Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Thermal modeling”

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 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

Experiment Based Superposition Thermal Modeling of Laser Powder Bed Fusion

This paper evaluates experiment-based superposition thermal modeling for Laser Powder Bed Fusion (LPBF) with a pulsed laser. An analytical pulsed laser thermal model establishes the modeling procedure. The framework inverts a powder bed’s single pulse temperature response from experimental spatiotemporal Short-Wave Infrared (SWIR) camera data. Superimposing this response along a scan path simulates multi-pulse LPBF. Results show the experimentally informed superposition model rapidly and accurately predicts a layer’s temperature history. The model has applications in correction of thermally driven LPBF errors and in-situ part qualification.

Lough, Cody↗
NASA NTRS2019

Thermal Model of a Zero Boil Off System for the Nuclear Thermal Propulsion System

NASA is currently developing an updated concept for a nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP) system. To enable this concept, efficient thermal insulation and cryocooler heat exchanger systems are required to eliminate boil-off of propellant. This paper presents the results of a thermal model used to assess the feasibility of using active cooling with a tube-on-tank heat exchanger configuration for the inline tank of the NTP system. Results show that: cryocooler working fluid temperature and mass flow rate can be adjusted to achieve zero boil off (ZBO) with broad area cooling, over-sizing the cryocooler lift directly translates into a reduction in tank pressure, and broad area cooling may still maintain ZBO despite the reduced heat transfer between tank wall and propellant that is expected in reduced gravity.

zero boil off↗
NASA NTRS2018

Creating a Voyager Thermal Model 39 Years Into the Flight Mission, Along With Model Correlation and Application

After 39 years of continuous operation in space, the output of the Voyager 1 & 2 spacecraft Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) power systems has decreased to the point where managing the power margin and maintaining thermal control has become increasingly difficult. As the total power dissipation in the bus has decreased, propellant line temperatures and margin above minimum Allowable Flight Temperature (AFT) have decreased, creating risk of the hydrazine freezing (at 1.6°C). This is further complicated by the lack of existing thermal models that can be used to assess propellant tank and line temperatures. In 2014, an effort was begun to create a Voyager spacecraft thermal model for that purpose. A steady-state Thermal Desktop model has been created from scratch over the past two years. Applied Sciences Laboratory (ASL) started the initial thermal model development under contract to Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). The effort relied primarily on archived manufacturing drawings, limited documentation, interviews of senior engineers who worked on the Voyager design and implementation, and the experience of the Voyager Flight Operations team. Data from the Voyager System Thermal Vacuum (STV) tests is no longer available, making it necessary to correlate the model to more recent flight data and small in-flight tests. Correlation was achieved to within ±5°C for a hot case and a cold case (both data sets from 2014). However, the flight system has very few temperature sensors directly on propellant lines. Therefore, the task remains to determine how best to use the model, in conjunction with flight data, to make sure the Voyagers can continue to fly successfully.

Ledeboer, William C.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Rapid Development of Instrument Thermal Models: Perspectives and Guidelines from NASA Goddard’s Instrument Design Laboratory

The Instrument Design Laboratory (IDL), part of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center’s Integrated Design Center (IDC), is a concurrent and collaborative environment which allows for rapid development of science instrumentation concepts within the span of less than two weeks. Science goals set by a Principal Investigator from government, industry or academia are translated into engineering requirements, from which a team of engineers spanning multiple disciplines use an established study process and a suite of analysis tools to work towards an instrument point design. As part of this process, a staff thermal engineer is tasked with designing a thermal control system which meets all incoming thermal requirements, while iterating real-time with other subsystems to ensure compatibility and functionality as a completed system. Thermal engineers on spaceflight projects typically have weeks or months to develop thermal models. However, the severe time limitation in this conceptual study setting makes thermal design particularly difficult, as rapid thermal modeling solely over the span of a few days is required to develop the instrument thermal design and understand the performance over its intended mission, especially if the instrument concept contains multiple thermal challenges such as dynamic environments or high heat dissipating components. In this paper, the authors provide a condensed guide for the most efficient ways to develop thermal models and conduct thermal analysis within the span of one-to-two weeks, as informed by decades of design experience and best practices in the IDL. The authors also focus on quick methods for determining worst-case thermal environments, deciding which modeling details are essential at this early phase, and quantifying the engineering resources necessary for thermal control. This paper concludes with specific thermal design tips for different instrument types across the electromagnetic spectrum.

