Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “ASHRAE”

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 163 records · Page 9
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2016

A Conversation on Standard 90.1-2016

The roundtable discussion: A Conversation on Standard 90.1-2016, highlights some of the major changes one can expect to see in building envelope, mechanical system, and lighting requirements. In addition, the article highlights a new performance-based compliance path, climate zone revisions, and the strategic initiatives resulting in the new format. This roundtable was conducted by ASHRAE Journal with Drake Erbe, Member ASHRAE; Dick Lord, Fellow ASHRAE; Len Sciarra, AIA, Member ASHRAE; Eric Richman, Member ASHRAE; Michael Rosenberg, Member ASHRAE; Rahul Athalye, Associate Member ASHRAE; Bing Liu, P.E., Member ASHRAE; and Jason Glazer, P.E., Member ASHRAE.

ASHRAE↗
DOE OSTI2017

A Conversation on Zero Net Energy Buildings

The submitted Roundtable discussion covers zero net energy (ZNE) buildings and their expansion into the market as a more widely adopted approach for various building types and sizes. However, the market is still small, and this discussion brings together distinguished researchers, designers, policy makers, and program administrations to represent the key factors making ZNE building more widespread and mainstream from a broad perspective, including governments, utilities, energy-efficiency research institutes, and building owners. This roundtable was conducted by the ASHRAE Journal with Bing Liu, P.E., Member ASHRAE, Charles Eley, FAIA, P.E., Member ASHRAE; Smita Gupta, Itron; Cathy Higgins, New Buildings Institute; Jessica Iplikci, Energy Trust of Oregon; Jon McHugh, P.E., Member ASHRAE; Michael Rosenberg, Member ASHRAE; and Paul Torcellini, Ph.D., P.E., NREL.

ASHRAE Journal↗
DOE OSTI2015

Through the Past Decade: How Advanced Energy Design Guides have influenced the Design Industry

Advanced Energy Design Guides (AEDGs) were originally developed intended to provide a simple approach to building professionals seeking energy efficient building designs better than ASHRAE Standard 90.1. Since its first book was released in 2004, the AEDG series provided inspiration for the design industry and were seen by designers as a starting point for buildings that wished to go beyond minimum codes and standards. In addition, U.S. Department of Energy’s successful Commercial Building Partnerships (CBP) program leveraged many of the recommendations from the AEDGs to achieve 50% energy savings over ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004 for prototypical designs of large commercial entities in the retail, banking and lodging sectors. Low-energy technologies and strategies developed during the CBP process have been applied by commercial partners throughout their national portfolio of buildings. Later, the AEDGs served as the perfect platform for both Standard 90.1 and ASHRAE’s high performance buildings standard, Standard 189.1. What was high performance a few years ago, however, has become minimum code today. Indeed, most of the prescriptive envelope component requirements in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 are values recommended in the 50% AEDGs several years ago. Similarly, AEDG strategies and recommendations have penetrated the lighting and HVAC sections of both Standard 189.1 and Standard 90.1. Finally, as we look to the future of codes and standards, the AEDGs are serving as a blueprint for how minimum code requirements could be expressed. By customizing codes to specific building types, design strategies tailored for individual buildings could be prescribed as minimum code, just like in the AEDGs. This paper describes the impact that AEDGs have had over the last decade on the design industry and how they continue to influence the future of codes and Standards. From design professionals to code officials, everyone in the building industry has been affected by the AEDGs.

