Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Controlled”

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 559 records · Page 31
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
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 OSTI2021

Thermal energy storage apparatus, controllers and thermal energy storage control methods

Thermal energy storage apparatus, controllers and thermal energy storage control methods are described. According to one aspect, a thermal energy storage apparatus controller includes processing circuitry configured to access first information which is indicative of surpluses and deficiencies of electrical energy upon an electrical power system at a plurality of moments in time, access second information which is indicative of temperature of a thermal energy storage medium at a plurality of moments in time, and use the first and second information to control an amount of electrical energy which is utilized by a heating element to heat the thermal energy storage medium at a plurality of moments in time.

Hammerstrom, Donald J.↗
DOE OSTI2022

Model predictive control for matrix converter operating in current control mode with load current estimation

A matrix converter system operating in current control mode is provided. The matrix converter includes a switching matrix coupled between a low voltage side and a high voltage side, wherein the matrix converter is coupled at its low voltage side to a generator for receiving an input power including an input current and transforming the input power into an output power at its high voltage side, wherein a load is coupled to the high voltage side. The control system includes a load observer and a model predictive controller (MPC). The load observer is configured to estimate a load current that flows to the load from the high voltage side of the matrix converter as a function of a switching state of the switching matrix, an output voltage output at the high voltage side of the matrix converter, and the input current. The MPC is configured to select the switching state of the switching matrix to meet one or more control objectives defined by minimization of a multi-objective function that tracks the output voltage and the input current using the estimated load current.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2022

Controlling a power output of a nuclear reaction without control rods

A nuclear power system includes a reactor vessel that includes a reactor core mounted therein. The reactor core includes nuclear fuel assemblies configured to generate a nuclear fission reaction. The reaction vessel does not include any control rod assemblies therein. The nuclear power system further includes a riser positioned above the reactor core, a primary coolant flow path, a primary coolant that circulates through the primary coolant flow path to receive heat from the nuclear fission reaction and release the received heat to generate electric power in a power generation, and a control system communicably coupled to the power generation system and configured to control a power output of the nuclear fission reaction independent of any control rod assemblies.

Callaway, Allyson↗
DOE OSTI2023

Beyond PID Controllers: PPO with Neuralized PID Policy for Proton Beam Intensity Control in Mu2e

We introduce a novel Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) algorithm aimed at addressing the challenge of maintaining a uniform proton beam intensity delivery in the Muon to Electron Conversion Experiment (Mu2e) at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab). Our primary objective is to regulate the spill process to ensure a consistent intensity profile, with the ultimate goal of creating an automated controller capable of providing real-time feedback and calibration of the Spill Regulation System (SRS) parameters on a millisecond timescale. We treat the Mu2e accelerator system as a Markov Decision Process suitable for Reinforcement Learning (RL), utilizing PPO to reduce bias and enhance training stability. A key innovation in our approach is the integration of a neuralized Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) controller into the policy function, resulting in a significant improvement in the Spill Duty Factor (SDF) by 13.6%, surpassing the performance of the current PID controller baseline by an additional 1.6%. This paper presents the preliminary offline results based on a differentiable simulator of the Mu2e accelerator. It paves the groundwork for real-time implementations and applications, representing a crucial step towards automated proton beam intensity control for the Mu2e experiment.

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗
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↗
DOE OSTI2021

From occupants to occupants: A review of the occupant information understanding for building HVAC occupant-centric control

Occupants are the core of the built environment. Traditional Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning (HVAC) systems operate with predefined schedules and maximum occupancy assumptions with no consideration of specific occupant information. These generalized assumptions usually do not align with the actual demand and result in over-conditioning and occupant discomfort. In recent years, with the aid of Information & Communication Technology (ICT) and Computer Science (CS), it is possible to acquire real-time and accurate occupant information to satisfy the exact thermal requirement through specific HVAC control in one particular built environment. This mechanism is called HVAC “Occupant-centric Control (OCC).” HVAC OCC strategy starts with collecting the occupant’s information (e.g., presence/absence) and then applies it to meet the occupant’s requirement (e.g., thermal comfort). However, even though some research studies and field pilot demonstrations have been devoted to the field of OCC, there is a lack of systematic knowledge about occupant data, which is the principal component of OCC for HVAC researchers and practitioners. To fill this gap, this review paper discusses OCC with a particular emphasis on occupant information and investigates how this information can assist HVAC operation in providing an acceptable built environment in required spaces during the required time. Finally, we provide a fine-grained, comprehensive picture of occupant information, discuss its features, the modalities of information feed-in into the HVAC control, and the application of commonly utilized occupant information for OCC.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