Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Builders Challenge”

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 145 records · Page 8

Web-Based Computational Model Builder for Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling & Simulation (Phase I Final Report)

Today, the importance of nuclear power in the US is a geopolitical matter as much as it is an economic one. This is due to the notion that increasing the use of nuclear power reduces the US's reliance on imported oil and gas. In order to design future systems and continue operational improvements at existing US plants, advanced modeling and simulation of nuclear power reactors is crucial. A variety of challenges exist to using advanced modeling and simulation in practice, especially for the nuclear energy community and other organizations with fewer computational resources and limited expertise. There is an increasing need of access to highly capable compute, data, and software resources from network systems, which are becoming more administratively restricted from access through installation of traditional client-server applications. The nuclear energy community is not capable of maintaining exponential growth of computing capability and data storage coupled with the necessary end-to-end network bandwidth improvements. Applications that provide higher fidelity with increased physics and decreased assumptions, by their very nature, require more and more computational resources. We believe Web-based, Cloud-enabled, end-to-end simulation software for nuclear energy advanced modeling and simulation to be the solution to these challenges.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

CMS distributed data analysis with CRAB3

The CMS Remote Analysis Builder (CRAB) is a distributed workflow management tool which facilitates analysis tasks by isolating users from the technical details of the Grid infrastructure. Throughout LHC Run 1, CRAB has been successfully employed by an average of 350 distinct users each week executing about 200,000 jobs per day.CRAB has been significantly upgraded in order to face the new challenges posed by LHC Run 2. Components of the new system include 1) a lightweight client, 2) a central primary server which communicates with the clients through a REST interface, 3) secondary servers which manage user analysis tasks and submit jobs to the CMS resource provisioning system, and 4) a central service to asynchronously move user data from temporary storage in the execution site to the desired storage location. Furthermore, the new system improves the robustness, scalability and sustainability of the service.Here we provide an overview of the new system, operation, and user support, report on its current status, and identify lessons learned from the commissioning phase and production roll-out.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

Transitioning to High Performance Homes: Successes and Lessons Learned From Seven Builders

As homebuyers are becoming increasingly concerned about rising energy costs and the impact of fossil fuels as a major source of greenhouse gases, the returning new home market is beginning to demand energy-efficient and comfortable high-performance homes. In response to this, some innovative builders are gaining market share because they are able to market their homes’ comfort, better indoor air quality, and aesthetics, in addition to energy efficiency. The success and marketability of these high-performance homes is creating a builder demand for house plans and information about how to design, build, and sell their own low-energy homes.

Building America↗

University of Utah, Energy Commercialization Center

During the Energy Commercialization Center’s (ECC) three years in operation, the only thing constant was change. The world of commercialization and cleantech evolved significantly during the time the ECC was formed and operating, including: the availability of cleantech funding lessoned, the growth of incubators and accelerators skyrocketed, the State of Utah created an office dedicated to energy development, the University of Utah was both praised and criticized for its success in commercialization, and the Federal government temporarily shut down. During the three-year grant there were three principle investigators on the grant, as well as three directors for the University’s Commercialization Office. Change can be hard for an organization,but as we instruct the companies we support, “Fail fast and fail often, because it is the fastest path to success.” Although there were some unanticipated challenges along the way, the local ecosystem is stronger because of the ECC’s efforts. Perhaps the greatest lesson learned was the importance of aligned incentives between key stakeholders in the commercialization process and the need for resources at the company and individual entrepreneur levels. The universities have systems and incentives to commercialize technologies, but creating value and companies generally rest with the individuals and entrepreneurs. Unfortunately the ECC was unable to create a viable mechanism to transfer the commercialization process that successfully aligned incentives and achieve a more effective ecosystem within the Rocky Mountain West. However, the ECC was successful in adding value to the individual ecosystems, and connecting national resources to regional and local needs. Regarding the ECC’s effectiveness in developing a cleantech commercialization ecosystem, initial inroads and relationships were established with key stakeholders. However, incentives, perceived or real competition, differences in commercialization processes, and culture all played a role in inhibiting the development and distribution of a regional ecosystem and commercialization process. Had the University and the ECC been able to develop a software platform, some of these challenges may have been overcome, but without the final development and release of the Western Innovation Network, the ECC realistically could not scale and distribute a commercialization platform. Further, cleantech startups need to engage in a more intensive customer validation process, and establish strong community connections if they are to succeed in commercializing their products. The university system incentivizes research and access to research funding and risk capital is competitive, so by nature collaboration on commercialization was difficult. Each of the local ecosystems within the Rocky Mountain West was unique. Utah did not, and does not, have a system outside of the universities to support entrepreneurs and cleantech commercialization. Through the ECC’s efforts developing a regional ecosystem, it became clear that successful ecosystems had a community and associated mechanisms that supported local entrepreneurs and startups. Most importantly the ECC aided in the creation of Utah’s cleantech ecosystem, one that supports entrepreneurs and startup companies that need help and support in their efforts to commercialize clean technologies. The absence of support for clean tech from state government and local organizations was a significant impediment to cleantech commercialization. To overcome this challenge, the ECC has formed Sustainable Startups. Sustainable Startups is a new non-profit organization designed to build a culture and community in Utah that supports and understands the importance of cleantech and sustainable development. While the ECC generated mixed success in building a regional commercialization ecosystem for cleantech, the organization did provide tremendous benefit to startups and the broader public. Over 60 companies were given direct business development support by the ECC, many of whom then generated direct economic development impacts. In addition, the ECC served an important role as community convener, educator and relationship builder through hosting numerous public and private events including: Energize 2013; Millennial Train whistle stop; business plan competition supporter; Clean Tech Open Accelerator organizer; Sustainable Startups Series developer, and much more. While the ECC did not fully apply, develop, and transmit the University of Utah’s TCO commercialization model to cleantech, it nevertheless assisted numerous inventors, entrepreneurs and institutions in furthering the growth of clean energy and energy efficiency technologies. The TCO’s commercialization model was not applied to regional clean tech initiatives for several main reasons. First, flaws with the commercialization model were realized after the ECC’s formation. Second, leadership changes within the TCO and ECC hampered early organizational development and implementation initiatives. Third, misaligned incentives between the ECC, regional universities, institutions, and the State of Utah resulted in a lack of collaboration and knowledge transfer regarding commercialization. In principle, everyone was aligned and willing to collaborate, but reality was much different and challenging.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