Advanced Energy Design Guides↗
DOE OSTI2022

Smart Ventilation Controls for Occupancy and Auxiliary Fan Use Across U.S. Climates

Smart Ventilation has been developed as a way to reduce the energy associated with ventilation by changing when ventilation happens and how much ventilation occurs at any given time. In high performance buildings with low envelope and appliance related loads, ventilation is becoming a bigger part of the total building energy use and needs to be addressed if performance targets are to be met. This work explores the development and performance of smart ventilation controls based on occupancy and auxiliary fan operation that provide annual dwelling unit ventilation equivalence to ASHRAE Standard 62.2-2016. A prototype high performance home compliant with U.S. DOE Building America Zero Energy Ready program requirements was simulated using the REGCAP tool with and without smart controls across 15 U.S. DOE climate zones. Balanced and unbalanced IAQ fans were independently simulated, and all smart controlled fans had airflows double the reference 62.2-2016 airflow. Three idealized occupancy patterns were examined: 1st shift (a typical daily work/school absence), an extended 1st shift with more time spent out of the home evenings and weekends and 3rd shift (night work). The Occupancy controller turns the IAQ fan off during unoccupied periods, and it resumes ventilation upon their return. While unoccupied, contaminants are allowed to accumulate in the space, because occupants are not exposed to these contaminants. When occupants return home, they are exposed to these higher contaminant concentrations, and the controller increases the ventilation rate sufficiently to ensure equivalence with a continuous IAQ fan. Accounting for pollutant emissions that occur during unoccupied periods (as required by ASHRAE 62.2-2016), sharply distinguishes our occupancy controls from past Demand Controlled Ventilation systems. This new accounting method results in equivalent contaminant exposure, as well as lower reductions in average ventilation rates and lower energy savings. Smart controls were demonstrated that saved HVAC energy (i.e., avoided heating/cooling load, as well as fan energy)—averaging between 6 and 46% of ventilation-related energy use depending on the control strategy and occupancy pattern assumptions. The greatest savings were in the combined Auxiliary Fan + Occupancy control. Energy savings increased with climate heating demand and longer unoccupied time periods. The 3rd shift occupancy pattern had better performance, due to the thermal benefit of reducing the ventilation rate during the cold nighttime hours. This same effect provided a cooling energy benefit in hotter locations for the 1st shift. Overall, savings from occupancy-based smart controls were low, because of the recovery period required after occupants return home, during which the airflow is double the 62.2 reference. This recovery is required to maintain equivalence with the ASHRAE standard. Occupancy-based control performance was improved when combined with sensing auxiliary fans and when providing a pre-occupancy flush out of one- or two-hours. Performance was similarly improved if the ASHRAE Standard were to recognize that pollutant emissions are lower during unoccupied periods, iii allowing a lower target ventilation rate during unoccupied periods (not currently in the standard) (see Full vs. Half AEQ in this report). Finally, over-sized unbalanced fans that are cycled on-and-off by a smart controller (or timer) were found to substantially increase annual average air exchange and energy use relative to a continuous unbalanced fan due to the effects of superposition with natural infiltration.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2020

National Cost-effectiveness of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2016

The purpose of this analysis is to examine the cost-effectiveness of the 2016 edition of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE 2016). Standard 90.1 is developed by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard Standing Project Committee (SSPC) 90.1. It is the model energy standard for commercial and multi-family residential buildings over three floors (42 USC 6833). PNNL analyzed the cost-effectiveness of changes in Standard 90.1 from 90.1-2013 to 90.1-2016, as applied in commercial buildings across the United States. During the development of new editions of Standard 90.1, the cost-effectiveness of individual changes (addenda) is often calculated to support the deliberations of ASHRAE Standard Standing Project Committee (SSPC) 90.1. The ASHRAE process, however, does not include analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the entire package of addenda from one edition of the standard to the next, which is of particular interest to adopting State and local governments. Providing States with an analysis of cost-effectiveness may encourage more rapid adoption of newer editions of energy codes based on Standard 90.1. This information may also inform the development of future editions of Standard 90.1. To establish the cost-effectiveness of Standard 90.1-2016, three main tasks were addressed: (1) Identification of building elements impacted by the updated standard; (2) Allocation of associated installation, maintenance, and replacement costs; and (3) Cost-effectiveness analysis of required changes In addition to installation, maintenance, and replacement costs, energy cost differences were needed to determine cost-effectiveness. The energy costs for each edition of Standard 90.1 were determined previously under the development of Standard 90.1-2016, as described below. The current analysis builds on the previous PNNL analysis (as outlined in Section 5.2) of the energy use and energy cost saving impacts of Standard 90.1-2016 compared to previous editions. The overall energy savings analysis of Standard 90.1 utilized a suite of 16 prototype EnergyPlus building models in 15 climate locations representing all eight U.S. climate zones. Detailed methodology and overall energy saving results from Standard 90.1-2016 are documented in the DOE technical report titled Energy Savings Analysis: ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2016 (DOE. 2018b).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2014