Kan Yang↗
NASA NTRS1995

Simple Spreadsheet Thermal Models for Cryogenic Applications

Self consistent circuit analog thermal models that can be run in commercial spreadsheet programs on personal computers have been created to calculate the cooldown and steady state performance of cryogen cooled Dewars. The models include temperature dependent conduction and radiation effects. The outputs of the models provide temperature distribution and Dewar performance information. these models have been used to analyze the SIRTF Telescope Test Facility (STTF). The facility has been brought on line for its first user, the Infrared Telescope Technology Testbed (ITTT), for the Space Infrared Telescope Facility (SIRTF) at JPL. The model algorithm as well as a comparison between the models' predictions and actual performance of this facility will be presented.

spreadsheet thermal model cryogenic↗
NASA NTRS1994

(abstract) Simple Spreadsheet Thermal Models for Cryogenic Applications

Self consistent circuit analog thermal models, that can be run in commercial spreadsheet programs on personal computers, have been created to calculate the cooldown and steady state performance of cryogen cooled Dewars. The models include temperature dependent conduction and radiation effects. The outputs of the models provide temperature distribution and Dewar performance information. These models have been used to analyze the Cryogenic Telescope Test Facility (CTTF). The facility will be on line in early 1995 for its first user, the Infrared Telescope Technology Testbed (ITTT), for the Space Infrared Telescope Facility (SIRTF) at JPL. The model algorithm as well as a comparison of the model predictions and actual performance of this facility will be presented.

cryogenic thermal model cryostat SIRTF↗
DOE OSTI2022

Thermal Modeling and Simulation of the Packed-bed Thermal Energy Storage Combined with INL Thermal Energy Distribution System

Dynamic Energy Transport and Integration Lab (DETAIL) at Idaho National Laboratory is to support experimental demonstration and validation research on Nuclear-Renewable Hybrid Energy System [1]. The Thermal Energy Distribution System (TEDS) is a thermal-hydraulic flow loop in DETAIL with its own dedicated control system to support the integration of co-located multiple experimental systems, where a packed-bed thermal energy storage (TES) is installed as a thermal buffer and storage unit. Among various TES options, the packed-bed TES is adopted in TEDS because it offers a low-cost single-tank thermal storage option compared to the traditional two-tank TES. However, since the TES tank is filled with granular fillers having different thermophysical properties from those of TES tank wall, there is a potential thermo-mechanical issue to be carefully addressed like thermal ratcheting which may pose a significant design concern for the packed-bed TES tank. Thermal ratcheting is a thermomechanical process caused by the repeated rearrangement of granular filler inside a TES tank during continuous thermal cycling operation of the packed-bed TES system. If the thermally induced stress exceeds the yield strength of a TES tank wall, catastrophic consequences may happen like rupture of the TES tank. Thus, it is important to understand the phenomenon to ensure the robust operation of the packed-bed TES tank. Given that thermal ratcheting is caused by complex interaction of thermal transport in the porous bed and solid mechanics, the accurate prediction of transient thermal behavior of the packed-bed TES tank, which is the focus of this paper, is critical to the reliable thermal ratcheting analysis. This paper discusses the numerical modeling, simulation, and validation studies that are ongoing at INL to investigate the transient thermal behavior of the packed-bed TES. Of particular concern is the transient thermal process occurring in the packed-bed TES unit that is operated in conjunction with the INL TEDS. The main goal of this research is three-fold: (i) provide preliminary insights into the transient thermal behavior of the TEDS TES tank, (ii) support the thermal measurement and validation plan for TEDS experiment, and (iii) provide transient thermal boundary conditions to support the reliable thermal ratcheting analysis of the TEDS TES tank. For the transient thermal modeling and analysis, a CFD model was developed, and the validity of the modeling approach was examined via comparing the numerical simulation results with the experimental data obtained from various design characteristics of packed-bed TES tanks. Then, the present modeling method was applied for the transient thermal analysis of the TEDS TES tank, and the results are discussed along with the potential improvement of data acquisition strategy for the future TEDS experiments for more precise validation study.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2022