New Whole-House Solutions Case Study: Challenges of Achieving 2012 IECC Air Sealing Requirements in Multifamily Dwellings, Upstate New York

While previous versions of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) have included provisions to improve the air tightness of dwellings, for the first time, the 2012 IECC mandates compliance verification through blower door testing. Simply completing the Air Barrier and Insulation Installation checklist through visual inspection is no longer sufficient; the 2012 IECC mandates a significantly stricter air sealing requirement. In Climate Zones 3 through 8, air leakage may not exceed 3 ACH50, which is a significant reduction from the 2009 IECC requirement of 7 ACH50. This requirement is for all residential buildings, which includes low-rise multifamily dwellings. While this air leakage rate requirement is an important component to achieving an efficient building thermal envelope, currently, the code language doesn't explicitly address differences between single family and multifamily applications. In addition, the 2012 IECC does not provide an option to sample dwellings for larger multifamily buildings, so compliance would have to be verified on every unit. With compliance with the 2012 IECC air leakage requirements on the horizon, several of Building America team Consortium for Advanced Residential Building's (CARB) multifamily builder partners are evaluating how best to comply with this requirement. Builders are not sure whether it is more practical or beneficial to simply pay for guarded testing or to revise their air sealing strategies to improve compartmentalization to comply with code requirements based on unguarded blower door testing. This report summarizes CARB's research that was conducted to assess the feasibility of meeting the 2012 IECC air leakage requirements in three multifamily buildings.

air leakage↗

Implementing a Zero Energy Ready Home Multifamily Project

An objective of this project was to gain a highly visible foothold for residential buildings built to the U.S. Department of Energy's Zero Energy Ready Home (ZERH) specification that can be used to encourage participation by other California builders. This report briefly describes two single family homes that were ZERH-certified, and focuses on the experience of working with developer Mutual Housing on a 62 unit multi-family community at the Spring Lake subdivision in Woodland, CA. The Spring Lake project is expected to be the first ZERH certified multi-family project nationwide. This report discusses challenges encountered, lessons learned, and how obstacles were overcome.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Building America Case Study: Challenges of Achieving 2012 IECC Air Sealing Requirements in Multifamily Dwellings, Upstate New York (Fact Sheet)

While previous versions of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) have included provisions to improve the air tightness of dwellings, for the first time, the 2012 IECC mandates compliance verification through blower door testing. Simply completing the Air Barrier and Insulation Installation checklist through visual inspection is no longer sufficient by itself. In addition, the 2012 IECC mandates a significantly stricter air sealing requirement. In Climate Zones 3 through 8, air leakage may not exceed 3 ACH50, which is a significant reduction from the 2009 IECC requirement of 7 ACH50. This requirement is for all residential buildings, which includes low-rise multifamily dwellings. While this air leakage rate requirement is an important component to achieving an efficient building thermal envelope, currently, the code language doesn't explicitly address differences between single family and multifamily applications. In addition, the 2012 IECC does not provide an option to sample dwellings for larger multifamily buildings, so compliance would have to be verified on every unit. With compliance with the 2012 IECC air leakage requirements on the horizon, several of CARB's multifamily builder partners are evaluating how best to comply with this requirement. Builders are not sure whether it is more practical or beneficial to simply pay for guarded testing or to revise their air sealing strategies to improve compartmentalization to comply with code requirements based on unguarded blower door testing. This report summarizes CARB's research that was conducted to assess the feasibility of meeting the 2012 IECC air leakage requirements in 3 multifamily buildings.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Developing the Next Generation of Net Zero Professionals through the Race to Zero: Preprint