Commercial and Residential Hourly Load Profiles for all TMY3 Locations in the United States

Note: This dataset has been superseded by the dataset found at "End-Use Load Profiles for the U.S. Building Stock" (submission 4520; linked in the submission resources), which is a comprehensive and validated representation of hourly load profiles in the U.S. commercial and residential building stock. The End-Use Load Profiles project website includes links to data viewers for this new dataset. For documentation of dataset validation, model calibration, and uncertainty quantification, see Wilson et al. (2022). These data were first created around 2012 as a byproduct of various analyses of solar photovoltaics and solar water heating (see references below for are two examples). This dataset contains several errors and limitations. It is recommended that users of this dataset transition to the updated version of the dataset posted in the resources. This dataset contains weather data, commercial load profile data, and residential load profile data. Weather The Typical Meteorological Year 3 (TMY3) provides one year of hourly data for around 1,000 locations. The TMY weather represents 30-year normals, which are typical weather conditions over a 30-year period. Commercial The commercial load profiles included are the 16 ASHRAE 90.1-2004 DOE Commercial Prototype Models simulated in all TMY3 locations, with building insulation levels changing based on ASHRAE 90.1-2004 requirements in each climate zone. The folder names within each resource represent the weather station location of the profiles, whereas the file names represent the building type and the representative city for the ASHRAE climate zone that was used to determine code compliance insulation levels. As indicated by the file names, all building models represent construction that complied with the ASHRAE 90.1-2004 building energy code requirements. No older or newer vintages of buildings are represented. Residential The BASE residential load profiles are five EnergyPlus models (one per climate region) representing 2009 IECC construction single-family detached homes simulated in all TMY3 locations. No older or newer vintages of buildings are represented. Each of the five climate regions include only one heating fuel type; electric heating is only found in the Hot-Humid climate. Air conditioning is not found in the Marine climate region. One major issue with the residential profiles is that for each of the five climate zones, certain location-specific algorithms from one city were applied to entire climate zones. For example, in the Hot-Humid files, the heating season calculated for Tampa, FL (December 1 - March 31) was unknowingly applied to all other locations in the Hot-Humid zone, which restricts heating operation outside of those days (for example, heating is disabled in Dallas, TX during cold weather in November). This causes the heating energy to be artificially low in colder parts of that climate zone, and conversely the cooling season restriction leads to artificially low cooling energy use in hotter parts of each climate zone. Additionally, the ground temperatures for the representative city were used across the entire climate zone. This affects water heating energy use (because inlet cold water temperature depends on ground temperature) and heating/cooling energy use (because of ground heat transfer through foundation walls and floors). Representative cities were Tampa, FL (Hot-Humid), El Paso, TX (Mixed-Dry/Hot-Dry), Memphis, TN (Mixed-Humid), Arcata, CA (Marine), and Billings, MT (Cold/Very-Cold). The residential dataset includes a HIGH building load profile that was intended to provide a rough approximation of older home vintages, but it combines poor thermal insulation with larger house size, tighter thermostat setpoints, and less efficient HVAC equipment. Conversely, the LOW building combines excellent thermal insulation with smaller house size, wider thermostat setpoints, and more efficient HVAC equipment. However, it is not known how well these ...

