Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “energy performance modeling tool”

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.

165 records · Page 10
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

3D Material Response of the MSL Heatshield Using NuSil-Coated PICA

The Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) was protected during its atmospheric entry by an instrumented heatshield that used NASA's Phenolic Impregnated Carbon Ablator (PICA) material [1]. PICA is a lightweight carbon fiber/polymeric resin material that offers outstanding performance for protecting probes during planetary entry. Data from the Mars Entry Descent and Landing Instrument (MEDLI) suite on MSL offers unique in-flight validation data for models of material response and atmospheric entry. MEDLI recorded, among other things, time-resolved in-depth temperature data of PICA using thermocouple sensors assembled in the MEDLI Integrated Sensor Plugs (MISP) [2]. A space-grade silicone-based coating commercially known as NuSil CV-1144-0 [3] was applied to the entire MSL heatshield, including the MEDLI plugs, to mitigate the spread of dust from PICA. Modeling the thermal response of PICA-NuSil (PICA-N) system is still an open challenge. Ground testing of PICA-N models exhibited surface temperature jumps of the order of 150 K due to oxide scale formation and sub-sequent NuSil burn-off. It is therefore critical to include a validated model for the material response of the coating in engineering codes. A test campaign has been conducted at the NASA’s Langley HyMETS [4] facility to screen the response of PICA-N and gather detailed data on its behavior [5]. A first model of PICA-N thermal response has been developed using the Hy-METS experiments [6]. The objective of this work is to analyze the material response of the latest PICA-N model compared to the engineering model used to simulate the entry of MSL. The environment and material response around the MSL aeroshell during Mars atmospheric entry is simulated using a collection of tools. The Direct Simulation Monte Carlo SPARTA code [7] is used in the rarefied regime, the Data Parallel Line Relaxation (DPLR) code [8] is used in the continuum regime and radiative heating conditions are provided by the Nonequilibrium air radiation (NEQAIR) code [9] to estimate the environmental conditions. The thermal response inside the material is computed using the Porous material Analysis Toolbox based on Open-FOAM (PATO) [10,11,12]. Thermodynamic and chemistry properties are estimated using the Mutation++ library [13]. The approach implemented in PATO as a first cut PICA-N thermal response model is outlined in Figure 1. While the recession is less than the coating thickness, the Surface mass and energy balance Boundary Condition (SBC) uses the NuSil B’ tables. Once the recession removes the coating, the usual PICA B’ tables are used for the SBC. The B’ tables are computed using an equilibrium solver implemented in Mutation++, given the temperature, pressure, blowing rate, composition of the pyrolysis and environment gases, and the condensed species at the surface. Preliminary results of the 3D material response of the MSL heat-shield at the peak heating (80 sec after Entry Interface) are shown in Figure 2. Current NASA’s mission to Mars, Mars 2020, used the spare heatshield of MSL for thermal protection during entry, descent, and landing. In preparation for Mars 2020 post-flight analysis, the PATO high-fidelity material response capability was benchmarked against flight data from MEDLI. This effort represents an important milestone toward the development of validated predictive capabilities for designing thermal protection systems for planetary probes. This bench-marking is awaiting the final release of the MEDLI-2 data.

Aerospace↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Trajectory Engineering with Modular Patched Conics for Entry Systems and TPS (TEMPEST)

