dataset is presented along with explosion feature models as well as recommendations for extracting explosion features. The resulting dataset is distributed to an open repository in both Seismic Analysis Code and pandas DataFrame formats containing the waveforms, the scaled distances, and the sample rates.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2014

Standard, Random, and Optimum Array conversions from Two-Pole resistance data

We present an array evaluation of standard and nonstandard arrays over a hydrogeological target. We develop the arrays by linearly combining data from the pole-pole (or 2-pole) array. The first test shows that reconstructed resistances for the standard Schlumberger and dipoledipole arrays are equivalent or superior to the measured arrays in terms of noise, especially at large geometric factors. The inverse models for the standard arrays also confirm what others have presented in terms of target resolvability, namely the dipole-dipole array has the highest resolution. In the second test, we reconstruct random electrode combinations from the 2-pole data segregated into inner, outer, and overlapping dipoles. The resistance data and inverse models from these randomized arrays show those with inner dipoles to be superior in terms of noise and resolution and that overlapping dipoles can cause model instability and low resolution. Finally, we use the 2-pole data to create an optimized array that maximizes the model resolution matrix for a given electrode geometry. The optimized array produces the highest resolution and target detail. Thus, the tests demonstrate that high quality data and high model resolution can be achieved by acquiring field data from the pole-pole array.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2014

Validation of ANSI N42.34 – American National Standard Performance Criteria for Hand-Held Instruments for the Detection and Identification of Radionuclides

SRNL’s validation of ANSI N42.34-D6 for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) was performed utilizing one hand-held instrument (or RID) – the FLIR identiFINDER 2. Each section of the standard was evaluated via a walk-through or test. NOTE: In Table 1, W = walk-through and T = test, as directed by the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO). For a walk-through, the experiment was either setup or reviewed for setup; for a test, the N42.34-D6 procedures were followed with some exceptions and comments noted. SRNL is not fully able to evaluate a RID against Sections 7 (Environmental), 8 (Electromagnetic), and 9 (Mechanical) of N42.34, so those portions of this validation were done in collaboration with Qualtest, Inc. in Orlando, Florida. The walk-throughs and tests of Sections 7, 8, and 9 were performed in Qualtest, Inc. facilities with SRNL providing radiological sources as necessary. Where applicable, assessment results and findings of the walk-throughs and tests were recorded on datasheets and a validation summary is provided. A general comment pertained to test requirements found in another standard and referenced in N42.34-D6. For example, step 1 of the test method in section 8.1.2 states “RF test set up information can be found in IEC 61000-4-3.” It is recommended that any information from other standards necessary for conducting the tests within N42.34 should be posted in N42.34 for simplicity and to prevent the user from having to peruse other documents. Another general comment, as noted by Qualtest, is that a tolerance reference is not listed for each test in sections 7-9. Overall, the N42.34-D6 was proven to be practicable, but areas for improvement and recommendations were identified for consideration prior to final ballot submittal.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗
DOE OSTI2014

Calculating Impacts of Energy Standards on Energy Demand in U.S. Buildings under Uncertainty with an Integrated Assessment Model: Technical Background Data

This report presents data and assumptions employed in an application of PNNL’s Global Change Assessment Model with a newly-developed Monte Carlo analysis capability. The model is used to analyze the impacts of more aggressive U.S. residential and commercial building-energy codes and equipment standards on energy consumption and energy service costs at the state level, explicitly recognizing uncertainty in technology effectiveness and cost, socioeconomics, presence or absence of carbon prices, and climate impacts on energy demand. The report provides a summary of how residential and commercial buildings are modeled, together with assumptions made for the distributions of state–level population, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per worker, efficiency and cost of residential and commercial energy equipment by end use, and efficiency and cost of residential and commercial building shells. The cost and performance of equipment and of building shells are reported separately for current building and equipment efficiency standards and for more aggressive standards. The report also details assumptions concerning future improvements brought about by projected trends in technology.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2014

Sandia National Laboratories Facilities Management and Operations Center Design Standards Manual

At Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico (SNL/NM), the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of facilities is guided by industry standards, a graded approach, and the systematic analysis of life cycle benefits received for costs incurred. The design of the physical plant must ensure that the facilities are "fit for use," and provide conditions that effectively, efficiently, and safely support current and future mission needs. In addition, SNL/NM applies sustainable design principles, using an integrated whole-building design approach, from site planning to facility design, construction, and operation to ensure building resource efficiency and the health and productivity of occupants. The safety and health of the workforce and the public, any possible effects on the environment, and compliance with building codes take precedence over project issues, such as performance, cost, and schedule. These design standards generally apply to all disciplines on all SNL/NM projects. Architectural and engineering design must be both functional and cost-effective. Facility design must be tailored to fit its intended function, while emphasizing low-maintenance, energy-efficient, and energy-conscious design. Design facilities that can be maintained easily, with readily accessible equipment areas, low maintenance, and quality systems. To promote an orderly and efficient appearance, architectural features of new facilities must complement and enhance the existing architecture at the site. As an Architectural and Engineering (A/E) professional, you must advise the Project Manager when this approach is prohibitively expensive. You are encouraged to use professional judgment and ingenuity to produce a coordinated interdisciplinary design that is cost-effective, easily contractible or buildable, high-performing, aesthetically pleasing, and compliant with applicable building codes. Close coordination and development of civil, landscape, structural, architectural, fire protection, mechanical, electrical, telecommunications, and security features is expected to ensure compatibility with planned functional equipment and to facilitate constructability. If portions of the design are subcontracted to specialists, delivery of the finished design documents must not be considered complete until the subcontracted portions are also submitted for review. You must, along with support consultants, perform functional analyses and programming in developing design solutions. These solutions must reflect coordination of the competing functional, budgetary, and physical requirements for the project. During design phases, meetings between you and the SNL/NM Project Team to discuss and resolve design issues are required. These meetings are a normal part of the design process. For specific design-review requirements, see the project-specific Design Criteria. In addition to the design requirements described in this manual, instructive information is provided to explain the sustainable building practice goals for design, construction, operation, and maintenance of SNL/NM facilities. Please notify SNL/NM personnel of design best practices not included in this manual, so they can be incorporated in future updates. You must convey all documents describing work to the SNL/NM Project Manager in both hard copy and in an electronic format compatible with the SNL/NM-prescribed CADD and other software packages, and in accordance with a SNL/NM approved standard format. Print all hard copy versions of submitted documents (excluding drawings and renderings) double-sided when practical.

42 ENGINEERING↗
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↗
DOE OSTI2015

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

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 Connecticut. 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 Delaware

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 Delaware. 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 Florida

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 Florida. 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 Georgia

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 Georgia. 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↗