Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “DIFFERENTIAL THERMAL ANALYZER”

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.

164 records · Page 10
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

CCN data from TAMU TRACER campaign in the Houston TX region from July to September 2022

During TRACER, the Texas A&M Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurements Van (ROAM-V) was deployed to capture airmasses behind (maritime) and ahead (continental) of the passage of the sea-breeze front through Houston. On select sampling days, ROAM-V sampled in the morning/mid-day on the coast and then transited to a second inland site for the afternoon/evening. The suite of instruments deployed on ROAM-V included a Condensation Particle Counter (CPC; GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC), Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS; TSI 3750 detector, TSI 3082 classifier, TSI 3088 neutralizer, TSI 3081A Differential Mobility Analyzer), Cloud Condensation Nuclei counter (Droplet Measurement Technologies CCN Counter), micro pulse lidar (Droplet Measurement Technologies Micro Pulse LiDAR (miniMPL)), and a Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitor (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM). Before sampling at each location, the latitude and longitude were recorded using the GPS on the phone application “My Altitude”. Onboard the ROAM-V, aerosol samples are drawn through a shared isokinetic inlet at a flow rate ranging from 3.5 to 7.0 LPM. A portion of this flow is directed through a cyclone impactor (Brechtel, Inc. Model SCC 0.732) and 0.5 LPM is directed to the CCN. To calculate particle losses, we used a two-step method. First, the measured SMPS size distributions were used to calculate particle loss through the inlet during sampling. Second, the corrected SMPS data was used to calculate the average of the total losses per scan down the CCN line. Then, the correction was applied to the CCN data. This calculation was done separately for each deployment location due to changes in the measured size distributions between locations. Particle loss from diffusion (based on Kesten, 1991 and Gormley, 1949), inertial impaction in 90-degree bends (based on Aerosol Measurement, 2011 and Crane, 1977), and cyclone impactor efficiency (based on Dirgo, 1985) were included in the loss calculation. When the SMPS was not sampling at a location (in the case of an instrument malfunction or operator error), the reported CPC data was corrected with an average of the total losses for the entire campaign at the specified deployment location (e.g., if we needed to correct Galveston data, then the average of all calculated losses at Galveston was taken). These flatline corrections were used for all data on 22/07/13, 22/07/20, 22/07/22, and the data from Galveston on 22/08/09. The supersaturation uncertainty is estimated conservatively at +/- 0.03%, where variation in the inlet temperature, pressure, and calibration technique prevents a more accurate measurement. Confidence in the reported supersaturation measurements is based on a pre-campaign calibration (following the methods from our previous work and Deng, 2014 based on Rose, 2008) in addition to inter-comparisons with the DOE for two days (22/08/18 and 22/09/01) where TAMU was co-located with AMF1. The inter-comparisons show good agreement between our instrument and the DOEs instrument on both days at all supersaturations. After the last inter-comparison on 22/09/01, there was no indication of a malfunction by our instrument through the rest of the campaign. Unfortunately, the instrument was dropped during demobilization. A post-campaign calibration was conducted, which showed a substantial departure from the pre-campaign calibration. The drop may have damaged the instrument’s ability to produce the desired supersaturations. Therefore, we do consider the data after 22/09/01 to be correct, but it should be used with caution. The CCN counter sampled for 3 minutes at each supersaturation setpoint (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, and 1.2%). At the end of a cycle, the instrument was set to 0.01% supersaturation for 5 minutes. The data is comprised of the last 60 seconds of each supersaturation set point (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, and 1.2%) to ensure the instrument stabilized and was able to reach thermal equilibrium. We removed the data during the periods where there were operational difficulties, setup, or maintenance. This data was collected for ARM Field Campaign AFC07055 and supported by DOE ASR grant DE-SC0021047. For any further questions, please feel free to contact the instrument PI, Sarah D. Brooks, sbrooks@tamu.edu. Rose et. al. Calibration and Measurement Uncertainties of a Continuous-Flow Cloud Condensation Nuclei Counter (DMT-CCNC): CCN Activation of Ammonium Sulfate and Sodium Chloride Aerosol Particles in Theory and Experiment. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 1153-1179, 2008. Deng et. al. Using Raman Microspectroscopy to Determine Chemical Composition and Mixing State of Airborne Marine Aerosols over the Pacific Ocean. Aerosol Science and Technology, Vol 48, Issue 2, 2014. Kesten et. al. Calibration of a TSI Model 3025 Ultrafine Condensation Particle Counter. Aerosol Science and Technology, 15:2, 107-111, 1991. Gormley et. al. Diffusion from a Stream Flowing through a Cylindrical Tube. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol 52, 163-169, 1948. Aerosol Measurement: Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2011. Crane et. al. Inertial Deposition of Particles in a Bent Pipe. Journal of Aerosol Science, Vol 8, 161-170, 1977. Dirgo et. al. Cyclone Collection Efficiency: Comparison of Experimental Results with Theoretical Predictions. Aerosol Science and Technology, 4:4, 401-415, 1985.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

