Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Energy efficiency, code compliance, IECC”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2010

Building Energy Codes Resource Guide: Code Officials Edition

The Building Energy Codes Resource Guide: Code Officials Edition, designed in partnership with the International Code Council (ICC), is a coordinated collection of useful resources for code enforcement officials. The guide includes practical resources for those conducting plan review and field inspections, including BECP's REScheck™ and COMcheck™ quick reference guides, case studies, and sample inspection checklists. It also includes information from and about ICC's commentaries, workbooks, and code companion materials. Many other helpful items and links to further resources available on the web also are included. Code official associations, and state and local jurisdiction agencies responsible for code administration and enforcement can easily add state and local guidance to this guide for a one-stop resource to support compliance in the field.

Energy efficiency, code compliance, IECC↗
DOE OSTI2025

Market Driven Residential Energy Codes: Comparing Performance in a Changing Technological Environment

The research project is undertaken to better understand the changing relationship between the two basic methods of building energy code compliance – prescriptive and performance – and how those methods relate to each other with respect to advancements in building energy computer simulation standards and capabilities. The International Energy Efficiency Code (IECC) is a model code adopted by many jurisdictions across the United States. Historically, the prescriptive compliance methodology has been preferred in most jurisdictions. The prescriptive methodology requires meeting or exceeding specific efficiency minimums for each envelope component. This tends to be a simple method to teach and verify. A more involved prescriptive alternative called the Total UA alternative is sometimes used. This method requires some multiplication, summing, and comparison to compute, so it is done with a fairly simple computer program. However, advances in computer and building energy simulation technology have resulted in increased use of more detailed performance compliance methods. The performance compliance method establishes the annual energy cost threshold via hourly simulation models. The compliance threshold is determined with a comparison building model simulation with geometry similar to the proposed home and with energy feature parameters and efficiencies as specified in the IECC. This project examines relationships between the two methods of building energy code compliance, including: • Overall annual energy use based on utility bill analysis by compliance method • Code official work processes with respect to compliance methods • Gaps and issues associated with building code compliance methods • Simulated energy use difference between compliance methods • Code compliance cost as a function of compliance method • Code compliance labeling effectiveness for high performance residences • Getting to net zero energy use and net zero greenhouse gas emissions through high performance code alternatives • Electronic code permitting and compliance alternatives

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2014

The Marriage of Residential Energy Codes and Rating Systems: Conflict Resolution or Just Conflict?

After three decades of coexistence at a distance, model residential energy codes and residential energy rating systems have come together in the 2015 International Energy Conservation Code. At the October, 2013, International Code Council’s Public Comment Hearing, a new compliance path based on an Energy Rating Index was added to the IECC. Although not specifically named in the code, RESNET’s HERS rating system is the likely candidate Index for most jurisdictions. While HERS has been a mainstay in various beyond-code programs for many years, its direct incorporation into the most popular model energy code raises questions about the equivalence of a HERS-based compliance path and the traditional IECC performance compliance path, especially because the two approaches use different efficiency metrics, are governed by different simulation rules, and have different scopes with regard to energy impacting house features. A detailed simulation analysis of more than 15,000 house configurations reveals a very large range of HERS Index values that achieve equivalence with the IECC’s performance path. This paper summarizes the results of that analysis and evaluates those results against the specific Energy Rating Index values required by the 2015 IECC. Based on the home characteristics most likely to result in disparities between HERS-based compliance and performance path compliance, potential impacts on the compliance process, state and local adoption of the new code, energy efficiency in the next generation of homes subject to this new code, and future evolution of model code formats are discussed.