Thermal model for time-domain thermoreflectance experiments in a laser-flash geometry

Time-domain thermoreflectance (TDTR) is a well-established pump–probe method for measuring thermal conductivity and interface conductance of multilayers. Interpreting signals in a TDTR experiment requires a thermal model. In standard front/front TDTR experiments, both pump and probe beams typically irradiate the surface of a multilayer. As a result, existing thermal models for interpreting thermoreflectance experiments assume that the pump and probe beams both interact with the surface layer. Here, we present a frequency-domain solution to the heat-diffusion equation of a multilayer in response to nonhomogeneous laser heating. This model allows analysis of experiments where the pump and probe beams irradiate opposite sides of a multilayer. We call such a geometry a front/back experiment to differentiate such experiments from standard TDTR experiments. As an example, we consider a 60nm amorphous Si film. We consider how signals differ in a front/front vs front/back geometry and compare thermal model predictions to experimental data.

Peng, Wanyue↗
DOE OSTI2023

AGR-5/6/7 Thermal Model with Non-uniform Gas Gaps

Fuel compact temperatures are a crucial factor in assessing irradiation performance of the Tristructural isotropic fuel particles. In the absence of direct measurement, fuel compact temperatures were calculated using a three-dimensional finite element thermal model, which is subject to simulation uncertainty. The most dominant factor in uncertainty of calculated fuel temperature is the gas gap uncertainty due to the nub-to-shell clearance because of fabrication error. A revision to the thermal model was made to examine the most probable offset position for four different dates of interest. The offset position options varied in magnitude and azimuthal direction of offset of the holder top and bottom position. The best-fit offset of the holder is estimated based on the minimum root mean square error of residuals for all operational thermocouples (TCs). From these results, the following conclusions were made: 1) During earlier cycles (162A – 164A) when numerous TCs were still operational, the best-fit offset distance varied in range [0.002 – 0.0035 in.] for both the top and bottom holder while offset azimuthal direction varied widely, especially for the holder bottom. 2) Holder offset led to slightly lower Capsule 1 average temperature, but wider temperature variation (lower minimum and higher peak fuel temperatures). 3) The maximum offset of 0.006 in. to the northwest direction for both the top and bottom holder yielded a much higher temperature than the original peak fuel temperature, which increased from 1422 to 1557 ? (or 135 ? increase). This could be one of the reasons for massive particle failure near the end of Cycle 165A. 4) Even though, the highest temperature at the TC-1-7 tip reached slightly higher than 1000?, the temperature along the TC wire reached as high as 1335? assuming a holder offset of 0.006 in. to the northwest. Consequently, at this temperature nickel from this TC wire could cause particle failures in Capsule 1.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2023