The U.S. Department of Energy Race to Zero inspires collegiate students to become the next generation of building science professionals through a zero energy ready buildings design challenge. As industry looks to close the gap to more net zero energy construction, Race to Zero teams are tasked with exploring how to apply net zero across climates both nationally and internationally. For the past four annual competition events, teams developed comprehensive, integrated residential designs with industry partners that are market-ready and innovative. While each team addressed home design differently through upgrades to existing production builder plans, new developments to meet community needs, or existing building renovations and retrofits, the competition requires their solutions meet zero energy ready residential standards.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Developing the Next Generation of Net Zero Professionals through the Race to Zero

The U.S. Department of Energy Race to Zero inspires collegiate students to become the next generation of building science professionals through a zero energy ready buildings design challenge. As industry looks to close the gap to more net zero energy construction, Race to Zero teams are tasked with exploring how to apply net zero across climates both nationally and internationally. For the past four annual competition events, teams developed comprehensive, integrated residential designs with industry partners that are market-ready and innovative. While each team addressed home design differently through upgrades to existing production builder plans, new developments to meet community needs, or existing building renovations and retrofits, the competition requires their solutions meet zero energy ready residential standards.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Assessing the New Home Market Opportunity: Case Study and Cost Modeling for Solar and Storage in 2030

Residential solar and storage markets are growing in the United States. With approximately 1 million new homes constructed every year, this represents a significant opportunity for solar and storage installations. Some homebuilders have begun to build new homes with solar and storage included as a standard offering. It is not clear how solar and storage is incorporated into the new construction process and at what cost. Further, it is unclear what barriers or opportunities exist to scale this model nationwide. To fill this gap in the literature, this research conducts a case study of Mandalay Homes' new solar and storage community in Arizona to gather lessons learned. From this foundation, we further generate a set of pathways to reduce install costs and expand solar and storage market penetration in this sector. To model existing and 2030 solar and storage costs, we use the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL's) bottom-up cost model. This modeling is further informed by 12 interviews conducted with new home builders, solar contractors, and other subject matter expert organizations. Our case study analysis generated three key considerations for other homebuilders including: 1. Educating local permitting, inspection, and in some cases utility officials on solar and storage products, designs, and code compliant building practices may be required. The need for education may decline as more local governments and utilities review and approve solar and storage projects. 2. Incorporating solar and storage systems into the homebuilding process can add complexity and related coordination challenges. This does not need to result in home construction delays, but can result in costly contractor "dry runs" to construction sites. 3. Deploying solar and storage at the time of new construction has significant economies of scale, which can improve the value proposition of the systems. The case study, extant literature, and interviews were used to model both existing and future solar and storage installation costs at time of new construction. Here, we find three key cost reduction opportunities relating to solar and battery storage hardware, customer acquisition, and overhead. If future contractors can maximize the cost reduction opportunities outlined here, residential new construction costs could decline by 8 - 25% by 2030, depending on the modeled scenario. Though we expect costs to decline through 2030, it is unclear which of these scenarios may ultimately appear. Interviewees further identified a variety of barriers across each cost category that could temper the savings shown here. At the same time, interviewees described several pathways to scale the new construction solar and storage market, beyond installation cost savings. Interviewees confirmed that changes in finance, rate design, resilience policies, deployment mandates, and DER aggregation could all support more market adoption than seen today. These findings suggest that there are significant opportunities to expand new construction markets and this research can serve as a baseline to assess progress in this segment through 2030.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

Implementing Solar Photovoltaic Projects on Historic Buildings and in Historic Districts

