Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “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

National Cost-Effectiveness of the Residential Provisions of the 2024 IECC

This analysis focuses on single-family and low-rise multifamily residential buildings based on the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). The IECC is developed by the International Code Council (ICC) on a 3-year cycle through a public development and consensus process. While proponents of code changes often include the energy and cost-effectiveness criteria for their respective code change, the IECC process does not include an energy or cost-effectiveness analysis of the entire edition of the code. PNNL evaluated the cost effectiveness of the changes in the prescriptive and mandatory residential provisions of the 2024 edition of the IECC, hereafter referred as the 2024 IECC, compared to those in the prior edition, the 2021 IECC. The simulated performance path and the Energy Rating Index (ERI) path (introduced in the 2015 IECC) are not considered in this analysis due to the wide variation in building construction characteristics that are allowed.

2024 IECC↗

National Cost-Effectiveness of the Residential Provisions of the 2018 IECC

As part of the U.S. Department of Energy Building Energy Codes Program's support for the development and implementation of model building energy codes and standards for new residential buildings, DOE analyzes each new edition of the International Energy Conservation Code to assess its cost effectiveness relative to the prior edition. This report estimates the incremental cost to comply with the 2018 IECC relative to the 2015 IECC, the associated energy savings, and the life-cycle cost savings.

2018 iecc↗

Guide to Determining Climate Zone by County: Building America and IECC 2021 Updates

This report describes the climate zone designations used by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Building America Program. The report aims to help residential building stakeholders identify the appropriate climate zone designation for each county in the United States, including Hawaii and Alaska. Identifying the correct climate zone is important for many activities including residential construction projects, code compliance, energy analysis and modeling, and other analytical activities where climate zones impact the energy and moisture performance of residential buildings. This report supersedes the previous Building America publication: Guide to Determining Climate Regions by County, published in 2010. This report reflects climate designations used by the International Code Council (ICC) in the 2021 versions of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), the International Residential Code (IRC), and other codes produced by ICC. The information provided here and associated data should be used for the most up-to-date information regarding climate zone designations in the United States.

2021 IECC↗

2012 IECC Climate Zones

County mapping of the 2012 climate zones from the International Energy Conservation Code. Each county in the CONUS is assigned a temperature and moisture regime. This dataset contains the raw data, the mapped data in various formats, and plots of the output.

2012↗

Futures for electrochromic windows on high performance houses in arid, cold climates

This study investigates high performance electrochromic windows used on a passive house and residential dwelling to IECC 2021 (i.e., IECC dwelling). In the lab, the electrochromic film switches transmitted solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) from 0.09 to 0.7 and visible transmittance from 0.15 to 0.82 with power consumption of 1.23 W/m 2 during switching times less than 3 minutes. We extrapolate these results to a window assembly. Building energy models of the houses were evaluated in Santa Fe, New Mexico. A Monte Carlo analysis for 2020, 2040, 2060, and 2080 was conducted for Shared Socioeconomic Pathways 2-4.5, 3-7.0, and 5-8.5. Cases with and without the electrochromic windows and with and without electricity were used to determine energy use intensity and hours beyond thermal safety thresholds. The passive house showed 1.3-3.1% mean energy savings and the IECC dwelling 4.4-5.1% with electrochromic efficiency benefits growing into the future for both cases. Even so, overall savings decrease into the future for the passive house, due to growth in cooling load being dominant, conversely overall energy savings increase into the future for the IECC dwelling due to heating loads being dominant. For thermal resilience, the passive house exhibited a mean percent decrease of 0.02-0.31% hours in the extreme caution (i.e., > 32.2 °C, ≤ 39.4 °C) range while the IECC dwelling exhibited 0.38-4.38%. The study therefore shows that electrochromic windows will have smaller benefits for the passive house in comparison to the IECC dwelling. The relationship between electrochromic windows is shown to have a complex relationship between house efficiency and climate change by these results.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

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↗

Heating and Cooling Energy Modeling of 3D-Printed Concrete Construction of Residential Buildings [Slides]

