SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “power grid operation”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

290 records · Page 17

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Analysis of Stirling Power Convertors

Modeling and Analysis of Stirling Power Convertors Luis A. Rodriguez1 Steven M. Geng, Terry V. Reid, Scott D. Wilson NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH, 44135, USA NASA Glenn’s Thermal Energy Conversion Branch is supporting the development of the next generation free-piston Stirling power convertors. American Superconductor (AMSC) and Sunpower Inc. are the two firms under contract to develop the Flexure Isotope Stirling Convertor (FISC) and the Sunpower Robust Stirling Convertor (SRSC), respectively. To comprehend and forecast convertor performance, Sage, ANSYS® Maxwell, and ANSYS® Fluent were used to model the Stirling thermodynamic cycle, alternator electromagnetics, and piston and displacer dynamics. I. Introduction Stirling convertors are being developed by NASA as a potential steady source of electrical power for NASA’s future scientific space missions. Currently, NASA Glenn Research Center has two corporations under contract, American Superconductor (AMSC) and Sunpower Inc., for the development of the next generation of free-piston Stirling convertors for dynamic radioisotope power systems. AMSC is developing the Flexure Isotope Stirling Convertor (FISC), which uses flexures to prevent side motion and rubbing of the piston. Similarly, Sunpower Inc, is developing the Sunpower Robust Stirling Convertor (SRSC). The SRSC uses gas bearings to prevent radial contact of the moving piston. As convertor development continues, it is increasingly important to understand and predict the interactions of components in the system, how they respond to one another, and how they perform as a response to changes in operating conditions. A suitable and enlightening way to demonstrate and foresee these interactions is with the use of accurate modeling software. Sage, ANSYS® Maxwell, and ANSYS® Fluent are the current modeling tools used by NASA to analytically determine convertor performance. Sage is a one-dimensional object-oriented commercial software package used for modeling and optimizing Stirling convertors for Dynamic Radioisotope Power Systems (DRPS) and it is one of the most accurate Stirling convertor codes in use by NASA. This code is the successor to GLIMPS (Globally-Implicit Stirling Cycle Simulation) and GLOP (GLIMPS Optimization) software created by Gedeon Associates [1]. Model input parameters are typically material/gas type, component physical dimensions, temperatures, frequency, charge pressure, and number of time/space nodes. Sage is used to model both the FISC’s and SRSC’s Stirling cycle thermodynamics and piston/displacer dynamics. Performance maps were created and analyzed for both power systems to better understand the relationship between the following conditions: cold-end temperature, hot-end temperature, piston/displacer amplitudes, pressure drop, and thermal input power. The synergy between these conditions will help determine parameter sensitivity. ANSYS® Maxwell was used to create a three-dimensional (3-D) axisymmetric model for both FISC and SRSC alternators. The significant physical components included in each model are the magnets, magnet carrier, outer/inner laminations, and the coil. Inputs to the model are piston amplitude, piston frequency, alternator load, coil resistance, tuning capacitance, and specific material properties. The alternator models calculate terminal voltage, current, piston/current phase, voltage/current phase, coil inductance, terminal power and efficiency. The RI2 losses, core (hysteresis and eddy) losses, and magnet/can eddy losses are also a part of the final results. ANSYS® Fluent is used to build 3-D computational fluid dynamic (CFD) models to examine the Stirling cycle thermodynamics for both the FISC and SRSC systems. Three-dimensional Computer Aided Design (CAD) models were used to create the physical components of each convertor. Steady-state simulations were conducted for hardware testing, prediction of environmental losses during testing, and generation of radiation look-up tables. The model inputs to the aforementioned analysis are the material properties and boundary thermal conditions. The steady-state model calculates temperature and heat flow distributions. Transient 3-D calculations were also part of the CFD analysis. In this study a physically reduced version of the FISC is used to obtain a prediction of available engine power. For the gas bearing SRSC, the transient effort is used to obtain a prediction of bearing pad performance and its sensitivity to micro-channel geometric variation. The model inputs to the transient simulations are the piston amplitude, displacer amplitude, frequency, displacer/piston phase angle, dynamic deforming CFD grid, temperature boundary conditions, and user defined files describing motion profile of piston/displacer. The results of the model are temperature distributions, heat distributions, and PV power produced at pre-determined conditions.

