Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “controller”

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 415 records · Page 23
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2016

Design and Stability of an On-Orbit Attitude Control System Using Reaction Control Thrusters

NASA is providing preliminary design and requirements for the Space Launch System Exploration Upper Stage (EUS). The EUS will provide upper stage capability for vehicle ascent as well as on-orbit control capability. Requirements include performance of on-orbit burn to provide Orion vehicle with escape velocity. On-orbit attitude control is accommodated by a on-off Reaction Control System (RCS). Paper provides overview of approaches for design and stability of an attitude control system using a RCS.

Hall, Robert A.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Control Systems with Normalized and Covariance Adaptation by Optimal Control Modification

Disclosed is a novel adaptive control method and system called optimal control modification with normalization and covariance adjustment. The invention addresses specifically to current challenges with adaptive control in these areas: 1) persistent excitation, 2) complex nonlinear input-output mapping, 3) large inputs and persistent learning, and 4) the lack of stability analysis tools for certification. The invention has been subject to many simulations and flight testing. The results substantiate the effectiveness of the invention and demonstrate the technical feasibility for use in modern aircraft flight control systems.

Nguyen, Nhan T.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Control and Simulation of a Deployable Entry Vehicle with Aerodynamic Control Surfaces

In this paper, we investigate the static stability of a deployable entry vehicle called the Lifting Nano-ADEPT and design a control system to follow bank angle, angle-of-attack, and sideslip guidance commands. The control design, based on linear quadratic regulator optimal techniques, utilizes aerodynamic control surfaces to track angle-of-attack, sideslip angle, and bank angle commands. We demonstrate, using a nonlinear simulation environment, that the controller is able to accurately track step commands that may come from a guidance algorithm.

Margolis, Benjamin W. L.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Control Effector Unsaturation Modification to the Cascading Generalized Inverse Control Allocation Algorithm

Control allocation has sufficiently progressed such that it is used in front-line fighter aircraft such as the F-18Superhornet and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Published literature shows the F-35 utilizes Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion in conjunction with an Effector Blender that incorporates the Cascading Generalized Inverse control allocation algorithm. While the Cascading Generalized Inverse algorithm is one of the premier generalized inverse methods, it does suffer from three deficiencies. In particular, it suffers from an inability to achieve some desired outcomes, it intermittently provides non-optimal solutions and generally fails to preserve moment direction near maximal achievable moments. An effector unsaturation method based on a Scalar Difference Quadratic was first introduced and implemented on the iterative Prediction Method control allocation algorithm which was shown to consistently achieve optimal (weighted) control allocation solutions throughout the entire Attainable Moment Set while preserving desired moment direction. In this paper, the shortcomings of the Cascading Generalized Inverse algorithm are addressed by augmenting the baseline algorithm with Scalar Difference Quadratic unsaturation identification and location at each iteration. Numerical case studies demonstrate that the Modified Cascading Generalized Inverse algorithm resolves the aforementioned deficiencies.

Michael J Acheson↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

Cameron J. Hines↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boiloff Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗
DOE OSTI2026

Prime Time for Model-Predictive Control? Assessing the Technical and Market Readiness of Advanced Controls in Buildings

Despite three decades of extensive research and field testing that have consistently validated the benefits of Model Predictive Control (MPC) in building applications, the technology has seen limited market adoption. This paper evaluates the readiness of MPC for widespread deployment, showcases recent demonstrations and field tests across diverse building types, including residential, small commercial, large commercial, and campus settings. Our results demonstrate that MPC can optimize system operations to achieve load shifting, minimize curtailment of on-site generation, and reduce energy costs by up to 80 %, while maintaining or improving occupant comfort. We also show that MPC can effectively control large assets, such as MW-sized thermal storage systems, and respond to dynamic pricing signals. However, achieving scale remains difficult due to labor-intensive workflows, reliance on a “PhD-in-the-loop” for MPC design and maintenance, susceptibility to fragile data infrastructure, and persistent workforce education and acceptance barriers. To bridge this gap, we outline a transition from bespoke, labor intensive prototypes toward streamlined, segment-targeted deployment strategies that leverage model templates, semantic tools, and generative AI. By automating control configuration and reducing engineering effort, these recommendations provide a pathway for transforming successful research demonstrations into scalable, market ready solutions for MPC-based controls.