Residential, Energy, Rating systems, HERS, 2015 IE↗
DOE OSTI2024

An Energy Codes Gap Analysis Field Study in the Southwest (Final Technical Report)

The primary goal of the “An Energy Codes Gap Analysis Field Study in the Southwest” project was to improve housing through strengthened building energy code implementation in two states, Colorado and Nevada, leading to greater energy and utility bill savings for households. Colorado is a home rule state. Nevada adopts a statewide code, but cities and counties must also adopt the code, making the state function like a home rule state. To broaden the impact of the project, an additional goal was to share and amplify project experiences, findings, and lessons that can be applied in other states. To achieve these goals, the project’s key objectives were to examine how residential energy codes are implemented in partner states; to use these findings to strengthen codes implementation through enhanced education, training, and outreach; and to enhance energy code technical assistance capabilities in the two partner states. In both partner states, the project led to the creation of a quantitative baseline understanding of compliance with high-impact energy code requirements, such as foundation, wall, and ceiling R-value; window U-factor and SHGC; envelope air tightness; duct tightness; and high-efficiency lighting. It then applied this baseline information to directly inform training in geographic areas with high levels of building and construction activity. The project has placed Colorado and Nevada among 23 states across the country that have conducted a single-family residential field study based on the established U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) methodology since 2014. It has also helped each State Energy Office test models for partnership- and relationship-building among government agencies and key stakeholder groups, including the State Energy Office and relevant code administration and professional licensing agencies, building officials, designers, builders, trades and utilities. At the national level, the project helped educate and inform State and Territory Energy Offices on a replicable methodology to assess energy code construction practices, effective stakeholder engagement strategies, and tailored energy code education and training. These findings are particularly pertinent for home-rule states, such as Colorado and Nevada, which rely on local government awareness and action to advance and implement building energy codes. By raising awareness of code adoption and compliance, this project has helped to equip each partner state with data on code compliance, strategies, education, and partnership models to advance building energy codes. This in turn will have an important impact on new construction practices in Colorado and Nevada, leading to more energy efficient and affordable housing. Currently, more than 62 percent of Colorado’s population lives in one of the 55 jurisdictions that have adopted the 2021 IECC to date, while nearly 95 percent of the state's population lives in one of the 208 jurisdictions that have adopted a code at 2015 IECC levels or higher. In Nevada, the 2018 IECC was adopted by the Governor’s Office of Energy in July 2018. By July 2020, 47 percent of the adopted energy code in the state was 2018 IECC which covers 96.5 percent of Nevada’s population. The training materials funded by this project focus on the 2021 IECC and will continue to be relevant in the two states as additional jurisdictions update their building energy codes.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2014

An Assessment of Envelope Measures in Mild Climate Deep Energy Retrofits

Energy end-uses and interior comfort conditions have been monitored in 11 Deep Energy Retrofits (DERs) in a mild marine climate. Two broad categories of DER envelope were identified: first, bringing homes up to current code levels of insulation and airtightness, and second, enhanced retrofits that go beyond these code requirements. The efficacy of envelope measures in DERs was difficult to determine, due to the intermingled effects of enclosure improvements, HVAC system upgrades and changes in interior comfort conditions. While energy reductions in these project homes could not be assigned to specific improvements, the combined effects of changes in enclosure, HVAC system and comfort led to average heating energy reductions of 76percent (12,937 kWh) in the five DERs with pre-retrofit data, or 80percent (5.9 kWh/ft2) when normalized by floor area. Overall, net-site energy reductions averaged 58percent (15,966 kWh; n=5), and DERs with code-style envelopes achieved average net-site energy reductions of 65percent (18,923 kWh; n=4). In some homes, the heating energy reductions were actually larger than the whole house reductions that were achieved, which suggests that substantial additional energy uses were added to the home during the retrofit that offset some heating savings. Heating system operation and energy use was shown to vary inconsistently with outdoor conditions, suggesting that most DERs were not thermostatically controlled and that occupants were engaged in managing the indoor environmental conditions. Indoor temperatures maintained in these DERs were highly variable, and no project home consistently provided conditions within the ASHRAE Standard 55-2010 heating season comfort zone. Thermal comfort and heating system operation had a large impact on performance and were found to depend upon the occupant activities, so DERs should be designed with the occupants needs and patterns of consumption in mind. Beyond-code building envelopes were not found to be strictly necessary for the achievement of deep energy savings in existing uninsulated homes in mild marine climates, provided that other energy end-uses were comprehensively reduced. We recommend that mild climate DERs pursue envelopes in compliance with the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and pair these with high efficiency, off-the-shelf HVAC equipment. Enhanced building envelopes should be considered in cases where very low heating energy use (<1,000 kWh/year or <0.5 kWh/ft2-year) and enhanced thermal comfort (ASHRAE 55-2010) are required, as well as in those situations where substantial energy uses are added to the home, such as decorative lighting, cooling or smart home A/V and communication equipment.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2025