Brief Presenter Biography (35 word limit): Bohdan Wesely is an Aerospace Engineer in the Entry Systems and Technology Division at Ames. He has worked on a variety of projects for NASA including integrated TPS (thermal protection system) flight hardware deliveries and testing services for commercial partners. Introduction: TEMPEST is a new trajectory analysis framework that is designed to fill the gap between dedicated flight mechanics tools and aerothermal and TPS sizing tools. The project started as an SJSU master’s thesis and has since evolved into a general conceptual design tool capable of studying a wide variety of entry problems. Development is ongoing in the Entry Systems and Technology Division at NASA ARC. Why TEMPEST: Space missions involving entry into a planetary atmosphere involve a series of unique requirements across multiple disciplines. Whether it is traditional entry descent and landing (EDL), or aerocapture, the vehicle must navigate to its target landing location or orbit state, and the TPS must protect the payload during entry. The design process typically involves iterative handoffs between various flight mechanics, flow solver, and material response level tools. During the early conceptual phase, a wide variety of feasible trajectories are simulated in a Monte Carlo scenario which broadly satisfy the mission or landing requirements. Next, computational fluid dynamics (CFD), direct simulation Monte Carlo (DSMC), and other flow solver analyses are performed at various key trajectory points to generate an aero-database, heating and TPS design requirements also emerge at this stage. At this point, with updated aerodynamics from the various flow solvers, trajectories can be re-run, this in turn can change the required freestream conditions for the CFD tools, and as a project progresses, these analyses converge, and uncertainty is reduced. However, there is always a “hand-off” occurring between two inherently coupled phenomena. Analysis Description: One of the goals with TEMPEST is to use a variety of first principles estimation methods coupled with an atmosphere model to predict vehicle aerothermodynamics across the entire flight regime while propagating a 3 or 6 degree of freedom (DoF) trajectory. Aerodynamics methods include modified Newtonian, Maxwell and Cercignani- Lampis-Lord (CLL) for continuum, transitional, and free molecular flow regimes. Aerothermodynamics include boundary layer and reference enthalpy methods, and Mutation++ for non-equilibrium chemistry modeling. TEMPEST is also capable of stitching multiple trajectory segments together to study mission scenarios like multi-pass aerocapture and aero-gravity assists. Most of the program is implemented in MATLAB using modern system objects, it relies on several C++ shared libraries for supporting tools like Gmsh, the Global Reference Atmospheric Model (GRAM), and Mutation++. The various first principles aerothermal estimation methods are discretized across either a structured axisymmetric panel mesh or an unstructured tri-mesh generated from an open-source tool such as Gmsh, this allows solutions on the same mesh to be compared across tools such as CB-Aero. CFD Coupling. A physics-aware, gaussian process CFD anchoring scheme is proposed to adjust the various first principles methods as a CFD database is populated. One goal for this anchoring module is to inform the project where CFD should be run. Full knowledge of the entire trajectory, atmosphere, and aerothermodynamics allows for easier identification of high sensitivity areas and uncertainty quantification. While the first principles effects are well known and proven accurate in existing tools such as CB- Aero and Cart3D, a physics aware CFD anchoring scheme increases tool credibility across a project lifecycle. Material Response Modeling. Correct TPS sizing is critical for optimizing mass for science payloads and ensuring mission success. The process typically involves a thermal analysis along the trajectory with surface heating environments as a boundary condition. Several design constraints are maximum bondline temperature and maximum recession with various margining techniques. The material response tool FIAT, developed out of NASA Ames, is currently being integrated into the TEMPEST environment. TPS recession, shape change, mass loss, and mass property alteration are all factors that can perturb an entry trajectory. For missions like Mars 2020, recession was minimal and was safely handled separately as a post process. For missions such as Jupiter Galileo with a high TPS mass fraction or asteroid entries, recession plays a major role. The proposed fully coupled scheme is to use an epoch-based approach where the trajectory integration is halted after a recession threshold, the energy balance and FIAT are solved at each panel, the mesh, aerodynamics, and mass properties are updated, and the trajectory continues. Several computational tradeoffs have been made during the development of TEMPEST to limit the cost of a single trajectory and preserve its utility as a conceptual, rapid iteration tool. Conclusion: Development of TEMPEST is ongoing and the project is still in its infancy. This talk aims to showcase its unique capabilities to support future NASA entry systems missions.

