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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2016

Airside HVAC BESTEST. Adaptation of ASHRAE RP 865 Airside HVAC Equipment Modeling Test Cases for ASHRAE Standard 140. Volume 1, Cases AE101-AE445

This report documents a set of diagnostic analytical verification cases for testing the ability of whole building simulation software to model the air distribution side of typical heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. These cases complement the unitary equipment cases included in American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 140, Standard Method of Test for the Evaluation of Building Energy Analysis Computer Programs, which test the ability to model the heat-transfer fluid side of HVAC equipment.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2026

Enter the AHU (36th Chamber of ASHRAE): A Multi-site Field Study of ASHRAE G36

Despite being recognized as the best practice for advanced building controls, ASHRAE Guideline 36 (G36) has seen slow adoption in retrofit cases. Decisionmakers lack credible field evidence to justify the time and person-power investment. Most prior analyses have relied on software simulations, which overlook implementation challenges and fail to persuade owners to move from models to real-world deployment. This paper presents a multi-site field study of G36 performance, drawing on measured results from 17 projects across diverse building types and climate zones. The analysis disaggregates outcomes by the most widely adopted air handling unit (AHU) based G36 strategies, including trim-and-respond approaches to supply air temperature (SAT) and duct static pressure (DSP) reset, and economizer controls. Results for controls re programming implementations are encouraging, with HVAC savings ranging from 2% - 49%, with a median of 18%. The range aligns with simulation study findings showing 1% - 46% savings through these three strategies. These findings show that even without capital investment in control infrastructure upgrades, existing building owners are reaping significant benefits from updating HVAC sequences of operation to industry best-practice solutions. The results give practitioners and decisionmakers a reference point on what to expect, which strategies deliver, and how field performance may compare to simulation.

Deshpande, Reva↗
DOE OSTI2024

Energy performance evaluation of the ASHRAE Guideline 36 control and reinforcement learning–based control using field measurements

This study evaluates the energy performance of ASHRAE Guideline 36–compliant control (ASHRAE 36 control) and reinforcement learning (RL)–based control through experimental field tests and a simulation study. Three field tests were conducted at Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s commercial building test facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee: a baseline with a baseline conventional control, a test with ASHRAE 36 control, and a test with RL-based control. The selected ASHRAE 36 controls were trim and respond control, as well as variable air volume (VAV) box control. We compared the measured supply air temperature of the rooftop unit, VAV box supply air temperature, and VAV box supply airflow rate across the three test cases. The field data indicated that ASHRAE 36 controls operated as specified by ASHRAE Guideline 36. Based on these data, ASHRAE 36 control achieved a 45 % reduction in hourly averaged HVAC energy consumption compared with the baseline, and RL-based control achieved a 66 % reduction. These potential annual energy savings were confirmed using a calibrated whole-building energy model. Compared with the baseline, ASHRAE 36 control reduced HVAC energy consumption by 42 %, and RL-based control achieved a 54 % reduction. Furthermore, RL-based control reduced total HVAC energy consumption by 21 % more than ASHRAE 36 control.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2024

Energy Saving Estimation of ASHRAE Guideline 36 Supervisory Setpoint Reset Controls in a Commercial Large Office Building

Designing, commissioning, and retrofitting HVAC control systems for energy efficiency is crucial, but the use of ad-hoc control sequences by designers and contractors, based on scattered information, results in diverse and sub-optimal sequences. ASHRAE Guideline 36 (G36) addresses the challenge by providing standardized, rule-based HVAC control sequences that prioritize energy efficiency. However, there is limited evaluation of their energy performance at the building level, with only a few studies primarily focused on HVAC airside systems in small-to-medium-sized commercial buildings. In this study, the energy performance of ASHRAE Guideline 36 control sequences was assessed using a large office building emulator in Chicago. The emulator features a central plant system with multiple chillers and boilers as well as multiple variable air volume (VAV) systems with terminal reheat. To achieve a high-fidelity representation, we developed a Spawn-of-EnergyPlus-based model for the large office building, maintaining the DOE prototype large office building setup but substituting the HVAC system with its Modelica counterpart. This substitution ensures that the building thermal load, HVAC system's dynamics, and detailed control sequences are all accurately represented. The study involved evaluating and implementing control strategies outlined in ASHRAE Guideline 36-2021 to replace conventional controls. These strategies include the demand-based supply air temperature and duct static pressure setpoint reset and the request logic for demand-based reset of chilled/hot water supply temperature setpoints and pipe static pressure setpoints. Energy performance was evaluated under various load conditions, including cooling, heating, and transitional seasons, both for individual control strategies and in combination. The results indicate that the collective control strategies retrofit yield greater energy savings than the sum of individual strategies, highlighting the synergistic benefits of incorporating both airside and plant-side control retrofits. Additionally, energy savings of up to 41% in the heating season, 18% in the shoulder season, and 20 % in the cooling season were observed compared to baseline control while maintaining the thermal comfort level.

ASHRAE Guideline 36, Commercial buildings, Control↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the District of Columbia

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the District of Columbia. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Alabama

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Alabama. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Alaska

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Alaska. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Arizona

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Arizona. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Arkansas

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Arkansas. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of California

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of California. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Colorado

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Colorado. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Connecticut

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Connecticut. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Delaware

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Delaware. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Florida

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Florida. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Georgia

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Georgia. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Hawaii

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Hawaii. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Idaho

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Idaho. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for the State of Illinois

Moving to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) edition from Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE 2010) is cost-effective for the State of Illinois. The table below shows the state-wide economic impact of upgrading to Standard 90.1-2013 in terms of the annual energy cost savings in dollars per square foot, additional construction cost per square foot required by the upgrade, and life-cycle cost (LCC) per square foot. These results are weighted averages for all building types in all climate zones in the state, based on weightings shown in Table 4. The methodology used for this analysis is consistent with the methodology used in the national cost-effectiveness analysis. Additional results and details on the methodology are presented in the following sections. The report provides analysis of two LCC scenarios: Scenario 1, representing publicly-owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs—without borrowing or taxes. Scenario 2, representing privately-owned buildings, adds borrowing costs and tax impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