Building Performance Standards and Energy Code Alignment - Technical Brief

Building energy codes focus on building design, construction and renovation and have significantly increased building efficiency since the first national energy code was published in 1975. Most jurisdictions have energy codes based on ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 (hereto referred to as Standard 90.1) and the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). Compliance options available in these model energy codes include a prescriptive path, whole building performance paths – including IECC Total Building Performance (TBP), Standard 90.1 Energy Cost Budget (ECB) method and Performance Rating Method (PRM) – and system performance paths for envelope and heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning systems. Building performance standard (BPS) policies are an emerging policy tool used by jurisdictions to reduce the operational energy use or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the existing commercial building stock. BPS policies vary widely between jurisdictions and are tailored to each location’s climate and energy goals. Intuitively, projects that met a recent edition of the energy code should comply with the BPS targets. However, some new buildings may struggle with meeting the BPS for the following reasons: 1. Energy codes focus on the design of the building and its projected ability to perform efficiently, while BPS compliance is dependent on the actual ongoing performance of the building, considering variables like occupancy, operation, and maintenance. 2. There are significant differences in the methodologies used to determine BPS compliance versus code compliance, including how each handles compliance metrics, handling of building amenities, and renewable energy generation. 3. The prescriptive compliance path in the energy code is based on performance of individual building components, as opposed to the performance compliance path which accounts for holistic building design strategies and interdependent building systems. This can result in a significant variability in post-occupancy performance for buildings built using the prescriptive path. Designs on the lower end of the permitted efficiency range may struggle with meeting the BPS.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2024

Building Performance Standards and Energy Code Alignment: Technical Brief

Building energy codes focus on building design, construction and renovation and have significantly increased building efficiency since the first national energy code was published in 1975. Most jurisdictions have energy codes based on ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 (hereto referred to as Standard 90.1) and the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). Compliance options available in these model energy codes include a prescriptive path, whole building performance paths – including IECC Total Building Performance (TBP), Standard 90.1 Energy Cost Budget (ECB) method and Performance Rating Method (PRM) – and system performance paths for envelope and heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning systems. Building performance standard (BPS) policies are an emerging policy tool used by jurisdictions to reduce the operational energy use or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the existing commercial building stock. BPS policies vary widely between jurisdictions and are tailored to each location’s climate and energy goals. Intuitively, projects that met a recent edition of the energy code should comply with the BPS targets.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2011

Building Energy Codes: Air Leakage Guide

Meeting the Air Leakage Requirements of the 2012 IECC provides a resource for understanding the requirements in the 2012 IECC to limit air leakage through a building's thermal envelope, and guidance on how to meet these requirements. It also provides information from Building America's Air Sealing Guide, best practices, and case studies on homes that currently are meeting the requirements. Finally, it provides information critical to understanding how to conduct a required blower door test to assess the actual air leakage rate of the home, report the results, and validate energy code compliance. To enhance the connection of the information to the relevant codes, the 2012 IECC and relevant 2012 International Residential Code requirements are referenced throughout the guide.

Energy efficiency, home comfort, building envelope↗
DOE OSTI2018

Energy and Energy Cost Savings Analysis of the 2018 IECC for Commercial Buildings

This report provides an assessment as to whether new buildings constructed to the commercial energy-efficiency provisions of the 2018 IECC would save energy and energy costs as compared to the 2015 IECC. The Commercial Energy Efficiency chapter in the 2018 IECC allows users to either follow the provisions in the IECC or use Standard 90.1-2016 as an alternative compliance path. PNNL also compared the energy performance of the 2018 IECC with the corresponding Standard 90.1-2016 to help states and local jurisdictions make informed decisions regarding model code adoption.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2017

Alabama Residential Energy Code Field Study: Baseline Report

A research project in the state of Alabama identified opportunities to reduce homeowner utility bills in residential single-family new construction by increasing compliance with the state energy code. The study was initiated in March 2014 and continued through May 2014. During this period, research teams visited 134 homes during various stages of construction, resulting in a substantial data set based on observations made directly in the field. Analysis of the data has led to a better understanding of the energy features present in homes, and indicates nearly $1.3 million in potential savings to Alabama homeowners that could result from increased code compliance. Public and private entities within the state can use this information to justify and catalyze future investments in energy code training and related energy-efficiency programs.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2013