AGR-5/6/7 Thermal Model with Non-uniform Gas Gaps

Fuel compact temperatures are a crucial factor in assessing the irradiation performance of tri-structural isotropic fuel particles. In the absence of direct measurement, fuel compact temperatures were calculated using a three-dimensional finite element thermal model, which is subject to simulation uncertainty. The most dominant factor in the uncertainty of calculated fuel temperatures is the gas gap uncertainty due to the nub-to-shell clearance caused by a design error of AGR-5/6/7 capsules. The thermal model was revised to examine the most probable graphite offset position for six different days during the irradiation for Capsules 1 and 2. The analysis varied the offset distance and azimuthal direction at both the top and bottom of the holder. The best-fit offset was estimated based on the minimum root mean square error of the residuals (measured minus calculated) for the operational thermocouples (TCs). From these results, the following conclusions were made: (1) The holder offsets led to slightly lower average temperatures but wider temperature variations (lower minimum and higher peak fuel temperatures) for both Capsule 1 and Capsule 2. (2) During earlier cycles (162A–164B), when numerous TCs were still operational, the best-fit offset distance varied over a specific range for both the top and bottom ([0.002–0.0035 in.] for Capsule 1 and [0.003-0.004 in] for Capsule 2). In contrast, the offset azimuthal direction varied widely, especially for the offset at the bottom of the Capsule 1 holder. This is because holder movement was somewhat constrained at the top of Capsule 1 by the TC leads running through the capsule head and into the holder and by the through tubes in Capsule 2, but the Capsule 1 bottom did not have this type of constraint. (3) During later cycles, when all TCs failed, applying the maximum possible offset of 0.006 in. to the northwest direction for both the top and bottom resulted in a calculated peak fuel temperature of 1557? in Capsule 1 (i.e., a 135? increase from 1422? with zero offset on September 20, 2019 (166A)); the maximum offset of 0.0068 in. to the south for both top and bottom resulted in a calculated peak fuel temperature of 1110°C in Capsule 2 on April 20, 2020 (i.e., a 116? increase from 994? with zero offset (168A)). High peak fuel temperatures in Capsule 1 during Cycle 166A could be the cause of massive particle failure near the end of this cycle. (4) Even though the highest temperature at the tip of Type-N TCs, such as TC-1-7, slightly exceeded 1000?, the temperature along the TC wire reached as high as 1335? assuming an offset of 0.006 in. in the northwest of Capsule 1 holder near the end of Cycle 166A. This temperature significantly exceeds the temperature threshold at which TC degradation is expected to occur, ultimately contributing to considerable particle failures in Capsule 1. For eight Type-N TCs in Capsule 2, the peak TC line temperature was much lower (i.e., 1029°C for TC-2-5), assuming maximum offset of 00068 in. to the south during cycle 168A.

advanced gas reactors↗
DOE OSTI2023

AGR-5/6/7 Thermal Model with Non-uniform Gas Gaps

Fuel compact temperatures are a crucial factor in assessing the irradiation performance of tri-structural isotropic fuel particles. In the absence of direct measurement, fuel compact temperatures were calculated using a three-dimensional finite element thermal model, which is subject to simulation uncertainty. The most dominant factor in the uncertainty of calculated fuel temperatures is the gas gap uncertainty due to the nub-to-shell clearance caused by a design error of AGR-5/6/7 capsules. The thermal model was revised to examine the most probable graphite offset position for six different days during the irradiation for Capsules 1 and 2. The analysis varied the offset distance and azimuthal direction at both the top and bottom of the holder. The best-fit offset was estimated based on the minimum root mean square error of the residuals (measured minus calculated) for the operational thermocouples (TCs). From these results, the following conclusions were made: (1) The holder offsets led to slightly lower average temperatures but wider temperature variations (lower minimum and higher peak fuel temperatures) for both Capsule 1 and Capsule 2. (2) During earlier cycles (162A–164B), when numerous TCs were still operational, the best-fit offset distance varied over a specific range for both the top and bottom ([0.002–0.0035 in.] for Capsule 1 and [0.003-0.004 in] for Capsule 2). In contrast, the offset azimuthal direction varied widely, especially for the offset at the bottom of the Capsule 1 holder. This is because holder movement was somewhat constrained at the top of Capsule 1 by the TC leads running through the capsule head and into the holder and by the through tubes in Capsule 2, but the Capsule 1 bottom did not have this type of constraint. (3) During later cycles, when all TCs failed, applying the maximum possible offset of 0.006 in. to the northwest direction for both the top and bottom resulted in a calculated peak fuel temperature of 1557? in Capsule 1 (i.e., a 135? increase from 1422? with zero offset on September 20, 2019 (166A)); the maximum offset of 0.0068 in. to the south for both top and bottom resulted in a calculated peak fuel temperature of 1110°C in Capsule 2 on April 20, 2020 (i.e., a 116? increase from 994? with zero offset (168A)). High peak fuel temperatures in Capsule 1 during Cycle 166A could be the cause of massive particle failure near the end of this cycle. (4) Even though the highest temperature at the tip of Type-N TCs, such as TC-1-7, slightly exceeded 1000?, the temperature along the TC wire reached as high as 1335? assuming an offset of 0.006 in. in the northwest of Capsule 1 holder near the end of Cycle 166A. This temperature significantly exceeds the temperature threshold at which TC degradation is expected to occur, ultimately contributing to considerable particle failures in Capsule 1. For eight Type-N TCs in Capsule 2, the peak TC line temperature was much lower (i.e., 1029°C for TC-2-5), assuming maximum offset of 00068 in. to the south during cycle 168A.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2025