Array↗
DOE OSTI2026

Digitizing Today’s Buildings in the Real World: Lessons from Field Demonstrations

Digital twins, created by generating a virtual replica of a building, enable safe evaluation of operational scenarios and applications like fault detection and diagnosis and advanced controls. However, a prerequisite is the creation of a machine-readable digital representation of a building, currently hindered by fragmented information scattered across mechanical drawings, point lists, and natural language sequences. As a result, digital twin development remains labor-intensive, error-prone, and difficult to validate. To address these challenges, two efforts from ASHRAE aim to support the digitalization of buildings. ASHRAE s223 establishes a semantic model of buildings, representing system components, configuration, and data sources. ASHRAE s231 defines a vendor-neutral programming language for expressing their control logic. As the industry evaluates implementing them in their products, understanding the challenges that vendors and implementers may face is crucial. In this paper, we present findings and lessons learned from field demonstrations in five buildings that implemented control applications using ASHRAE s223 and s231. The demonstrations highlight how semantic modeling and formalized control descriptions can significantly reduce software development time, manual point mapping, and hard-coding. Beyond time efficiency, they enable reliable automation by minimizing human interpretation and providing a means for consistency across projects. We describe the processes and best practices for model creation and model usage, from translating heterogeneous building documentation into semantic representations to implementing control logic in real-world systems. Finally, we discuss the challenges that persist, including integration with legacy software environments, gaps in interoperability, and the level of expertise still required to effectively leverage semantic models.

Prakash, Anand Krishnan↗
DOE OSTI2024

Comparison of effectiveness and energy use of airborne pathogen mitigation measures to meet clean air targets in a prototypical office building

Organizations such as ASHRAE and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have proposed guidelines for controlling infectious aerosols in buildings, which can be met through measures such as modified operation of the heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) system or incorporating air-cleaning technologies. However, more research is needed to understand the trade-offs between health, energy, and comfort aspects when designing measures for these guidelines. To address this gap, this paper presents an analysis using new models for air-cleaning technologies, including in-duct and in-room germicidal ultraviolet (GUV) systems and portable air cleaners (PACs). These models are incorporated into an existing prototypical office building model and six measures are designed to meet ASHRAE Standard 241 and CDC clean air targets: MERV 13 HVAC filtration, maximum outdoor air supplied to the building, PACs, and in-duct, upper-room, and whole-room GUV. The measures are simulated for an office building in a cool and humid climate compared against a baseline simulation using MERV 8 filtration. The results show that all measures, except for the maximum outdoor air case, can meet the ASHRAE 241 standard without significant impacts on energy or comfort. The HVAC system measures were not able to meet the CDC target with the default system sizing and lead to significant energy increases, while the in-room measures were able to meet the CDC target with small impacts on energy consumption. Finally, this paper consolidates the simulation findings and provides practical guidance for building operators to meet clean air targets while limiting energy and comfort impacts.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2019

Learning occupants’ indoor comfort temperature through a Bayesian inference approach for office buildings in United States

A carefully chosen indoor comfort temperature as the thermostat set-point is the key to optimizing building energy use and occupants’ comfort and well-being. ASHRAE Standard 55 or ISO Standard 7730 uses the PMV-PPD model or the adaptive comfort model that is based on small-sized or outdated sample data, which raises questions on whether and how ranges of occupant thermal comfort temperature should be revised using more recent larger-sized dataset. In this paper, a Bayesian inference approach has been used to derive new occupant comfort temperature ranges for U.S. office buildings using the ASHRAE Global Thermal Comfort Database. Bayesian inference can express uncertainty and incorporate prior knowledge. The comfort temperatures were found to be higher and less variable at cooling mode than at heating mode, and with significant overlapped variation ranges between the two modes. The comfort operative temperature of occupants varies between 21.9 and 25.4 °C for the cooling mode with a median of 23.7 °C, and between 20.5 and 24.9 °C for the heating mode with a median of 22.7 °C. These comfort temperature ranges are similar to the current ASHRAE standard 55 in the heating mode but 2–3 °C lower in the cooling mode. Finally, the results of this study could be adopted as more realistic thermostat set-points in building design, operation, control optimization, energy performance analysis, and policymaking.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2024

