Prototype 2 Red Zone Field Ops

[Inacayal Tanoesoedibjo]

TheU.S. Department of Energy (DOE) supports the development of commercial and residential building energy codes and standards by participating in industry review and update processes, and providing technical analyses to support both published model codes and potential changes. DOE publishes its findings in an effort to ensure transparency in its support, and to make its analysis available for public review and use.

The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) simulates energy savings associated with changes in energy codes and standards. This analysis is used by the U.S. Department of Energy's Building Energy Codes Program to evaluate published versions of the code, as well as in developing proposed code changes.

The suite of commercial prototype buildings covers 75% of the commercial building floor area in the United States for new construction, including both commercial buildings and mid- to high-rise residential buildings, and across all U.S. climate zones. As ASHRAE Standard 90.1 and IECC evolve, PNNL makes modifications to the commercial prototype building models, with extensive input from ASHRAE 90.1 Standing Standards Project Committee members and other building industry experts.

The zipped files in Tables 1, 2, and 3 contain downloadable prototype models in compressed, zip, format for the respective edition of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G, and IECC, respectively. Each zipped file includes EnergyPlus model input files (.idf) and corresponding output files (.htm) across all climate locations, as well as a scorecard spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel, .xlsx, format). The scorecard summarizes the building descriptions, thermal zone internal loads, schedules, and other key modeling input information for all 16 prototype buildings. The scorecard spreadsheet can be downloaded from this link . Table 3 contains the associated EnergyPlus TMY3 weather files for the 19 climate locations which can be downloaded from this zipped file.

Files may be downloaded either as complete packages, containing all building types, or by individual building type, either by specific Standard 90.1 or IECC editions or as complete sets from the tables below.

These prototypes are used to calculate Building Performance Factors (BPFs) for use with the Performance Rating Method of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 though 2022. These prototypes are used to implement the new approach to calculating BPFs that follow the Appendix G baseline rules and include adjustments to the prototype models made after a specific code has been published. Those BPFs are therefore different than those published in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 2016-2022. This new approach is discussed in more detail in the PNNL Technical Support Document titled, "Commercial Building Prototypes Based on ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2019 Appendix G PRM".

The energy models for the 2015, 2018 and 2021 versions of the IECC are listed in Table 4 and can be downloaded either by specific IECC edition or as complete sets by climate zone. The complete sets contain prototypes with earlier versions of the IECC. The idf files may be opened and modified in EnergyPlus.

The single family prototypes are now complete EnergyPlus files utilizing the airflow network for duct leakage modeling. Previous single family prototype models posted on the Energy Codes website did not contain duct leakage specifications. Calculating loads for duct leakage required multiple EnergyPlus simulations with and without duct leakage and post processing the results for both single family and multifamily buildings. As a result, there may be large differences in energy consumption when comparing the latest single family prototypes results to older prototype results downloaded from this website. The multifamily prototype models do not contain duct leakage specifications, and the duct leakage adjustment are applied during the post-processing. We are working on updating the MF models to incorporate the airflow network with duct leakage loops.

The energy models for the HUD, tier 1, and tier 2 of the final rule are listed in Table 6. Each compressed (.zip) file includes EnergyPlus model input files (.idf) and corresponding output files (.htm) for each of the nineteen climate locations list in Table 7 (as specified in Table 7.1 of the Manufactured Housing Technical Support Document).

For example, MS_Baltimore_4A_HUD_heatpump.idf is the model idf file for multi-section HUD baseline code with heat pump heating system type at climate zone 4A represented by the weather file at Baltimore. Similarly, SS_Atlanta_3A_tier1_gasfurnace.idf is the model idf file for single-section tier 1 of the final rule with gas furnace system type at climate zone 3A represented by the weather file at Atlanta.

The energy models for the HUD and the final rule are listed in Table 6 and can be downloaded either by specific code edition (i.e., HUD or Final Rule) or as complete sets by either each of the climate zone (all rows beside the last row of Table 6) or all the climate zones (last row of Table 6). The idf files may be opened and modified in EnergyPlus.

The energy models posted do not contain separate models for assessing the impact of the duct leakage specifications. Calculating loads for duct leakage required multiple EnergyPlus simulations with and without duct leakage and post processing the results for the single-section and double-section buildings.