Despite a global recession, the number of photovoltaic (PV) installations in the United States grew 30% from 2008 to 2009. A number of trends point toward continued growth of new PV installations. The efficiency of solar panels is increasing, while installation costs are going down. At the same time, federal, state, and local regulations are requiring that greater amounts of energy must come from renewable sources. Incentives for solar power technology implementation are being created and regulatory barriers removed. Corporations and governments are focusing on solar power to demonstrate leadership in environmental sustainability and resource conservation. Architects and builders are including PV arrays as a way to meet green building standards and property owners are seeking PV as a way to reduce their utility bills, as well as their carbon footprints. This publication focuses on the implementation of PV systems on historic properties. Many private property owners, as well as local, state, and national government entities, are seeking guidance on how best to integrate solar PV installations on historic buildings. Historic preservationists maintain that preserving, reusing, and maintaining historic structures is a key sustainable design strategy while also recognizing the importance of accommodating renewable energy technologies where they are appropriate. In some cases, however, conflicts have arisen over the installation of PV panels on historic properties. Addressing these conflicts and providing guidance regarding solutions and best practices is an important step toward resolving or eliminating barriers. Historic properties and districts in the United States provide tangible connections to the nation's past. Thousands of buildings, sites, districts, structures, and objects have been recognized for their historic and architectural significance. Local, state, and national designations of historic properties provide recognition, protection, and incentives that help to preserve those properties for future generations. At the national level, the National Register of Historic Places includes more than 86,000 listings, which encompass a total of more than 1.6 million historic resources. State registers of historic places also provide recognition and protection for historic sites and districts. Locally, more than 2,400 communities have established historic preservation ordinances. Typically implemented through zoning overlays, these local land use regulations manage changes to hundreds of thousands of historic properties. Over a period of 2 years (2007 and 2008) the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) designated 25 major U.S. cities as Solar America Cities. DOE provided financial and technical assistance to help the cities develop comprehensive approaches to accelerate the adoption of solar energy technologies. The Solar America Cities partnerships represent the foundation of DOE's larger Solar America Communities program. As a part of this program, DOE identified the implementation of solar projects on historic properties and in historic districts as one area to address. A workshop titled 'Implementing Solar Projects on Historic Buildings and in Historic Districts' was held in Denver, Colorado, in June of 2010. Participants included representatives from the solar industry as well as historic preservationists from nonprofit organizations and government agencies at the local, state, and national levels. The workshop provided an opportunity to gain a common understanding of solar technologies and historic preservation procedures and priorities. The workshop participants also discussed some of the challenges involved in locating PV systems on historic properties and identified potential solutions. This publication is based on the discussions that occurred at this workshop and the recommendations that were developed by participants. Ideas expressed by participants in the workshop, and included in this document, do not necessarily reflect the opinion of any government council, agency, or entity.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

The Readout Electronics of the Mu2e Electromagnetic Calorimeter

The Mu2e electromagnetic calorimeter has been designed to measure ~100 MeV electrons with energy resolution σE/E <10%, time resolution σt < 500ps and position resolution σx < 1cm. The detector is composed of 1348 un-doped CsI crystals coupled to two large area Silicon Photomultipliers (SiPMs). Each SiPM is connected to a Front End Electronics (FEE) chip which hosts the shaping amplifier and the high voltage linear regulator. A group of 20 FEE is controlled by one Mezzanine Board (MB) which transmits the amplified signals to one Digitizer ReAdout Controller board (DiRAC). The DiRAC samples the waveforms at 200 MHz with 12-bit ADCs, packs the data according to the Mu2e custom format and transmits them to the event builder through an optical transceiver. To limit the number of pass-through connectors and the length of the cables, the readout and digitization electronics is located inside the detector cryostat and close to the interaction target. The boards will have to sustain a neutron fluence of about 5x10 10 n/cm 2 @ 1 MeVeq (Si)/y and a Total Ionizing Dose of about 12 krad, while working into a 1T magnetic field and a vacuum of 10 (-4) Torr. This harsh operational environment has made the electronics design challenging and required an extended campaign of tests to select and qualify the employed electronic components. In this paper we report on the board architecture and design, on the qualification of the prototypes, as well as on the results of the first vertical slice test of the Mu2e calorimeter.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗

Residential Building Energy Efficiency Field Studies: Low-Rise Multifamily

In recent years, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has conducted a series of research studies to validate energy efficient building technologies in the field. Much of the work has focused on single-family construction, and some has also addressed commercial energy codes. The work detailed in this DOE-funded study (EE0007616) focuses on low-rise multifamily buildings (three stories or fewer above grade) in various regions of the United States, and reports on how state-level building codes are being implemented, both in terms of observed characteristics and also in terms of estimated energy impacts. Nearly 100 buildings across four states—Illinois, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington—were sampled, which represent a range of climate types from mild temperature to very cold continental. Both common entry and outdoor entry buildings were included, and a parallel research project evaluated envelope air tightness and current still-evolving air tightness testing methods. Finally, a set of structured interviews of building designers and other relevant professionals was carried to out to gain more insight into this market. To the greatest extent possible, the methodology developed under the project for low-rise multifamily buildings mirrored the approach established by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) for single-family residential buildings (https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/residential-building-energy-code-field-study). This included the general approach to sampling, recruitment, and data collection, as well as data analysis and presentation. The range of permitting dates for the sites encompassed two energy code cycles in most regions. All states in the study had adopted a variation of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) for the structure of their state code. The low-rise multifamily occupancy presents a hybrid building type: most of the building’s conditioned floor area was covered by the residential chapter of the code while portions of the building (such as corridors and common spaces) fell under the commercial code chapter. The key items assessed in this work were: Building Shell—exterior wall insulation, ceiling insulation, foundation insulation, windows. Common Areas—HVAC and lighting. Living Units—lighting, ventilation. A few items were not assessed in detail, given their relative paucity in this occupancy type; these included duct leakage, pipe insulation, and hot water circulation controls. Building characteristics were collected via a combination of architectural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing plan reviews and field inspections, and entered into a spreadsheet-based tool that was later queried to build a database. Data went through quality control both upon arrival and via a later semi-automated review and assurance process. Most of the data are presented graphically so that the reader can quickly assess compliance with the applicable energy codes (both by state and by code year). As a final step, EnergyPlus™ simulations were created for all buildings in the study to estimate both the as-found energy use intensity (EUI) and the energy and CO 2 that could be saved if features that were found to not meet code minimums were brought up to code. The savings estimates were tabulated for each of the four states in the study. The research team found that the single-family approach was largely applicable to low-rise multifamily buildings. This applies to both the data collection and the prototype EUI analysis. Most of the occupied space is living units and falls under residential energy codes, and many characteristics use similar envelope construction and relatively straightforward mechanical systems and lighting. One of the most challenging aspects of this work was to build an effective spreadsheet-based data collection instrument that could allow efficient collection of both building plan and field data. The research team is of the view that other methods could be equally effective if the work is done carefully with diligent quality control. The primary findings for the work center around the thermal envelope and mechanical systems and lighting at the sites: For thermal envelope components, the majority of buildings met or were better than the prescriptive code.This suggests that building designers and builders are aware of code requirements. In some cases, surveyed buildings were designed to qualify for energy efficiency certification programs. These buildings made up at least 20% of sampled buildings in each state. Almost all buildings met mechanical system efficiency requirements (for both living units and common areas). In some cases, sites employed systems that were considerably more efficient than required by the applicable energy code. Dwelling units had a majority of high-efficacy lighting, often in excess of the state’s residential code requirements. While high-efficacy fixtures were also typical in common areas (corridors and stairwells), lighting power densities (LPDs) in these areas were sometimes higher than levels dictated by the applicable part of the state commercial energy code. The simulation models run on a series of low-rise multifamily prototypes, informed by a composite of the field data collected, calculated annual EUIs of between 20 and 50 kBtu/ft2-yr, with the range representing the effects of both building characteristics and building location (climate zone). A detailed process (based on simulations of prototype buildings) was used to estimate the amount of avoided energy use that would occur if 100% adherence to energy codes were attained. The results indicated modest savings are attainable for items such as window thermal performance and common area lighting. The result is overall only a modest potential for additional energy savings, averaging about 10% of EUI.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Developing Flexible Discrete Event Simulation Models in an Uncertain Policy Environment

On February 1st, 2010 U.S. President Barack Obama submitted to Congress his proposed budget request for Fiscal Year 2011. This budget included significant changes to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), including the proposed cancellation of the Constellation Program. This change proved to be controversial and Congressional approval of the program's official cancellation would take many months to complete. During this same period an end-to-end discrete event simulation (DES) model of Constellation operations was being built through the joint efforts of Productivity Apex Inc. (PAl) and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) teams under the guidance of NASA. The uncertainty in regards to the Constellation program presented a major challenge to the DES team, as to: continue the development of this program-of-record simulation, while at the same time remain prepared for possible changes to the program. This required the team to rethink how it would develop it's model and make it flexible enough to support possible future vehicles while at the same time be specific enough to support the program-of-record. This challenge was compounded by the fact that this model was being developed through the traditional DES process-orientation which lacked the flexibility of object-oriented approaches. The team met this challenge through significant pre-planning that led to the "modularization" of the model's structure by identifying what was generic, finding natural logic break points, and the standardization of interlogic numbering system. The outcome of this work resulted in a model that not only was ready to be easily modified to support any future rocket programs, but also a model that was extremely structured and organized in a way that facilitated rapid verification. This paper discusses in detail the process the team followed to build this model and the many advantages this method provides builders of traditional process-oriented discrete event simulations.

Miranda, David J.↗

A Multi-State Model for Catalyzing the National Home Energy Retrofit Market (Final Technical Report)