Impacts of Model Building Energy Codes

The Department of Energy (DOE) Building Energy Codes Program (BECP) periodically evaluates national and state-level impacts associated with energy codes in residential and commercial buildings. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), funded by DOE, conducted an assessment of the prospective impacts of national model building energy codes from 2010 through 2040. A previous PNNL study evaluated the impact of the Building Energy Codes Program. A 2016 study looked more broadly at overall code impacts and this report describes the methodology used for the assessment and presents the impacts in terms of energy savings, consumer cost savings, and reduced emissions at the state level and at aggregated levels. In 2021, DOE conducted an interim and limited update to its 2016 study to evaluate potential building code updates using the 2016 methodology. That interim update includes estimated savings resulting from updates to the model energy codes, including the ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2016 (ASHRAE 90.1-2016) and 2019 editions, as well as the 2018 and 2021 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). In 2023, DOE developed a fully updated report that includes code updates (ASHRAE 90.1-2019 and 2021 IECC), as well as additional enhancements and updates, including updated energy prices, annual floorspace additions, state code adoption dates, and emission factors, among others. This current version is another fully updated report that includes code updates (ASHRAE 90.1-2022 and 2024 IECC), as well as additional enhancements and updates, including updated energy prices, state code adoption dates, emission factors, and renewable energy contribution among others. Energy codes follow a three-phase cycle that starts with the development of a new model code, proceeds with the adoption of the new code by states and local jurisdictions, and finishes when the new code is implemented and builders, architects, and engineers are required to comply with the new provisions. The development of new model code editions creates the potential for increased energy savings. After a new model code is adopted, potential savings are realized in the field when new buildings (or additions and alterations) are constructed to comply with the new code. The contributions of all three phases are crucial to the overall impact of codes and are considered in this assessment. Figure ES.1 schematically describes the analysis framework. Energy savings are expressed in terms of energy use intensity (EUI) in the figure.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2016

Comfort in High-Performance Homes in a Hot-Humid Climate

TO5 2.3.2: Large-Scale Temperature Study Although space-conditioning systems are required to meet standards such as those in the Air Conditioning Contractors of America (ACCA) Manual RS (Rutkowski 1997) and the ASHRAE Standard 55 (ASHRAE 2013) comfort criteria, little is known about how space-conditioning systems are actually operating in the field and if these systems are meeting those standards. Unconventional space-conditioning systems may be necessary for low-load homes in the future. It is important to know how current systems are functioning in existing homes and to what temperatures occupants typically set the thermostats in their homes. The U.S. Department of Energy's Building America research team IBACOS set out to find some answers. By using low-cost data loggers and occupant surveys to monitor 37 single-family homes that have standard heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment, the team gained insight into how sensitive occupants are to comfort in their homes relative to the ACCA and ASHRAE standards. This study focused on one climate zone (hot-humid); however, future studies may find differences among occupants- ideas of thermal comfort in other climate zones. Data were collected from installed sensors during a 2-month period from late August 2014 through late October 2014. The final aspect of this project was to review the business metrics associated with builders involved in a comfort and performance guarantee program. The results of this study-taken as an aggregate-show that the homes provided room-to-room temperature differences less than 6 degrees F 95% of the time. Temperature differences were less than 4 degrees F 80% of the time. Some homes showed better or worse performance. On average, two-story homes had a 3.3 degrees F temperature difference between rooms; single-story homes had an average of a 2.2 degrees F temperature difference between rooms. Occupants who did not use programmable thermostats had an average set point of 75 degrees F. Homes in which the thermostats were programmed with a setback schedule showed a median baseline temperature value of 74 degrees F and had a median afternoon setback of 75 degrees F. System runtime was analyzed and showed that the room-to-room temperature uniformity in some homes worsened during an on cycle, whereas the uniformity improved in other homes. That is, when the system was running, some rooms were receiving too much or too little air relative to the rest of the house, and the temperatures in those rooms were moving away from the temperatures of the other rooms in the house. Finally, analysis of the thermostat data shows a wide degree of variability among homes in the study. Interpretation of the measured data suggests that 21 occupants made no regular adjustments to the thermostats in their homes, seven had regular setbacks, seven showed varying setbacks, and 10 appeared to follow no pattern (with random adjustments). Ultimately, the data show that current systems are maintaining expected levels of comfort. As expected, it is more challenging to maintain a uniform temperature in all rooms of two-story homes, and future systems should address this issue. Furthermore, the data show that the majority of homes maintained relative humidity levels below 60% without any supplemental dehumidification