COMPUTATIONAL MODELING OF IGNITION AND PREMIXED FLAME PROPAGATION INITIATED BY A PRE-CHAMBER TURBULENT JET

Addressing the pressing need for reduced carbon emissions, Turbulent Jet Ignition (TJI) emerges as a promising technology for ultra-lean combustion, offering enhanced thermal efficiencies and minimized cyclic variability in spark-ignited engines. To facilitate rapid testing and integration of this technology, a robust computational modeling framework is crucial. This study delves into the predictive capabilities of computational models for main-chamber ignition and premixed flame propagation using a single-cycle TJI rig measured by Biswas et al. (Applied Thermal Engineering, vol 106, 2016). Employing an open-source compressible flow simulation solver with Large Eddy Simulation (LES) for turbulence modeling, the investigation integrates the conventional Laminar Finite Rate Chemistry (LFRC) model alongside the transported Probability Density Method (PDF) for turbulence-chemistry interaction. A fully-consistent Eulerian Monte-Carlo Fields (EMCF) method is utilized to approximate the transported PDF, while Interaction by Exchange with Mean is employed to close micro-mixing terms in stochastic differential equations. A reduced chemical reaction mechanism with 21 species and 84 reactions (DRM-19) is used for solving chemical kinetics, and a double Gaussian energy deposition model is used to approximate the spark ignition in the pre-chamber. An unstructured O-grid mesh with 0.3 million cells in the prechamber and 1 million cells in the main chamber is employed. Results are divided into two phases: pre-chamber initialization and full TJI simulations. Validation of the predicted pre-chamber flame propagation and the lean ignition in the main-chamber is carried out by using available experimental data. Under quiescent conditions, both the LFRC and transported PDF methods largely underestimate the flame speed and subsequent pressure growth in the pre-chamber. A linear momentum forcing technique is applied to investigate the impact of initial turbulence in the pre-chamber, demonstrating a notable influence on flame propagation. Fine-tuning of the forcing coefficient reproduces the sudden pressure growth observed in the experiment. The experimentally validated pre-chamber simulation serves as the initial condition for the full TJI simulations. It is found that the LFRC model fails to predict lean-ignition in the main-chamber, resulting in a misfiring event. Incorporation of turbulence-chemistry interaction using the transported PDF method substantially improves the prediction of the ignition event in the main-chamber, achieving fair qualitative agreement and quantitative validation of combustion parameters within ±10% of the reported experimental data. The rich simulation results consisting of a full set of statistical description of the thermo-chemical states enable us to gain deep insights into the ignition mechanisms in the main chamber, which is limited when done experimentally. A novel dual ignition phenomenon is revealed in the TJI rig for the first time. Initially, a primary ignition kernel is formed at a downstream location which eventually detaches from the main jet. As the jet momentum decreases, a secondary ignition event follows, this time at a more upstream location which eventually combines with the primary ignition kernel to form a single connected flame front. Investigation of these ignition sequences in chemical composition space reveal distinct differences between the two. The primary ignition event in the main-chamber is followed by a large concentration of active radicals from the pre-chamber jet, accelerating the chain-branching steps, characterizing what has been referred to as flame ignition. In contrast, the secondary ignition occurs in the absence of active radicals in the pre-chamber jet, hence characterized as jet ignition. Further analysis of the effect of pre-chamber jet characteristics on lean ignition in the main-chamber is conducted by setting up cases with different initial pressure ratios (por) between the two chambers, a non-dimensional parameter, ranging from 1.2 to 3.2. As the initial pressure ratio increases, jet momentum increases, with dual ignition observed in cases above por= 2.2. Case with por= 3.2 lead to misfiring. The effect of ignition sequence on global combustion characteristics of TJI is analyzed. Dual ignition events lead to non-monotonicity in combustion characteristics such as global reaction progress variable, flame penetration, and global heat release rate. In dual ignition events, although the rate of fuel consumption and global heat release rate is initially lower, the secondary ignition leads to a sudden increase in flame surface area, resulting in a sudden jump and promoting the overall performance of the TJI system.

42 ENGINEERING↗