In the fall of 2010, the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs (ADECA) launched the Multi-State Model for Catalyzing the National Home Energy Retrofit Market Project (Multi-State Project). This residential energy efficiency pilot program was a collaborative effort among the states of Alabama, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Washington, and was funded by competitive State Energy Program (SEP) awards through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The objective of this project was to catalyze the home energy efficiency retrofit market in select areas within the state of Alabama. To achieve this goal, the project addressed a variety of marketplace elements that did not exist, or were underdeveloped, at the outset of the effort. These included establishing minimum standards and credentials for marketplace suppliers, educating and engaging homeowners on the benefits of energy efficiency and addressing real or perceived financial barriers to investments in whole-home energy efficiency, among others. The anticipated effect of the activities would be increased market demand for retrofits, improved audit to retrofit conversion rates and growth in overall community understanding of energy efficiency. The four-state collaborative was created with the intent of accelerating market transformation by allowing each state to learn from their peers, each of whom possessed different starting points, resources, and strategies for achieving the overall objective. The four partner states engaged the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) to oversee a project steering committee and to manage the project evaluation for all four states. The steering committee, comprised of key program partners, met on a regular basis to provide overall project coordination, guidance, and progress assessment. While there were variances in program design among the states, there were several common elements: use of the Energy Performance Score (EPS) platform; an audit and home energy rating tool; emphasis on community based coordination and partnerships; marketing and outreach to increase homeowner participation; training for market actors; access to financing options including rebates, incentives, and loan products; and an in depth process evaluation to support continual program improvement and analysis. In Alabama, Nexus Energy Center operated energy efficiency retrofit programs in Huntsville and Birmingham. In the Huntsville community the AlabamaWISE program was available in five Alabama counties: Cullman, Lawrence, Limestone, Madison, and Morgan. In Birmingham, the program was available to residents in Jefferson and Shelby Counties. In both communities, the program was similar in terms of program design but tailored marketing and partnerships to address the unique local conditions and population of each community. ADECA and the Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance (SEEA) provided overall project management services and common resources to the local program administrator Nexus Energy Center, including contracted services for contractor training, quality assurance testing, data collection and reporting, and compliance. The fundamental components of the AlabamaWISE program included a vertical contractor-based business model; comprehensive energy assessments; third-party quality assurance; rebates for installation of energy saving measures; accessible, low-interest financing; targeted and inbound marketing; Energy Performance Score (EPS) tool to engage and educate homeowners; training for auditors, contractors, and real estate professionals; and online resources for education and program enrollment. Program participants were eligible to receive rebates or financing toward the assessments and upgrades to their home provided they reached at least 20 percent deemed or modeled energy savings. The design of each program focused on addressing several known barriers including: limited homeowner knowledge on the benefits of energy efficiency, lack of financing options, lack of community support for energy efficiency programs, and lack of trained market actors including contractors and real estate professionals. The programs were able to make progress on addressing all of these barriers and were most successful in offering financing options and training market actors. The most challenging barriers proved to be the act of building a market for energy efficiency where none previously existed, convincing homeowners of the value in investing in energy efficiency (and therefore completing retrofits), engaging electric and natural gas utilities to partner on delivery, and achieving the overall project target of 1,365 completed retrofits. The components that proved to be the most valuable to program success were engaged contractor networks that could promote and endorse the program, partnerships with local business and organizations, and the access to rebates, incentives and financing mechanisms. The programs were successful in building relationships with a variety of community participants including: local contractors, Associations of REALTORS, home builders associations, universities, utilities, local and state governments, and other non-profit organizations. Throughout this program, 933 building audits and 795 building retrofits were completed making homes in Alabama more comfortable, less expensive to operate, more valuable to the marketplace, and safer and healthier for families. Continuing on this momentum, Nexus Energy Center plans to continue operating and expanding operations in Alabama as a Home Performance with ENERGY STAR sponsor and will continue to provide energy services and education to communities in Alabama.

Grimes, Elizabeth M.↗

Building America Case Study: Zero Energy Ready Home and the Challenge of Hot Water on Demand, Denver, Colorado

"This report outlines the steps a developer can use when looking to create and implement higher performance standards such as the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Zero Energy Ready Home (ZERH) standards in a community. The report also describes the specific examples of how this process was followed by a developer, Forest City, in the Stapleton community in Denver, Colorado. IBACOS described the steps used to begin to bring the DOE ZERH standard to the Forest City Stapleton community based on 15 years of community-scale development work done by IBACOS. As a result of this prior IBACOS work, the team gained an understanding of the various components that a master developer needs to consider and created strategies for incorporating those components in the initial phases of development to achieve higher performance buildings in the community. An automated scoring system can be used to perform an internal audit that provides a detailed and consistent evaluation of how several homes under construction or builders' floor plans compare with the requirements of the DOE Zero Energy Ready Home program. This audit can be performed multiple times at specific milestones during construction to allow the builder to make changes as needed throughout construction for the project to meet Zero Energy Ready Home standards. This scoring system also can be used to analyze a builder's current construction practices and design.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE Zero Energy Ready Home Case Study: Transformations, Inc., Production House, Devens, Massachusetts

A collaboration with Building America team Building Science Corporation helped this builder win a 2013 Housing Innovation Award in 2013—a 2,508-ft2 home built on speculation in the Devens, MA, subdivision. For the above-grade walls, the super-insulated building shell starts with 12 inch thick double walls composed of two 2x4 16-inch on-center walls spaced 5 inches apart. The space between the walls is filled with low-density (open-cell) spray foam for an insulation value of R-45.

advanced framing↗

Investigating Low-Altitude Constellations of Ad-Hoc Lunar PNT System for Distributed Spacecraft Autonomy