Pritoni, Marco↗
DOE OSTI2025

Standard Library Plant Controller Model Specification for a Grid-Forming Hybrid Control Inverter-Based Resource (REPCGFM_C1)

This document describes a standard library plant controller model to interface with the grid-forming hybrid control inverter-based resource (IBR) model. The initial version of model specification was jointly developed by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Tesla Energy, and EPRI, and it was revised multiple times later to incorporate suggestions from WECC MVS members. Tesla Energy provided main control algorithms to support the development of this model specification. This standard library model is developed to help the utility industry better understand the GFM technology. The model could be used to represent equipment for long-term planning studies where vendor-specific models are not available. As equipment matures and improves, standard library models will be updated to capture the new functionalities of GFMs. It is not intended that these models will always remain representative of all future GFM technologies.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
NASA NTRS1966

Preview control behavior and optimal control norms

Model based on optimal control theory for characterizing human operator in preview control task to provide reference frame for studying performance value and learning in manual control

HUMAN PERFORMANCE↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Advanced Modeling of Control-Structure Interaction in Thrust Vector Control Systems

The Space Launch System (SLS) Core Stage (CS) Thrust Vector Control (TVC) system is comprised of 8 mechanical feedback Shuttle heritage Type III TVC actuators and four RS-25 engines, each attached to a Shuttle heritage gimbal block/bearing. Two actuators are used to move each engine in two planes perpendicular to one another (i.e., pitch and yaw). The TVC system design leverages hardware from the Space Shuttle program as well as new hardware designed specifically for the Core Stage. During the development of the SLS TVC system, a family of advanced dynamics models were developed to extend and compliment the simplified quasi-linear “simplex” model historically used for flight control design and stability analysis. The importance of these advanced models became increasingly evident after ambient and hot fire testing of the Core Stage, which revealed a number of findings associated with the dynamic response of the TVC integrated system. Test responses suggested that the TVC did not meet its performance specifications and its step and frequency responses exhibited unexpected departures from prior lab tests and modeled behavior. One driving factor for these results was a higher-than-expected degree of coupling between the TVC system, the engine dynamics, and the Core Stage structure. This paper is the third installment in a seven-paper series surveying the design, engineering, test validation, and flight performance of the Core Stage Thrust Vector Control system. In this paper, a new method of modeling rocket vehicle thrust vectoring servoelastic dynamics is presented. In this approach, the load dynamics are replaced by a detailed finite element model containing both the rigid body and elastic modes. A partitioning technique is used to compute the effective compliance from the modal data and obtain accurate simulation results using a reduced number of generalized coordinates. Coupled backup structure and nozzle attach compliance effects on multiple engines are captured in higher fidelity than with a spring approximation, eliciting novel effects due to the complex load paths involved in the Core Stage structure. Validation of the model is demonstrated using a variety of structural/modal, laboratory, and full-scale hot fire test data.

Launch Vehicles↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Advanced Modeling of Control-Structure Interaction in Thrust Vector Control Systems

The Space Launch System (SLS) Core Stage (CS) Thrust Vector Control (TVC) system is comprised of 8 mechanical feedback Shuttle heritage Type III TVC actuators and four RS-25 engines, each attached to a Shuttle heritage gimbal block/bearing. Two actuators are used to move each engine in two planes perpendicular to one another (i.e., pitch and yaw). The TVC system design leverages hardware from the Space Shuttle program as well as new hardware designed specifically for the Core Stage. During the development of the SLS TVC system, a family of advanced dynamics models were developed to extend and compliment the simplified quasi-linear “simplex” model historically used for flight control design and stability analysis. The importance of these advanced models became increasingly evident after ambient and hot fire testing of the Core Stage, which revealed a number of findings associated with the dynamic response of the TVC integrated system. Test responses suggested that the TVC did not meet its performance specifications and its step and frequency responses exhibited unexpected departures from prior lab tests and modeled behavior. One driving factor for these results was a higher-than-expected degree of coupling between the TVC system, the engine dynamics, and the Core Stage structure. This paper is the third installment in a seven-paper series surveying the design, engineering, test validation, and flight performance of the Core Stage Thrust Vector Control system. In this paper, a new method of modeling rocket vehicle thrust vectoring servoelastic dynamics is presented. In this approach, the load dynamics are replaced by a detailed finite element model containing both the rigid body and elastic modes. A partitioning technique is used to compute the effective compliance from the modal data and obtain accurate simulation results using a reduced number of generalized coordinates. Coupled backup structure and nozzle attach compliance effects on multiple engines are captured in higher fidelity than with a spring approximation, eliciting novel effects due to the complex load paths involved in the Core Stage structure. Validation of the model is demonstrated using a variety of structural/modal, laboratory, and full-scale hot fire test data.