ACCA Manual RS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Air Handling Unit Shutdowns During Scheduled Unoccupied Hours: US Commercial Building Stock Prevalence and Energy Impact

Commercial buildings account for 18% of U.S. energy consumption, with 44% used for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC). American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 90.1 requires HVAC systems to shutdown fans and outdoor air ventilation during unoccupied times, only allowing fans to cycle on, without outdoor air, to maintain thermostat setpoints. However, it is minimally understood how often existing building operations align with energy code requirements and the energy implications of not doing so. This study used building automation system data from 843 buildings containing 5706 air handling units (AHUs) to determine three unoccupied AHU shutdown control schemes ranging in efficiency and then estimated their prevalence in the U.S. commercial building stock, segmented by building type. ComStock was then used to analyze the energy savings potential of implementing the most energy efficient unoccupied shutdown control scheme in non-participating buildings across the U.S commercial building stock. Results show that only 23% of AHUs align completely with the ASHRAE 90.1 requirement. ComStock modeling results show 4% annual stock energy savings by switching all non-participating buildings to the most efficient scheme, with 19% annual energy savings demonstrated for the median building switching from the least efficient scheme to the most efficient. Findings also show 114.5 TBtu electricity and 75.8 TBtu natural gas fuel savings when converting to the most efficient scheme. Furthermore, these findings help stakeholders understand the high prevalence of buildings not aligning with the ASHRAE-90.1 requirements for unoccupied AHU shutdowns and the energy savings potential of utilizing the most efficient unoccupied AHU shutdown scheme.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2015

National Cost-effectiveness of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2013

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Building Energy Codes Program supports the upgrade and implementation of building energy codes and standards, which set minimum requirements for energy-efficient design and construction for new and renovated buildings, and impact energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for the life of buildings. Continuous improvement of building energy efficiency is achieved by periodically updating model energy codes for commercial and residential buildings. Through consensus-based code development processes, DOE recommends revisions and amendments, supporting technologically feasible and economically justified energy efficiency measures. Ensuring that model code changes impacting the cost of building construction, maintenance, and energy services are cost-effective also encourages their adoption and implementation at the state and local levels. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) prepared this analysis to support DOE in evaluating the energy and economic impacts associated with updated codes in commercial buildings. The purpose of this analysis is to examine the cost-effectiveness of the 2013 edition of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 (ANSI/ASHRAE/IES 2013). Standard 90.1 is developed by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard Standing Project Committee (SSPC) 90.1. It is the model energy standard for commercial and multifamily residential buildings over three floors (42 USC 6833). PNNL analyzed the cost-effectiveness of changes in Standard 90.1 from 90.1-2010 to 90.1-2013, as applied in commercial buildings across the United States. During the development of new editions of Standard 90.1, the cost-effectiveness of individual changes (addenda) is often calculated to support the deliberations of ASHRAE Standard Standing Project Committee (SSPC) 90.1. The ASHRAE process, however, does not include analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the entire package of addenda from one edition of the standard to the next, which is of particular interest to adopting State and local governments. Providing States with an analysis of costeffectiveness may encourage more rapid adoption of newer editions of energy codes based on Standard 90.1. This information may also inform the development of future editions of Standard 90.1.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2017

Development of Smart Ventilation Control Algorithms for Humidity Control in High-Performance Homes in Humid U.S. Climates

