Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “STANDARDS”

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 901 records · Page 50
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of South Carolina

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 South Carolina. 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 South Dakota

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 South Dakota. 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 Tennessee

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 Tennessee. 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 Texas

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 Texas. 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 Utah

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 Utah. 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 Vermont

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 Vermont. 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 Virginia

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 Virginia. 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 Washington

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 Washington. 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 West Virginia

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 West Virginia. 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 Wisconsin

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 Wisconsin. 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 Wyoming

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 Wyoming. 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 OSTI2017

A Multi-Year Plan for Research, Development, and Prototype Testing of Standard Modular Hydropower Technology

The Multi-Year Plan for Research, Development, and Prototype Testing of Standard Modular Hydropower Technology (MYRP) presents a strategy for specifying, designing, testing, and demonstrating the efficacy of standard modular hydropower (SMH) as an environmentally compatible and cost-optimized renewable electricity generation technology. The MYRP provides the context, background, and vision for testing the SMH hypothesis: if standardization, modularity, and preservation of stream functionality become essential and fully realized features of hydropower technology, project design, and regulatory processes, they will enable previously unrealized levels of new project development with increased acceptance, reduced costs, increased predictability of outcomes, and increased value to stakeholders. To achieve success in this effort, the MYRP outlines a framework of stakeholder-validated criteria, models, design tools, testing facilities, and assessment protocols that will facilitate the development of next-generation hydropower technologies.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2018

Analyses in Support of Risk-Informed Natural Gas Vehicle Maintenance Facility Codes and Standards: Phase II

Safety standards development for maintenance facilities of liquid and compressed natural gas fueled vehicles is required to ensure proper facility design and operating procedures. Standard development organizations are utilizing risk-informed concepts to develop natural gas vehicle (NGV) codes and standards so that maintenance facilities meet acceptable risk levels. The present report summarizes Phase II work for existing NGV repair facility code requirements and highlights inconsistencies that need quantitative analysis into their effectiveness. A Hazardous and Operability study was performed to identify key scenarios of interest using risk ranking. Detailed simulations and modeling were performed to estimate the location and behavior of natural gas releases based on these scenarios. Specific code conflicts were identified, and ineffective code requirements were highlighted and resolutions proposed. These include ventilation rate basis on area or volume, as well as a ceiling offset which seems ineffective at protecting against flammable gas concentrations. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors gratefully acknowledge Bill Houf (SNL -- Retired) for his assistance with the set-up and post-processing of the numerical simulations. The authors also acknowledge Doug Horne (retired) for his helpful discussions. We would also like to acknowledge the support from the Clean Cities program of DOE's Vehicle Technology Office.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2018

Standard review plan for evaluating nuclear power reactor license termination plans

This standard review plan (SRP) guides the staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in conducting safety reviews of license termination plans (LTPs). The principal purpose of this SRP is to ensure the quality and uniformity of NRC staff reviews and to present a well-defined base from which to evaluate the requirements for terminating the license of a nuclear power plant. It is also the purpose of this SRP to make information about regulatory matters widely available, so that interested members of the public and the nuclear industry can gain a better understanding of the NRC staff's review process. Specific guidance for licensees is included in Regulatory Guide 1.179, "Standard Format and Content of License Termination Plans for Nuclear Power Reactors." Licensees may also use this SRP to assist in developing an LTP. The SRP presents the acceptance criteria for all areas of review for license termination, and identifies the matters to be reviewed, the basis for the review, and the conclusions that are sought. For example, NUREG-1757, "Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance" offers additional guidance on how to demonstrate compliance with the unrestricted release, restricted release, and alternative criteria for license termination, in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 20, "Standards for Protection against Radiation," Subpart E, "Radiological Criteria for License Termination." To avoid duplication of information, this SRP references applicable sections of NUREG-1757 for additional guidance. In addition, the NRC has issued supplemental guidance that will subsequently be consolidated into NUREG-1757 to address partial site release before LTP approval, and compliance with 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E. It should be noted that the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Environmental Protection Agency and NRC may contain consultation triggers for some radionuclides that may be lower than the NUREG-1757 Vol. 2 Revision 1, Appendix H screening values.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2016

Energy Storage System Guide for Compliance with Safety Codes and Standards

Codes, standards and regulations (CSR) governing the design, construction, installation, commissioning and operation of the built environment are intended to protect the public health, safety and welfare. While these documents change over time to address new technology and new safety challenges there is generally some lag time between the introduction of a technology into the market and the time it is specifically covered in model codes and standards developed in the voluntary sector. After their development, there is also a timeframe of at least a year or two until they are adopted. Until existing model codes and standards are updated or new ones developed and then adopted, one seeking to deploy energy storage technologies or needing to verify an installation’s safety may be challenged in applying current CSRs to an energy storage system (ESS).

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2019

Accelerating Systems Integration Standards (ACCEL)

This is the final report for a project to support the development of systems integration standards. The scope of work undertaken by the multi-laboratory team was to facilitate standards development and to help expedite the process in three important standards identified under the SunShot National Laboratory Multiyear Partnership (SuNLaMP) grid performance and reliability topic area.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2014

ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2013 Determination of Energy Savings: Quantitative Analysis

This report provides the quantitative analysis to assess whether buildings constructed according to the requirements of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2013 would result in improved energy efficiency in commercial buildings. The analysis considered each of the addenda to Standard 90.1-2010 that were included in Standard 90.1-2013.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2019

Recommendations for Trust and Encryption in DER Interoperability Standards

Recently developed Distributed Energy Resource (DER) interoperability standards include communication and cyber security requirements. In 2018, the US national interconnection standard, IEEE 1547, was revised to require DER to include a Sun Spec Modbus, IEEE 2030.5 (Smart Energy Profile, SEP 2.0), or IEEE 1815 (DNP3) communication interface but does not include any normative overarching cybersecurity requirements. IEEE 2030.5 and associated implementation requirements for California, known as the California Smart Inverter Profile (CSIP), prescribe the greatest security features - including encryption, authentication, and key management requirements. Sun Spec Modbus and IEEE 1815 security requirements are not as comprehensive, leading to implementation questions throughout the industry. Further, while the security features in IEEE 2030.5 are commonly used in computing platforms, there are still questions of how well the technologies will scale in highly-distributed, computationally-limited inverter environments. In this paper, (a) the elements of IEEE 2030.5 encryption, authentication, and key management guidelines are analyzed, (b) potential scalability gaps are identified, and (c) alternative technologies are explored for possible inclusion in DER interoperability or cyber security standards.

42 ENGINEERING↗