Launch Vehicles↗
NASA NTRS2016

Active Control of pH in the Bioculture System Through Carbon Dioxide Control

For successful cell research, the growth culture environment must be tightly controlled. Deviance from the optimal conditions will mask the desired variable being analyzed or lead to inconstancies in the results. In standard laboratories, technology and procedures are readily available for the reliable control of variables such as temperature, pH, nutrient loading, and dissolved gases. Due to the nature of spaceflight, and the inherent constraints to engineering designs, these same elements become a challenge to maintain at stable values by both automated and manual approaches. Launch mass, volume, and power usage create significant constraints to cell culture systems; nonetheless, innovative solutions for active environmental controls are available. The acidity of the growth media cannot be measured through standard probes due to the degradation of electrodes and reliance on indicators for chromatography. Alternatively, carbon dioxide sensors are capable of monitoring the pH by leveraging the relationship between the partial pressure of carbon dioxide and carbonic acid in solution across a membrane. In microgravity cell growth systems, the gas delivery system can be used to actively maintain the media at the proper acidity by maintaining a suitable gas mixture around permeable tubing. Through this method, launch mass and volume are significantly reduced through the efficient use of the limited gas supply in orbit.

cell growth↗
NASA NTRS2019

Advanced Mathematics for Control System Design: Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GN&C) Studies

The study and control of inverted pendulum dynamics is of interest to NASA to better control the stability of a rocket. The different compartments of a rocket can move within a rocket during launch (i.e., rocket fuel slosh) and can affect its overall trajectory. Focusing on the inverted pendulum robot, PENNY, the dynamics are reduced to a simpler model which can prove to be more insightful for deriving more complex models and control laws. From the inverted pendulum bot, we can incorporate complexity into our physical model and approximate to the dynamics of a rocket (i.e., flexible inverted pendulum, multistage pendulum).

Autonomy↗
NASA NTRS2020

Will We Control the Automation, or Will It Control Us?

The purpose of air traffic control (ATC) is to provide a safe and efficient service for all air traffic. Since its inception, ATC has evolved in response to user needs, achieving exceptionally high standards of safety in a context of shifting complexity and density of air traffic operations. But predicted changes in societal demands, technological advancements and airspace-user needs create new challenges as we look to the mid and far term. This portion of the white paper presents some of the mid and far term visions, out to 2050, for upcoming challenges and changes to air traffic control demands and how Human Factors can support the development of air traffic control to safely and efficiently meet the needs of airspace users.

air traffic control↗
NASA NTRS2022

Low-Speed Performance Enhancement Using Localized Active Flow Control: Localized Active Flow Control Simulations on a Reference Aircraft (2/4)

A study of the potential implementations of localized active flow control (AFC) technology onto future airplanes is presented. This collaborative investigation addresses key objectives of the NASA Advanced Air Transport Technology (AATT) Project, in terms of reduction in fuel consumption and lower emission. It specifically targets the goals set forth in a roadmap developed by the NASA/Boeing team. The roadmap is a result of a series of meetings held between the two parties over the years and it represents a shared vision for practical implementations, leading up to flight demonstrations of localized flow control. If successful, localized flow control may lead to important ramifications for next generation airplanes from both the economic and environmental perspectives. Under this contract localized AFC has been used to improve aerodynamic performance during high-lift operations using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). Specifically, AFC has been applied at the aileron and at various location in the wing leading edge (LE) regions. The applications target reduced drag and enhanced lift over the range of practical angles of attack, including stall. These benefits translate to airplane performance improvements, such as longer range or larger payload. The CFD results are used to quantify potential aerodynamic benefits, as well as the input required for actuation. This helps identify the most promising candidates, which potentially provide material net airplane level enhancements using onboard fluidic sources. The airplane configuration selected for the CFD study is a representative of a future short/medium-range twin-engine airplane dubbed the Reference Aircraft. A slew of AFC applications has been explored and their aerodynamic performance enhancements were benchmarked against the baseline Reference Aircraft. Promising AFC candidates have been deemed practical and potentially suitable for both the aileron and the wing LE implementations. The findings on the Reference Aircraft are used to guide the development of the AFC-enhanced aileron for the CRM-HL. The wind-tunnel model of the CRM-HL will be used by NASA to validate the AFC concepts, complementing the CFD-based analysis and the integration study (final report document #3).

CFD↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A New Control Paradigm: Multiple Aircraft Controlled by Multiple Operators

Remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) are becoming more and more prevalent in the aerospace operations. This is true in a number of diverse domains; urban air mobility, medical product delivery, infrastructure inspection, high altitude pseudo-satellites, search and rescue, auto cargo and several other applications. One aspect that all of these share in common is the need for scalability to be viable and continue to grow. The Association of Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) develops an annual economic report. They project that in the first three years of integration more than 70,000 jobs will be created in the US alone, with an economic impact of more than $13.6 billion. This benefit will grow through 2025 when we foresee more than 100,000 jobs created and economic impact of $82 billion. For many of these domains to reach these levels and have the scalability needed, they will require a remote pilot to control multiple aircraft (1:N) or the extension of that, multiple pilots controlling multiple aircraft (m:N). This is a new control paradigm that raises multiple issues in various areas. The issues include regulatory, technical, safety, community acceptance and Human Factors. Human factors issues include displays, pilot workload, pilot situation awareness just to name a few. This panel brings together researchers, developers and operators that have been working in the area of m:N. They will discuss the need, the issues and some potential solutions.

multi-vehicle control↗