AGR-5/6/7 Thermal Model with Non-uniform Gas Gaps

Fuel compact temperatures are a crucial factor in assessing the irradiation performance of tri-structural isotropic fuel particles. In the absence of direct measurement, fuel compact temperatures were calculated using a three-dimensional finite element thermal model, which is subject to simulation uncertainty. The most dominant factor in the uncertainty of calculated fuel temperatures is the gas gap uncertainty due to the nub-to-shell clearance caused by a design error of AGR-5/6/7 capsules. The thermal model was revised to examine the most probable graphite offset position for six different days during the irradiation for Capsules 1 and 2. The analysis varied the offset distance and azimuthal direction at both the top and bottom of the holder. The best-fit offset was estimated based on the minimum root mean square error of the residuals (measured minus calculated) for the operational thermocouples (TCs). From these results, the following conclusions were made: (1) The holder offsets led to slightly lower average temperatures but wider temperature variations (lower minimum and higher peak fuel temperatures) for both Capsule 1 and Capsule 2. (2) During earlier cycles (162A–164B), when numerous TCs were still operational, the best-fit offset distance varied over a specific range for both the top and bottom ([0.002–0.0035 in.] for Capsule 1 and [0.003-0.004 in] for Capsule 2). In contrast, the offset azimuthal direction varied widely, especially for the offset at the bottom of the Capsule 1 holder. This is because holder movement was somewhat constrained at the top of Capsule 1 by the TC leads running through the capsule head and into the holder and by the through tubes in Capsule 2, but the Capsule 1 bottom did not have this type of constraint. (3) During later cycles, when all TCs failed, applying the maximum possible offset of 0.006 in. to the northwest direction for both the top and bottom resulted in a calculated peak fuel temperature of 1557? in Capsule 1 (i.e., a 135? increase from 1422? with zero offset on September 20, 2019 (166A)); the maximum offset of 0.0068 in. to the south for both top and bottom resulted in a calculated peak fuel temperature of 1110°C in Capsule 2 on April 20, 2020 (i.e., a 116? increase from 994? with zero offset (168A)). High peak fuel temperatures in Capsule 1 during Cycle 166A could be the cause of massive particle failure near the end of this cycle. (4) Even though the highest temperature at the tip of Type-N TCs, such as TC-1-7, slightly exceeded 1000?, the temperature along the TC wire reached as high as 1335? assuming an offset of 0.006 in. in the northwest of Capsule 1 holder near the end of Cycle 166A. This temperature significantly exceeds the temperature threshold at which TC degradation is expected to occur, ultimately contributing to considerable particle failures in Capsule 1. For eight Type-N TCs in Capsule 2, the peak TC line temperature was much lower (i.e., 1029°C for TC-2-5), assuming maximum offset of 00068 in. to the south during cycle 168A.

11 - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
NASA NTRS1982

The intercrater plains of Mercury and the Moon: Their nature, origin and role in terrestrial planet evolution. Thermal models of Mercury

Recent and more complex thermal models of Mercury and the terrestrial planets are discussed or noted. These models isolate a particular aspect of the planet's thermal history in an attempt to understand that parameter. Among these topics are thermal conductivity, convection, radiogenic sources of heat, other heat sources, and the problem of the molten core and regenerative dynamo.