Performance House -- A Cold Climate Challenge Home

Working with builder partners on a test homes allows for vetting of whole-house building strategies to eliminate any potential unintended consequences prior to implementing these solution packages on a production scale. To support this research, CARB partnered with Preferred Builders Inc. on a high-performance test home in Old Greenwich, CT. The philosophy and science behind the 2,700 ft2 'Performance House' was based on the premise that homes should be safe, healthy, comfortable, durable, efficient, and adapt with the homeowners. The technologies and strategies used in the 'Performance House' were not cutting-edge, but simply 'best practices practiced'. The focus was on simplicity in construction, maintenance, and operation. When seeking a 30% source energy savings targets over a comparable 2009 IECC code-built home in the cold climate zone, nearly all components of a home must be optimized. Careful planning and design are critical. To help builders and architects seeking to match the performance of this home, a step-by-step guide through the building shell components of DOE's Challenge Home are provided in a pictorial story book. The end result was a DOE Challenge Home that achieved a HERS Index Score of 20 (43 without PV, the minimum target was 55 for compliance). This home was also awarded the 2012 HOBI for Best Green Energy Efficient Home from the Home Builders & Remodelers Association of Connecticut.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2013

The Performance House—A Cold Climate Challenge Home

Working with builder partners on test homes allows for vetting of whole-house building strategies to eliminate any potential unintended consequences prior to implementing these solution packages on a production scale. To support this research, CARB partnered with Preferred Builders Inc. on a high-performance test home in Old Greenwich, CT. The philosophy and science behind the 2,700 ft 2 "Performance House" was based on the premise that homes should be safe, healthy, comfortable, durable, efficient, and adapt with the homeowners. The technologies and strategies used in the "Performance House" were not cutting-edge, but simply "best practices practiced". The focus was on simplicity in construction, maintenance, and operation. When seeking a 30% source energy savings targets over a comparable 2009 IECC code-built home in the cold climate zone, nearly all components of a home must be optimized. Careful planning and design are critical. To help builders and architects seeking to match the performance of this home, a step-by-step guide through the building shell components of DOE's Challenge Home are provided in a pictorial story book. The end result was a DOE Challenge Home that achieved a HERS Index Score of 20 (43 without PV, the minimum target was 55 for compliance). This home was also awarded the 2012 HOBI for Best Green Energy Efficient Home from the Home Builders & Remodelers Association of Connecticut.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2014

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↗
DOE OSTI2019

REScheck Technical Support

PNNL has developed REScheck compliance materials for three different editions of the MEC (CABO 1992, 1993, and 1995) and all editions of the IECC (ICC 1998, 1999, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012, 2015, and 2018). However, per DOE policy (dated March 18, 2014), only IECC editions 2009, 2012, 2015, and 2018 are presently supported in the software with the long-term intent to support only the three most recent code cycle editions. This report explains the methodology used to develop version 4.6.5 of the REScheck software in order to support compliance determination for IECC editions 2009, 2012, 2015, and 2018.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2014

Challenges of Achieving 2012 IECC Air Sealing Requirements in Multifamily Dwellings

​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.

&#8203↗
DOE OSTI2014

Challenges of Achieving 2012 IECC Air Sealing Requirements in Multifamily Dwellings

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 Consortium for Advanced Residential Building's (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.

2012 IECC↗
DOE OSTI2014

Identification of RESNET HERS Index Values Corresponding to Minimal Compliance with the IECC Performance Path

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory analyzed the relationship between the Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET) Home Energy Rating System (HERS) Index and the traditional simulation-based Performance Path used in the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). The analysis evaluates, for a single-family residence with various characteristics, the ranges of HERS Index values that would imply compliance with the 2012 IECC Performance Path. Several building characteristics considered likely to result in quantifiable differences in the outcomes of the two approaches, or otherwise believed to be of interest to code developers and policy makers, are considered in the analysis.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2014

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↗