Bohdan O Wesely↗
NASA NTRS2016

Forward Skirt Structural Testing on the Space Launch System (SLS) Program

Structural testing was performed to evaluate heritage forward skirts from the Space Shuttle program for use on the Space Launch System (SLS) program. One forward skirt is located in each solid rocket booster. Heritage forward skirts are aluminum 2219 welded structures. Loads are applied at the forward skirt thrust post and ball assembly. Testing was needed because SLS ascent loads are roughly 40% higher than Space Shuttle loads. Testing objectives were to determine margins of safety, demonstrate reliability, and validate analytical models. Two forward skirts were structurally tested using the test configuration. The test stand applied loads to the thrust post. Four hydraulic actuators were used to apply axial load and two hydraulic actuators were used to apply radial and tangential loads. The first test was referred to as FSTA-1 (Forward Skirt Structural Test Article) and was performed in April/May 2014. The purpose of FSTA-1 was to verify the ultimate capability of the forward skirt subjected to ascent ultimate loads. Testing consisted of two liftoff load cases taken to 100% limit load followed by an ascent load case taken to 110% limit load. The forward skirt was unloaded to no load after each test case. Lastly, the forward skirt was tested to 140% limit and then to failure using the ascent loads. The second test was referred to as FSTA-2 and performed in July/August of 2014. The purpose of FSTA-2 was to verify the ultimate capability of the forward skirt subjected to liftoff ultimate loads. Testing consisted of six liftoff load cases taken to 100% limit load followed by the six liftoff cases taken to 140% limit load. Two ascent load cases were then tested to 100% limit load. The forward skirt was unloaded to no load after each test case. Lastly, the forward skirt was tested to 140% limit and then to failure using the ascent loads. The forward skirts on FSTA-1 and FSTA-2 successfully carried all applied liftoff and ascent load cases. Both FSTA-1 and FSTA-2 were tested to failure by increasing the ascent loads. Failure occurred in the forward skirt thrust post radius. The forward skirts on FSTA-1 and FSTA-2 had nearly identical failure modes. FSTA-1 failed at 1.72 times limit load and FSTA-2 failed at 1.62 times limit load. This difference is primarily attributed to variation in material properties in the thrust post region. Test data were obtained from strain gages, deflection gages, ARAMIS digital strain measurement, acoustic emissions, and high-speed video. Strain gage data and ARAMIS strain were compared to finite element (FE) analysis predictions. Both the forward skirt and tooling were modeled. This allows the analysis to simulate the loading as close as possible to actual test configuration. FSTA-1 and FSTA-2 were instrumented with over 200 strain gages to ensure all possible failure modes could be captured. However, it turned out that three gages provided critical strain data. One was located in the post bore and two on the post radius. More gages were not specified due to space limitations and the desire to not interfere with the use of the ARAMIS system on the post radius. Measured strains were compared to analysis results for the load cycle to failure. Note that FSTA-1 gages were lost before failure was reached. FSTA-2 gages made it to the failure load but one of the radius gages was lost before testing began. This gage was not replaced because of the time and cost associated with disassembly of the test structure. Correlation to analysis was excellent for FSTA-1. FSTA-2 was not quite as good because there was more residual strain from previous load cycles. FSTA-2 was loaded and unloaded with 12 liftoff cases and two ascent cases before taking the skirt to failure. FSTA-1 only had two liftoff cases and one ascent case before taking the skirt to failure. The ARAMIS system was used to determine strain at the post radius by processing digital images of a speckled paint pattern. Digital cameras recorded images of the speckled paint pattern. ARAMIS strain results for FSTA-2 just prior to failure. Note a high strain location develops near the left side. This high strain compares well to analysis prediction for both FSTA-1 and FSTA-2. The strain at this location was also plotted versus limit load. Both FSTA-1 and FSTA-2 had excellent correlation between ARAMIS and analysis strains. Acoustic emission (AE) sensors were used to monitor for damage formation that may occur during testing (e.g., crack formation and growth or propagation). AE was very important because after disassembly of FSTA-1, a crack was observed in the ball fitting radius. The ball fitting did not crack on FSTA-2. AE data was used to reconstruct when the crack occurred. The AE energy versus time plot for FSTA. The energy increased considerably at 850 seconds (152% limit load), indicating a crack could have formed at this point. The only visual evidence found that could have corresponded to this was the crack that initiated in the ball fitting. The cracks in the forward skirt aluminum structures would likely have been lower energy due to a lower modulus and all that were found after failure correlated to occurring after the initial crack in the post radius. This was verified by high-speed cameras used to record the failure.

Lohrer, J. D.↗