Leake, M. A.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Hall Thruster Thermal Modeling and Test Data Correlation

The life of Hall Effect thrusters are primarily limited by plasma erosion and thermal related failures. NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) in cooperation with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) have recently completed development of a Hall thruster with specific emphasis to mitigate these limitations. Extending the operational life of Hall thursters makes them more suitable for some of NASA's longer duration interplanetary missions. This paper documents the thermal model development, refinement and correlation of results with thruster test data. Correlation was achieved by minimizing uncertainties in model input and recognizing the relevant parameters for effective model tuning. Throughout the thruster design phase the model was used to evaluate design options and systematically reduce component temperatures. Hall thrusters are inherently complex assemblies of high temperature components relying on internal conduction and external radiation for heat dispersion and rejection. System solutions are necessary in most cases to fully assess the benefits and/or consequences of any potential design change. Thermal model correlation is critical since thruster operational parameters can push some components/materials beyond their temperature limits. This thruster incorporates a state-of-the-art magnetic shielding system to reduce plasma erosion and to a lesser extend power/heat deposition. Additionally a comprehensive thermal design strategy was employed to reduce temperatures of critical thruster components (primarily the magnet coils and the discharge channel). Long term wear testing is currently underway to assess the effectiveness of these systems and consequently thruster longevity.

Hall thruster↗
NASA NTRS1984

TRASYS/SSPSTA thermal modeling comparison

The Thermal Radiation Analysis System (TRASYS) and the Simplified Shuttle Payload Analyzer (SSPTA) are applied for the purpose of comparison to the Solar Maximum Repair Mission (SMRM) and Astro-1/UVT (Ultraviolet Telescope), making use also of the System Improved Numerical Differencing Analyzer (SINDA). The majority of radiation conductances obtained from the TRASYS and SSPTA computer codes are shown to be within + or - 20 percent of each other, though the interchange factors associated with some crucial components of the system are located beyond this region. A sample model is also considered, which consists of an outer and an inner boxes with emisivities of 0.32 and 0.80 respectively. It is concluded that a thorough, methodical comparison between the two codes is necessary.

Noravian, H.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Improvements to a Response Surface Thermal Model for Orion Mated to the International Space Station

This study is an extension of previous work to evaluate the applicability of Design of Experiments (DOE)/Response Surface Methodology to on-orbit thermal analysis. The goal was to determine if the methodology could produce a Response Surface Equation (RSE) that predicted the thermal model temperature results within +/-10 F. An RSE is a polynomial expression that can then be used to predict temperatures for a defined range of factor combinations. Based on suggestions received from the previous work, this study used a model with simpler geometry, considered polynomials up to fifth order, and evaluated orbital temperature variations to establish a minimum and maximum temperature for each component. A simplified Outer Mold Line (OML) thermal model of the Orion spacecraft was used in this study. The factors chosen were the vehicle's Yaw, Pitch, and Roll (defining the on-orbit attitude), the Beta angle (restricted to positive beta angles from 0 to 75), and the environmental constants (varying from cold to hot). All factors were normalized from their native ranges to a non-dimensional range from -1.0 to 1.0. Twenty-three components from the OML were chosen and the minimum and maximum orbital temperatures were calculated for each to produce forty-six responses for the DOE model. A customized DOE case matrix of 145 analysis cases was developed which used analysis points at the factor corners, mid-points, and center. From this data set, RSE s were developed which consisted of cubic, quartic, and fifth order polynomials. The results presented are for the fifth order RSE. The RSE results were then evaluated for agreement with the analytical model predictions to produce a +/-3(sigma) error band. Forty of the 46 responses had a +/-3(sigma) value of 10 F or less. Encouraged by this initial success, two additional sets of verification cases were selected. One contained 20 cases, the other 50 cases. These cases were evaluated both with the fifth order RSE and with the analytical model. For the maximum temperature predictions, 12 of the 23 components had all predictions within +/-10 F and 17 were within +/-20 F. For the minimum temperature predictions, only 4 of the 23 components (the four radiator temperatures), were within the 10 F goal. The maximum temperature RSEs were then run through 59,049 screening cases. The RSE predictions were then filtered to find 55 cases that produced the hottest temperatures. These 55 cases were then analyzed using the thermal model and the results compared against the RSE predictions. As noted earlier, 12 of the 23 responses were within +/-10 F at 17 within +/-20 F. These results demonstrate that if properly formulated, an RSE can provide a reliable, fast temperature prediction. Despite this progress, additional work is needed to determine why the minimum temperatures responses and 6 of the hot temperature responses did not produce reliable RSEs. Recommend focus areas are the model itself (arithmetic vs. diffusion nodes) and seeking consultations with statistical application experts.

Miller, StephenW.↗