3D printed concrete construction (C3DP) is an emerging technology that comes with the associated benefits of high thermal mass walls. We investigated using BEopt software the heating and cooling energy use of a single story C3DP-constructed house. We then compared the heating/cooling energy use of the C3DP house against the corresponding energy use in a traditional timber (wood) frame construction (WFC), as well as a concrete masonry unit (CMU) construction. Both peak energy use for heating and cooling (Btu), as well as base energy use for both heating and cooling (MMBtu/yr) of the C3DP design were compared against the WFC and CMU baseline construction of identical geometries and orientations across all eight climate zones defined in the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). The BEopt models for all three constructions (C3DP, WFC, and CMU) were built to comply with the 2018 IECC code. Results indicate that C3DP construction has significant heating and cooling energy benefits in certain climate zones, with the highest peak cooling energy savings (9% compared to WFC, and 5% compared to CMU) in the IECC Climate Zone 1 in the month of July. The peak heating and cooling energy demand reduction of C3DP were found to be more significant than the base heating and cooling energy demand in all IECC climate zones. The 2018 IECC compliance-related U-Factor adjustments of all models also resulted in more peak energy savings of the C3DP design in the cooling-dominated climate zones (climate zones 1 and 2), moderate energy savings in moderate climate zones (climate zones 3, 4, and 6), and little to no change in energy savings in very cold climates (climate zones 7 and 8).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Demand Response in Residential Energy Code: Technical Brief

As buildings account for over 75% of U.S. electricity use, effectively managing their loads can greatly facilitate the transition towards a clean, reliable grid. Grid-interactive efficient buildings (GEBs) combine efficiency and demand flexibility with smart technologies and communication to provide occupant comfort and productivity while serving the grid as a distributed energy resource (DER). In turn, GEBs can play a key role in ensuring access to an affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern U.S. electric power system. Their national adoption could provide $\$$100-200 billion in U.S. electric power system cost savings over the next two decades. The associated reduction in CO 2 emissions is estimated at 6% per year by 2030 (DOE 2021). Building codes represent standard design practice in the construction industry and continually evolve to include advanced technologies and innovative practices. Historically, national model energy codes establish minimum efficiency requirements for new construction (ICC 2020). Expanding codes to support GEB capabilities is a pivotal step towards realizing demand flexibility in support of a clean grid by addressing capabilities to improve interoperability between smart building systems, the grid, and renewable energy resources. Realizing GEBs requires buildings with automated demand response (DR) capabilities that enable standardized communication with or control of, subject to explicit consumer consent, energy smart appliances or home energy management systems. This is achieved through direct or indirect (i.e., via an aggregator) communication between appliances and the electric grid. Energy codes can also support DR communication standardization and advance the deployment of building-integrated DERs such as energy storage, generation, and electric vehicles (EVs). Incorporating automated DR capabilities in energy codes provides many benefits to the consumers. Specifically, it aligns building electric load demand with intermittent renewable energy source availability, decreases peak load on the electric grid, allows buildings to respond to utility price signals, supports electrical network reliability and market growth of products and processes aligned with clean economic growth. The incorporation of DR into the model residential energy codes was considered for both the 2021 and 2024 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) code development cycles. The approved DR measures in the 2021 cycle were removed in response to appeals (ICC 2020). Updated language was presented for consideration again for the 2024 IECC, where it was negotiated and again approved, and again removed in response to appeals (ICC 2024). This resulted in many sections, including sections on demand responsive controls, being moved to the credits options or an appendix as a voluntary application. This technical brief updates the proposed DR components such that they can be considered by states and local governments for direct incorporation into their codes, as well as for future IECC energy code development. The proposal refinements are intended to support consistency in approach and provide a degree of certainty for building owners, designers, contractors, manufacturers, and building and fire safety professionals. The scope of this technical brief includes three strategies for DR in residential buildings: 1) smart thermostats with demand-responsive control, 2) electric water heating incorporating demand-responsive controls and communication and 3) grid Integrated solar and energy storage systems.

2021 IECC↗

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↗

Modeled Results of Four Residential Energy Efficiency Measure Packages for Deriving Advanced Building Construction Research Targets

The Advanced Building Construction (ABC) Initiative from the U.S. Department of Energy Building Technologies Office is working to accelerate industrialized construction innovations for decarbonizing buildings. To inform performance and cost targets for research under the ABC Initiative, this analysis used the ResStock™ tool to evaluate the energy savings, utility bill impacts, and carbon emissions impacts of four simulated upgrade packages with specific target performance levels on a large sample of residential dwelling units (approximately 550,000) representative of the U.S. housing stock.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Electric Vehicle Charging for Residential and Commercial Energy Codes: Technical Brief