In this study, we examine a low-altitude Lunar Position, Navigation, and Timing (LPNT) constellations and the localization performance of Centralized Extended Kalman Filter (CEKF) and Decentralized Extended Kalman Filter (DEKF) algorithms. The primary investigation involves a 100-node swarm operating at a 100 km altitude, in contrast to previous studies that examined a 21-node asset in a frozen-orbit at 5,500 km. The autonomous operation of large-scale swarm is based on two-way Inter-Satellite Link (ISL) measurements, which involve pseudoranges and relative velocities among swarm nodes. We perform a numerical assessment of the two filtering approaches, utilizing ‘fully sampled’ measurements from all available assets as well as ‘two ISL’ measurements where each spacecraft is restricted to only two antennas. This research includes an analysis of CEKF under 2-ISL constraints and evaluates the performance of DEKF in a 100-node swarm, which has not been explored in previous studies. In addition, we examine the impact of increasing the sampling frequency for DEKF, showing that the update cycle can be shortened from a 10-minute interval. A novel approach for ‘2-ISL limited’ DEKF will also be introduced, using a matching formulation that exhaustively enumerates all potential matches. This study provides valuable insights into large-scale distributed swarm operations, considering various filter configurations, sampling frequencies, matching strategies, and scalability of CEKF and DEKF for low-altitude LPNT applications. The Lunar PNT technology plays a key role in providing reliable and robust navigation services on the Moon's surface and the South pole, where the primary Lunar missions are planned. To support upcoming Lunar missions, including small satellites from NASA's Commercial Lunar Payload Services program, the Lunar PNT system must be adaptable to smaller platforms like CubeSats. Driven by the growing involvement of public and private exploration partnerships, the traditional low Earth orbit missions are shifting to beyond geosynchronous orbit [1]. These upcoming missions aim to foster a sustainable and innovative exploration program, in collaboration with commercial and international partners, to facilitate human expansion throughout the solar system and return new knowledge and opportunities to Earth [2]. As part of this trend, there are increasing efforts to utilize science missions in Lunar orbit to develop a non-dedicated and ad-hoc PNT network system. Two traditional approaches, the Deep Space Network (DSN) and the weak signal Global Positioning System (GPS), are established deep-space navigation technologies for missions beyond the geosynchronous orbit. Beginning in 1958, the DSN was developed to communicate with the Explorer 1 spacecraft based on the use of radiometric tracking in spacecraft navigation [3]. The DSN is capable of providing nearly unfettered coverage to spacecraft beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO), however, increased space mission volume has created concerns about future expectations of DSN usage for spacecraft navigation [4]. For cislunar mission applications, the position accuracy using DSN achieves 100 m (3σ) with at least three geometrically diverse ground stations when using radiometric tracking alone [5]. The DSN's dependence on Earth-based ground stations restricts its operational capabilities to periods of Earth visibility. This limitation, coupled with its poor localization performance, renders the DSN unsuitable for future lunar missions that demand continuous tracking and precise positioning. To satisfy the increasing requirements of DSN in Lunar applications, spacecrafts are also required to improve their onboard antenna power and efficiency of the transmission. However, there is an important aggregate cost trade between adding capabilities to every spacecraft and adding to a capacity on the ground that serves multiple spacecraft [6]. A weak GPS system can provide PNT service while the user spacecraft is bound to the Moon, leveraging a single, steerable high gain antenna with the relatively narrow beam which includes all the sources in its field of view [7]. However, the higher the altitude the receiver is above the GPS constellations, the poorer and the weaker are the relative geometry and the received signal powers, respectively, leading to a significant navigation accuracy reduction [8]. The transmitted power becomes weaker with increasing distance from the Earth as well as signals tracked from one of the side lobes of the GPS antenna pattern. As a results, the number of visible satellites and relative geometric condition of the GPS satellites at very high altitude drops dramatically and reduces the navigation solution accuracy. Therefore, the weak GPS system is also not an ideal way to provide PNT service to upcoming Lunar missions when considering its limited geometric condition and the recued navigation accuracy. Another navigation approach on the Moon is being developed, similar to the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) on Earth, aiming to offer navigation service with continuous 24/7 coverage across the entire Lunar surface. For example, lunar communications relay and navigation systems (LCRNS) by NASA and Lunar navigation satellite systems (LNSS) by JAXA are designed to serve as dedicated Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) systems for the Moon. However, designing a dedicated LNSS and PNT service involves additional challenges, which are unique to the lunar environment, including limited payload capacity for the CubeSat platform, i.e., the size, weight, and power (SWaP) of the onboard clock, limited lunar ground monitoring stations, and limited financial investment as compared to the legacy Earth-GPS [9]. NASA’s focus on utilizing CubeSat platforms on the Moon leads to an alternative Lunar navigation platform that leverages the existing Lunar science and exploration assets. The small satellites used in Lunar missions can be used to create a low-cost, autonomous, ad-hoc, and on-demand mission-centric Lunar PNT swarm capable of providing PNT services to these low-cost lunar missions [10]. As upcoming Lunar missions will often operate at low-altitude about 30 km to 100 km for scientific observations and mapping purposes, the low-altitude orbital