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 973 records · Page 54
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
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 OSTI2012

International Review of Frameworks for Standard Setting & Labeling Development

As appliance energy efficiency standards and labeling (S&L) programs reach a broader geographic and product scope, a series of sophisticated and complex technical and economic analyses have been adopted by different countries in the world to support and enhance these growing S&L programs. The initial supporting techno-economic and impact analyses for S&L development make up a defined framework and process for setting and developing appropriate appliance efficiency standards and labeling programs. This report reviews in-depth the existing framework for standards setting and label development in the well-established programs of the U.S., Australia and the EU to identify and evaluate major trends in how and why key analyses are undertaken and to understand major similarities and differences between each of the frameworks.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2012

Can Standards Increase Consumer Welfare? Evidence from a Change in Clothes Washer

We study prices and sales of individual clothes washer models before, during and after a 2007 standard that banned manufacture (but not sale) of low-e ciency units and increased the threshold for Energy Star certi cation. While quantities sold of washer models banned from manufacture decreased sharply, prices for banned models increased only modestly. At the same time, sales of higher-e ciency units rose markedly while prices for high-e ciency units declined. On average, washer e ciency increased but prices changed little. A simple welfare analysis indicates that consumer welfare loss from banned washers was far outweighed by gains from lower-priced high-e ciency units. While a full cost-bene t analysis is not feasible with the available data, we estimate a lower-bound gain in consumer surplus equal to 6-16 percent of total sales. This result may accord with earlier theoretical research that shows quality standards can increase welfare in monopolistically competitive industries that possess increasing returns to scale (Ronnen, 1991). Thus, if energy e ciency is a close proxy for quality, energy e ciency standards may increase competition, market e ciency and welfare.

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 OSTI2014

Safety, codes and standards for hydrogen installations. Metrics development and benchmarking

Automakers and fuel providers have made public commitments to commercialize light duty fuel cell electric vehicles and fueling infrastructure in select US regions beginning in 2014. The development, implementation, and advancement of meaningful codes and standards is critical to enable the effective deployment of clean and efficient fuel cell and hydrogen solutions in the energy technology marketplace. Metrics pertaining to the development and implementation of safety knowledge, codes, and standards are important to communicate progress and inform future R&D investments. This document describes the development and benchmarking of metrics specific to the development of hydrogen specific codes relevant for hydrogen refueling stations. These metrics will be most useful as the hydrogen fuel market transitions from pre-commercial to early-commercial phases. The target regions in California will serve as benchmarking case studies to quantify the success of past investments in research and development supporting safety codes and standards R&D.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2014

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

Safety standards development for maintenance facilities of liquid and compressed gas fueled large-scale vehicles is required to ensure proper facility design and operation envelopes. 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 I 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. Finally, scenario analyses were performed using detailed simulations and modeling to estimate the overpressure hazards from HAZOP defined scenarios. The results from Phase I will be used to identify significant risk contributors at NGV maintenance facilities, and are expected to form the basis for follow-on quantitative risk analysis work to address specific code requirements and identify effective accident prevention and mitigation strategies.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2013

Twenty Years On!: Updating the IEA BESTEST Building Thermal Fabric Test Cases for ASHRAE Standard 140

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140, Standard Method of Test for the Evaluation of Building Energy Analysis Computer Programs applies the IEA BESTEST building thermal fabric test cases and example simulation results originally published in 1995. These software accuracy test cases and their example simulation results, which comprise the first test suite adapted for the initial 2001 version of Standard 140, are approaching their 20th anniversary. In response to the evolution of the state of the art in building thermal fabric modeling since the test cases and example simulation results were developed, work is commencing to update the normative test specification and the informative example results.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2012

Comparison of Test Procedures and Energy Efficiency Criteria in Selected International Standards & Labeling Programs for Copy Machines, External Power Supplies, LED Displays, Residential Gas Cooktops and Televisions

This report presents a technical review of international minimum energy performance standards (MEPS), voluntary and mandatory energy efficiency labels and test procedures for five products being considered for new or revised MEPS in China: copy machines, external power supply, LED displays, residential gas cooktops and flat-screen televisions. For each product, an overview of the scope of existing international standards and labeling programs, energy values and energy performance metrics and description and detailed summary table of criteria and procedures in major test standards are presented.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
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↗