Past field research and simulation studies have shown that high performance homes experience elevated indoor humidity levels for substantial portions of the year in humid climates. This is largely the result of lower sensible cooling loads, which reduces the moisture removed by the cooling system. These elevated humidity levels lead to concerns about occupant comfort, health and building durability. Use of mechanical ventilation at rates specified in ASHRAE Standard 62.2-2013 are often cited as an additional contributor to humidity problems in these homes. Past research has explored solutions, including supplemental dehumidification, cooling system operational enhancements and ventilation system design (e.g., ERV, supply, exhaust, etc.). This project’s goal is to develop and demonstrate (through simulations) smart ventilation strategies that can contribute to humidity control in high performance homes. These strategies must maintain IAQ via equivalence with ASHRAE Standard 62.2-2013. To be acceptable they must not result in excessive energy use. Smart controls will be compared with dehumidifier energy and moisture performance. This work explores the development and performance of smart algorithms for control of mechanical ventilation systems, with the objective of reducing high humidity in modern high performance residences. Simulations of DOE Zero-Energy Ready homes were performed using the REGCAP simulation tool. Control strategies were developed and tested using the Residential Integrated Ventilation (RIVEC) controller, which tracks pollutant exposure in real-time and controls ventilation to provide an equivalent exposure on an annual basis to homes meeting ASHRAE 62.2-2013. RIVEC is used to increase or decrease the real-time ventilation rate to reduce moisture transport into the home or increase moisture removal. This approach was implemented for no-, one- and two-sensor strategies, paired with a variety of control approaches in six humid climates (Miami, Orlando, Houston, Charleston, Memphis and Baltimore). The control options were compared to a baseline system that supplies outdoor air to a central forced air cooling (and heating) system (CFIS) that is often used in hot humid climates. Simulations were performed with CFIS ventilation systems operating on a 33% duty-cycle, consistent with 62.2-2013. The CFIS outside airflow rates were set to 0%, 50% and 100% of 62.2-2013 requirements to explore effects of ventilation rate on indoor high humidity. These simulations were performed with and without a dehumidifier in the model. Ten control algorithms were developed and tested. Analysis of outdoor humidity patterns facilitated smart control development. It was found that outdoor humidity varies most strongly seasonally—by month of the year—and that all locations follow the similar pattern of much higher humidity during summer. Daily and hourly variations in outdoor humidity were found to be progressively smaller than the monthly seasonal variation. Patterns in hourly humidity are driven by diurnal daily patterns, so they were predictable but small, and were unlikely to provide much control benefit. Variation in outdoor humidity between days was larger, but unpredictable, except by much more complex climate models. We determined that no-sensor strategies might be able to take advantage of seasonal patterns in humidity, but that real-time smart controls were required to capture variation between days. Sensor-based approaches are also required to respond dynamically to indoor conditions and variations not considered in our analysis. All smart controls face trade-offs between sensor accuracy, cost, complexity and robustness.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2019

Capture of Uranium Particles By Filtration: Effects of Filter Material and Air Humidity