Luis A Rodriguez↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

CFD 2030 Grand Challenge: CFD-in-the-Loop Monte Carlo Flight Simulation for Space Vehicle Design

Flight qualification of space vehicles is markedly different from those typically employed for aircraft. The concept of an extensive flight test campaign for a space vehicle does not exist, and vehicle designers must look to alternative techniques for demonstrating robust and reliable performance of their vehicles prior to operational flight. A space vehicle may undergo only a handful of flight tests in its development cycle, with each flight representing a drastically different flight phase or flight configuration. For instance, NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) launch vehicle and Orion spacecraft will only see a total of four flight demonstrations before flying a crew on its first operational mission, and each flight demonstrates a unique vehicle configuration and/or set of flight conditions. The SLS will be flown only one time before it becomes operational (Artemis 1). The Orion spacecraft Crew Module (CM) will have been tested twice, once on a Delta IV launch vehicle (Exploration Flight Test 1) and once as a fully integrated system with the SLS launch vehicle (Artemis 1). The Orion Launch abort system will have been tested twice, once in a pad abort scenario (Pad Abort 1) and once in an inflight abort scenario (Ascent Abort 2) on a modified Peacekeeper booster. Both of these latter tests involve only a boiler plate CM, not a functional Orion spacecraft. Thus, unlike aircraft, there is very little opportunity for engineers to assess and evaluate their preflight predictions. Instead, space vehicle designers rely on Monte Carlo flight simulations with detailed dispersions of predicted nominal flight behavior to determine how robust their design is to errors and uncertainties in the flight conditions their vehicle may encounter. These Monte Carlo analyses entail thousands of trajectory simulations to demonstrate that the vehicle can meet design requirements at a specified level of reliability. From an aerodynamics and aerothermodynamics perspective, these trajectory simulations are fueled by an extensive aerodynamic database that covers the complete range of expected flight conditions, vehicle configurations, and flight attitudes expected in a given mission. Today, these databases amount to a table of engineering parameters that can be quickly interrogated by the trajectory simulator. The aerodynamic and aerothermodynamic databases are assembled via a series of ground tests, empirical and analytical analysis, physics-based computational analysis, applicable past flight performance data, and in some cases, engineering judgment. These databases generally take years to assemble for a new space vehicle system and in the case of SLS/Orion, over a decade of test and analysis have been expended to develop the extensive databases required to cover the myriad of configurations and potential flight conditions required for the system. Recently, it has been proposed that Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) and computing capability may be reaching a point where it is foreseeable that CFD could be integrated directly into the production trajectory simulation tools used to design NASA’s space vehicles. To demonstrate this, NASA has embarked on two demonstrations of this type of capability, one where six degree of freedom flight trajectory simulation equations are embedded in an existing CFD solver and another where a production CFD solver is loosely coupled with a production trajectory simulation tool. These efforts represent an initial demonstration of a future approach to flight trajectory simulation, but they are a far cry from the capability required to perform a full-up CFD-in-the-loop Monte Carlo trajectory simulation. Therefore, this represents a viable grand challenge for computational methods addressing space vehicle design and development. The final paper/presentation will discuss the many hurdles, beyond simply raw computational power, to realizing this grand challenge and how they map directly to the CFD Vision 2030 ojectives. Among these are the wide range of flight conditions, including accelerating/decelerating flight, encountered by a space vehicle during launch and/or entry. The vehicle can also encounter numerous configuration changes, some of which can be quite drastic, during the course of its flight, so robust, automated geometry modeling, grid generation, and adaptation will play a huge role in reaching this goal. Multiply this by 1000’s of trajectory simulations occurring simultaneously in a given Monte Carlo analysis, and the problem readily scales to absorb virtually any size of supercomputer envisioned today. The concept of CFD-in-the-loop Monte Carlo trajectory simulation poses a formidable challenge for emerging and future computing systems, and it has the potential to shave years off the development cycle for aerodynamic and aerothermodynamic performance predictions as compared to today’s space vehicle design approach.

CFD 2030↗