Copyright: 2013 Pollock et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

There is great need for high-quality, low-cost, point-of-care (POC) diagnostics that can increase access to testing and improve patient care in resource-limited settings. An important example of inadequate access to testing in resource-limited settings is monitoring for drug-induced liver injury (DILI) in patients on potentially hepatotoxic medications. In resource-rich settings, serial monitoring for DILI via measurements of serum transaminases (aspartate aminotransferase [AST] and alanine aminotransferase [ALT]) in at-risk patients (particularly those with underlying liver disease) is a standard part of medical care. However, this monitoring is often limited or unavailable in resource-limited settings. Monitoring for DILI is particularly relevant for patients on tuberculosis (TB) and/or HIV therapy [1], [2], and thus lack of access to this testing is particularly problematic in the resource-limited areas most affected by these diseases. Transaminase monitoring typically involves collecting whole blood by venipuncture, centrifuging to separate serum or plasma, and testing that serum/plasma on a large automated platform. Such systems require highly trained technicians for maintenance and are quite expensive, impacting test availability in resource-limited settings. If performed, testing is often done in centralized or regional laboratories, lengthening result turn-around times. Because of these obstacles, in many resource-limited settings patients on potentially hepatotoxic medications receive minimal or no monitoring during treatment.

We here present the results of the first fingerstick evaluation of an ALT-only version of the paper-based transaminase test in 600 patients undergoing HIV treatment in a single clinic in Vietnam. The goals of this study were to assess operational feasibility, inter-operator variability, lot-to-lot variability, device failure rate, and device accuracy, with the intention to utilize results to modify the device for further field testing as needed. Our results, obtained in a target clinical population and environment, as performed by local health care workers, indicate that the device operation and reading process is both feasible and reproducible, thus answering a major question about the potential usability of this type of device. Bin placement accuracy data and lot-to-lot variability analysis identified specific targets for device optimization and material quality control.

Devices were fabricated as previously reported [3] and pouched individually in foil-lined bags with one (1 gm) packet of silica (Electron Microscopy Sciences, Hatfield, PA) per bag. Two device lots (LFT042412 and LFT061312) were produced and used for this study. These devices had a shelf-life of five months if stored at 35C, as estimated from accelerated stability data.

Each of the two device lots was shipped (via FedEx) from Boston to Ho Chi Minh City and stored at ambient temperatures, to approximate the probable conditions of distribution of a commercially available device. Temperatures during shipment were recorded for Lot 2 using a temperature monitor (TinyTag Talk 2 Temp Logger TK-4014), and the resulting profile used as a proxy for the Lot 1 shipment (which did not include a data logger). Ambient temperatures during study enrollment were monitored using a temperature and humidity data logger (Extech) set to record at 15-minute intervals. Historical temperature data (daily minimum, maximum, and mean) from Weather Underground (wunderground.com) was used as a proxy for ambient temperatures in the clinic during periods when no data logger data was available (between pilot and study start, and over two weekends at the start of enrollment). A comparison of five daily measurements (minimum, maximum, mean) from the clinic data logger and Weather Underground confirmed agreement of the two sources of temperature data.

All tests were performed as per a product insert provided by the manufacturer (DFA, Cambridge, MA, USA). After wiping fingers with alcohol swabs, fingersticks were performed with safety lancets (SurgiLance SLN 300, MediPurpose, Duluth, GA, USA) and blood collected with commercially available 35-L capillary tubes (Microsafe, SafeTec LLC, Ivyland, PA, USA). Devices were incubated for 12 to 14 minutes as per the product insert (time dependent on ambient temperature) in open petri dishes in a separate incubation area for safety. These petri dishes were cleaned daily with a bleach solution and replaced weekly. Following the allocated incubation period, each device was read in quick succession by two nurses, defined by role as N1 (who conducted the fingerstick and sample transfer to the device) and N2 (who set the timer for the incubation period and moved the petri dish to the device incubation area.) (Note: the N1 role was filled by one of the three trained study nurses for the entire study; the other two study nurses took turns filling the N2 role). N2 typically (but not always) read the device first, followed by N1, who had the more time-consuming task of performing the fingersticks and managing patient flow. The nurses were specifically instructed not to communicate during the reading procedure and adhered to this procedure, preserving the independence of the two readings. Each device was scanned immediately after visual reading (Canon Inkjet Photo All-in-One PIXMA MP287, Canon Inc., Tokyo, Japan). Neither the patients nor their doctors were informed of the results of their fingerstick testing.

3a8082e126