constellations could be employed to create an ad-hoc Lunar PNT system. However, several issues must be addressed, such as the instability of these orbits, which often require maintenance or are only suitable for short-duration missions, operating for fewer than 90 days. Additionally, at an altitude of 100 km, the satellites have a limited period during which they are above the horizon and capable of providing PNT service to users. The implementation of a non-dedicated, ad-hoc Lunar navigation constellation facilitates on-demand PNT services. A preliminary study of ad-hoc Lunar PNT system was conducted using 21 spacecraft in 5,5000 km altitude frozen orbits to test its feasibility and a basic performance of orbital asset localization among ad-hoc Lunar constellations in small satellites format [10]. These swarm assets are designed for autonomous localization with minimal Earth interaction, reducing dependency on bandwidth and ground resources. The design in [10] demonstrated the feasibility of a decentralized PNT approach, specifically employing a DEKF approach for state estimation, which helps minimize onboard operating costs. The DEKF method distributes computation across individual satellites, which lightens the computational load while maintaining accuracy in orbit ephemeris and clock offsets, similar to centralized systems [11]. In a follow-on study [12], each spacecraft was limited to 2 communications antennae, forcing the selection of measurements and scheduling spacecraft activities to perform the measurements. A matching algorithm is implemented to select the best measurements and schedule position estimation updates. The decentralized localization performance is also investigated with increasing levels of network degradation for swarm assets considering the impact of intermittent and permanent communication failure, to demonstrate the robustness and fidelity of the decentralized Lunar PNT service [13]. This study confirmed that the ad-hoc PNT constellations in frozen orbit are highly robust and resilient to communication failures. However, unlike frozen orbit swarm assets, the low-altitude satellites have a limited ground view at an altitude of 100 km, where the ad-hoc Lunar constellation consists of 98 low-altitude satellites, evenly distributed across seven circular polar orbital planes, alongside two satellites in a frozen orbit at an altitude of 5,500 km (Figure 1). Therefore, the number of satellites visible to ground users is significantly limited in low-altitude orbit constellations. As each visibility of a spacecraft remains intact for only a few ticks before it moves out of the field of view, the ground user encounters challenges in maintaining continuous navigation service, resulting in sparse availability and provision of Lunar PNT system. Consequently, service availability is primarily restricted to the Lunar South Pole region (Figure 2). Given these limitations and concerns, the localization performance of low-altitude swarm assets will be assessed in this study. We focus on the investigation of the localization performance of low-altitude swarm assets and ground users near the Lunar South Pole. The overall flow of the Lunar PNT simulation incorporates the DEKF approach of asset localization and the weighted least-squares approach in user localization (Figure 3). The autonomous Lunar PNT simulation is primarily implemented in MATLAB, where the DEKF based on the matching scheduler is implemented with Google’s OR-tools as a model builder and Gurobi optimization tool as a backend solver. The General Mission Analysis Tool (GMAT) is utilized to generate ephemeris data for swarm assets, and accounts for satellite orbital details, mass, and perturbations like solar radiation pressure and drag coefficients. Each ephemeris dataset is produced in the Moon International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF) inertial coordinate system. For state estimation, the distributed swarm assets rely on two-way Inter-Satellite Link (ISL) measurements, which involve tracking pseudoranges and relative velocities between visible satellites and anchor nodes during each observation. Numerical evaluations of the decentralized localization process are conducted to demonstrate the feasibility of the low-altitude PNT system in providing reliable navigation services. The main approach involves using DEKF and CEKF to localize 100 satellites in low-altitude constellations, where the CEKF is implemented to serve as a baseline for comparing the performance of distributed algorithms. In both cases, we evaluate ‘fully sampled’ measurements from all available assets, and ‘two ISL’ measurements when spacecraft are constrained to have only two antennas. We test four estimation techniques: CEKF fully sampled, CEKF two ISL, DEKF fully sampled, and DEKF two ISL filters. As the DEKF update cycle is comprised of network setup, communication, and computations, a global broadcast network and 2-way ISL network setup will take from 4 to 6 minutes as maximum [12]. In this simulation, the DEKF update cycle is set to 10 minutes, including a 4-minute latency for obtaining and computing the actual measurement updates. We experiment an increased update cycle to demonstrate the feasibility and evaluate the impact on localization performance using various tuning values for measurement noise covariances (Figures 4 and 5). By comparing centralized and decentralized approaches using a matching algorithm, we analyze the influence of cross-correlation factors in the covariance matrix, assuming 100% reliability of all assets and measurements. The increased frequency and the adjustments of tuning parameters reveal distinct error patterns between the two scenarios. The localization accuracy of the swarm assets and ground users is assessed by taking the median error across 100 assets and one ground user (84.9°S, 137.5°E) over 7-day simulation period (Table 1). Since the user localization accuracy is significantly affected by the performance of the swarm assets, it is crucial to maintain high localization accuracy within the swarm. This study will continue to explore decentralized filtering for autonomous LPNT operations, with further investigation of an 'iterative' matching approach which enumerates every valid matching pair, planned for the following month.

Yeji Kim↗