Numerous studies show that sales of electric vehicles (EVs) have grown consistently over recent years in the U.S. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimated 3 million EVs were on the road in 2022, and the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) forecasts a total of 26.4 million EVs on the road by 2030. Based on this forecast, EEI projects the need for an additional 12.9 million EV charge ports by 2030. If EV charging infrastructure fails to keep pace with sales of EVs it could result in consumers stranded without options to power their vehicles. EVs are capable of providing substantial benefits to the consumers. EVs are less expensive to operate than conventional internal combustion engine vehicles, have lower maintenance costs, and have the convenience of fueling (charging) at home or work. Studies conducted in California show that costs associated with installing EV charging infrastructure can be substantially more expensive for retrofit scenarios compared to new construction, making inclusion of EV infrastructure in new construction codes a cost-effective policy option to increase infrastructure to meet growing demands. PNNL tracks adoption of mandatory EV provisions across the U.S. As of December 20, 2024, 12 states (California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, New Mexico, Illinois, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Vermont) and 53 local governments have added EV provisions to their building codes, local ordinances and zoning requirements. Originally published in 2022, this tech brief has been revised to align with recent model energy code committee discussions and published EV infrastructure code language. This technical brief summarizes market trends, costs and benefits, and provides sample code language for EV charging infrastructure for consideration to be included in model codes, such as the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1, as well as directly by states and local governments in their building codes. The technical brief summarizes related efforts undertaken by states and local governments, and builds upon language considered during the 2021 and 2024 IECC development cycles.

2021 IECC↗

Electric Readiness in Residential Energy Code: Technical Brief

This technical brief provides requirements for electric readiness that could be incorporated into model residential energy codes. It provides background on the basis and benefits of the provisions, and model code language that can be plugged into the IECC or adapted into other energy codes. This brief has been updated to reflect changes in the 2024 IECC.

2021 IECC↗

Potential energy savings benefits and limitations of radiative cooling coatings for U.S. residential buildings

We report radiative coatings are a promising strategy to implement passive cooling that provides an eco-friendly pathway to achieve energy efficiency in buildings. This study investigates the benefits and limitations of implementing radiative coatings on the building envelope, particularly the roof, of residential buildings in the United States. The analysis compares the performance of an ideal radiative coating with broadband surface properties to a realistic radiative coating with diffuse and semitransparent properties. To enhance the net energy efficiency of buildings, we carried out a comprehensive parametric analysis comprising key radiation surface properties to maximize cooling energy savings while minimizing heating energy penalties. A countrywide assessment for 68 locations across the United States showed that net energy savings are a strong function of the climatic and atmospheric conditions. Broadly, southern locations showed high overall energy savings whereas northern locations exhibited high overall energy penalties. Locations in International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) climate zones 1A, 2A, and 2B showed a net annual energy savings above 5%, whereas locations in IECC climate zones 5B, 6B, and 7 showed a net annual energy penalty greater than 3%. The hot and dry climate of Phoenix, Arizona, showed the highest overall energy savings of 426 kWh (6.2%). Additionally, the mathematical correlation reveals that the net energy savings of a location is positive only when its average cooling degree days is greater than 5.5 or its average heating degree days is less than 10.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

The Continuum from Energy Codes to Advanced Technologies: A New Approach to Training

In July of 2020, the unamended 2018 IECC became the statewide energy code for the state of Nebraska. This represented a significant energy code advancement over the previous code – the 2009 IECC. To support the implementation of the new code, the Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (MEEA), along with in-state partners, including the Nebraska Energy Office and the Nebraska Code Officials Association, applied for and received a FOA award for an integrated and innovative training and education program.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

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↗

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↗

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↗

Benefits Of Automated Construction And Energy Efficiency Measures In Modular Homes

This article builds on and adds to a Buildings XV publication that introduced the Transformative Efficiency and Automation in Modular Homes (TEAMH) project. The TEAMH project sought to develop a scalable solution for producing modular homes with 20-50% energy savings and similar cost relative to site-fabricated single-family home construction. A key aspect of the project was assessing the potential for labor cost reductions through automation-assisted construction using light gauge steel (LGS). To quantify the advantages of this approach, side-by-side comparisons were made between traditional wood-framed construction and automation-assisted LGS construction. This demonstration involved constructing one wood-framed wall and several LGS test walls, accompanied by a time-and-motion study. The results indicated that automation assistance could decrease construction time and associated labor costs by as much as 46%. High-performance envelope technologies for exterior insulation and air sealing were evaluated to compare modular homes with site-built homes that meet the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). A key technology considered was vacuum insulation panels (VIPs) with fiberglass cores. Guarded hot box testing of multiple full-scale wall assemblies containing different combinations of exterior continuous insulation systems containing phenolic foam and VIPs. Testing on various full-scale wall assemblies revealed that, with LGS construction, cavity insulation had minimal impact on exterior wall performance. Omitting cavity insulation can reduce labor and material costs while streamlining manufacturing, as its installation is labor-intensive and not easily automated due to the need for precise placement around wiring and other internal components. Guarded hot box tests of multiple LGS test walls with foam and VIP-based exterior insulation systems achieved R-values of up to 31 hr-ft2-°F/Btu. Finally, building energy modeling of multiple modular home designs indicated that the upgraded envelope assemblies can yield heating energy savings of up to 50% and cooling energy savings of up to 30% compared to IECC 2018 standards.

Shrestha, Som [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000183993797)↗