Filtration of airborne particles is a standard technique for removal of radiological particles from the effluent of a nuclear reactor. The effects of humidity on filter performance and uranium particles are however less understood. We have conducted experimental runs in the Environmental Experimental Chamber (EEC) located at ORNL to study the capture of uranyl fluoride particles in supports of NNSA missions. Two filter types, one of Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV)-9 and the other of MERV-10 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineering) ASHRAE rating, were used in the investigations under two humidity conditions [15% and 65% Relative Humidity (Rh)]. Both MERV9 and MERV10 filters failed to capture uranyl fluoride particles that were smaller than 100 nm. The penetration efficiencies for both filter types were very high, greater than 80%, for particles from 10 to 100 nm. As particles became larger and wetter, the capturing efficiencies of both types of filter improved. Slightly greater than 50% of particles from 1 to 10 μm still escaped the capture by the MERV9 filters. However, MERV10 filters were able to capture higher than 50% of particles in the size range of 1 to 2 μm indicating it is likely to meet ASHRAE requirements. Overall, the capture efficiency of a filter is highly dependent on uranyl fluoride particle size, which humidity plays a major role. These two filter types simply are unable to capture particles smaller than 1 μm. A filter that has a higher ASHRAE rating like the HEPA filter has to be used to capture sub-micron particles. Questions on how uranyl fluoride behave in a condition higher than 65% Rh remain, because the particles could deliquescent at the higher humidity condition. That would complete change the size, shape, and surface properties of the uranyl fluoride particles which could lead to completely different filter performance and filtration dynamics. Furthermore, how high humidity affects filters of all MERV ratings remain unclear. Other filter characteristics such as surface charge could also be affected by high humidity condition and need to be investigated.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Advanced Energy Design Guide for K-12 School Buildings (AEDG) Training: Cooperative Research and Development Final Report, CRADA Number CRD-18-00761

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Building Technologies Office (BTO), Commercial Buildings Integration (CBI) Program supports the adoption of zero energy ready buildings design practices through targeted Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) workforce development. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) identified the opportunity to provided targeted training to those professionals that have the greatest potential to impact adoption and successful design outcomes of zero energy ready buildings projects. In January 2018, ASHRAE released Achieving Zero Energy: Advanced Energy Design Guide for K-12 School Buildings (AEDG). The AEDG was developed in collaboration with NREL, American Institute of Architects (AIA), American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), and Illuminating Engineers Society (IES). The purpose of this CRADA was to create a partnership between NREL, AIA, ASHRAE, USGBC, and IES to create and host on-demand, web-based training based on the AEDG.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2022

Pilot Study for Multifamily Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality

Weatherization Program Notice (WPN) 17-7 issued by the US Department of Energy (DOE) Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) requires that buildings have ventilation in accordance with ASHRAE Standard 62.2-2016 (entitled Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in Residential Buildings) in dwelling units weatherized under the program. The 2016 version of the standard expanded its scope of application to include all multifamily dwelling units. This has resulted in concerns for buildings where installing ventilation in individual units is costly or otherwise logistically difficult. Also, excessive ventilation rates could significantly increase energy costs, and may cause indoor air quality issues within the buildings. One deficiency that is noted is that the standard does not provide a credit for existing infiltration in multifamily buildings that reduces the required mechanical ventilation levels. This report details findings from a field study investigating envelope air-tightness, inter-unit connectivity, and indoor air quality in centrally ventilated high-rise multifamily buildings with central ventilation systems serving individual units in the state of New York. As allowed under WPN 17-7, the State of New York has a variance in the application of ASHRAE Standard 62.2-2016 in select types of multifamily buildings to provide time to determine how best to implement the standard. The purpose of this pilot study is to characterize the impact that weatherization and feasible ventilation improvements have on the indoor air quality of large, multifamily buildings with centrally ventilated apartments, as currently performed under WAP in the State of New York under their variance request (i.e., to implement ASHRAE Standard 62.2-2016 “to the greatest extent possible” in this type of multifamily building). A major goal is to determine if these practices improve or at least “do no harm” to the indoor air quality of the weatherized multifamily buildings and to the occupants themselves.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2024

The New Face of Standard 100

In January 2024, ASHRAE published a significant overhaul to ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 100-2018, Energy Efficiency in Existing Buildings. You may almost not recognize it. Standard 100-2024, Energy and Emissions Building Performance Standard for Existing Buildings, now addresses both energy and emissions performance as a model building performance standard (BPS). ASHRAE Standing Standard Project Committee (SSPC) 100, with direction from ASHRAE and its Task Force for Building Decarbonization (TFBD) has been working to update the standard to make it a model for building performance standard adoption across the U.S. and internationally. Here, the new edition of Standard 100 addresses key issues of climate change surrounding building performance, including new metrics for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions targets, continuing to support the imperative of improving our existing building stock and meeting global climate change commitments.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