Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Panelized”

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 847 records · Page 47
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Integration of Fatigue R-Curve Effects into VCCT for Durability Predictions, Part 1: Buckled Composite Single-Stringer Stiffened Panels

Composite structures have become popular in modern aircraft because they help reduce weight and increase durability. In addition, hat-stiffened panels provide the stability that the airframe skin needs. However, they can be subject to delamination in the post-buckling regime. Progressive damage analysis (PDA) methods can help predict interlaminar and intralaminar failure events. Many aircraft structures are subject to cyclic loading in the post-buckling regime. Hence, fatigue life prediction becomes essential for design and sustainment purposes. Under the NASA Advanced Composites Project (ACP), composite panels stiffened with single hat-stringers were subject to a cyclic loading sequence from a pre-buckling state to a post-buckling state. This test campaign aimed to provide damage initiation and growth data for three initial damage scenarios: nominally pristine, initial Teflon inserts representing manufacturing defects, and impact-induced damage. This work uses the Abaqus FEA Virtual Crack Closure Technique (VCCT), capabilities enhanced through a novel empirical method integrating fatigue R-curve effects (different from R-ratio) into the Paris Law via user-defined subroutine to simulate the fatigue response of the panels with single hat-stringers. The analysis predictions were within 5% of the test results using this novel method.

single hat↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Integration of Fatigue R-Curve Effects into VCCT for Durability Predictions, Part 2: Buckled Composite Multi-Stringer Stiffened Panels

Composite structures with hat-stiffened panels have gained traction in modern aircraft because they help reduce weight, increase durability, and provide stability to airframe skins. For weight reduction, skins should be designed to operate in the post-buckling regime. This causes possible interlaminar and intralaminar failure. However, composite panels stiffened with multiple hat-stringers are subject to cyclic loading even in the post-buckling regime. Under the NASA Advanced Composites Project (ACP), composite panels with multiple hatstringers were subject to a cyclic loading sequence from a pre-buckling state to a post-buckling state. This effort aimed to predict interlaminar failure for cyclic compression loading with pre-existent impact-induced damage. This work uses the Abaqus FEA Virtual Crack Closure Technique (VCCT), capabilities enhanced through an empirical method to integrate fatigue R-curve effects (different from R-ratio) into the Paris Law via user-defined subroutine to simulate the fatigue response o

ACP↗
NASA NTRS2025

A Minority Report Submitted as an Addendum to the Report of the Mars 2020 Organic Contamination Panel

This Minority Report (MR) presents seven findings in addition to or contrary to the main OCP report: 1. Contamination control for the Mars 2020 cache must be strict. Mars’ surface is known to be organics-poor from laboratory studies, Mars meteorite analyses, and from four previous NASA missions. It is imperative that contamination control measures are enacted that enable reliable and robust detection of potential biomarker compounds at the ppb level. 2. Since Mars 2020 is a sample return mission and analyses of samples in the returnable cache are expected to occur after return to Earth, positive controls are not recommended for flight on Mars 2020 unless a compelling case can be made for their use. 3. The findings of previous panels dedicated to organic compound analysis in Martian samples (OCSSG, ND-SAG, SDT) recommend TOC limits between 10-40 ppb. The MR finds that the lower limit of 10 ppb is recommended and that insufficient justification is given by the OCP Panel Report (PR) to raise the TOC limit to 40 ppb. 4. Analytical capability is sufficiently advanced that analytical capability is an irrelevant consideration with respect to differentiating between 10 and 40 ppb TOC. 5. Perceived contamination control challenges are an irrelevant consideration for raising the TOC contamination limit from 10 to 40 ppb since those challenges, and the procedures to ameliorate them, will exist regardless of whether the limit is 10 or 40 ppb. 6. The “dilution cleaning” method has not been adequately proven for utilization on the Mars 2020 mission. Shortcomings have been identified in terms of peer review, method verification, analytical and testing approach, application to space flight hardware, and performance under Martian conditions. The method should be revisited and independently tested using statistically and analytically robust methods, and scrutinized in a rigorous peer review process. 7. The Mars 2020 mission claims considerable heritage from the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) mission, but MSL contamination control efforts contain significant errors and implementation discrepancies that would imperil the Mars 2020 caching mission were they repeated. A standing contamination control panel should be formed to provide independent oversight for the Mars 2020 mission.

Mars Sample Return↗
DOE OSTI2018

Wind turbine rotor blades with load-transferring exterior panels

Rotor blades for a wind turbines include a structural support member disposed internal the rotor blade that extends for at least a portion of a rotor blade span length and an airfoil structure supported by the structural support member, the airfoil structure comprising a shell portion and at least one load-transferring exterior panel. The shell portion and the at least one load-transferring exterior panel combine to form an aerodynamic profile comprising a leading edge opposite a trailing edge and a pressure side opposite a suction side. Moreover, the shell portion and the at least one load-transferring exterior panel are independently connected to the structural support member.

Caruso, Christopher Daniel↗
DOE OSTI2020

Turbine nozzle cooling with panel fuel injector

The present disclosure is directed to a combustion system including a panel fuel injector. The panel fuel injector includes a first side wall, a second side wall, and an aft wall. The first side wall and the second side wall are interconnected by the aft wall. The panel fuel injector further includes a cooling air plenum that is defined between the first side wall and the second side wall. The aft wall defines a plurality of cooling holes in fluid communication with the cooling air plenum. One or more of the cooling holes of the plurality of cooling holes is oriented towards at least one of a leading edge, a pressure side wall, or a suction side wall of a stationary nozzle disposed proximate to the aft end wall.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Combustion system with panel fuel injector

The present disclosure is directed to an annular combustion system. The annular combustion system includes an inner liner and an outer liner that define therebetween an annulus that circumscribes a centerline of the combustion system. The annulus includes a plurality of primary combustion zones defined at an upstream end thereof and further defines a plurality of secondary combustion zones downstream of the primary combustion zones. The annular combustion system further includes a plurality of fuel nozzles where at least one fuel nozzle discharges a combustible mixture into a respective primary combustion zone of the plurality of primary combustion zones. A plurality of panel fuel injectors is disposed between adjacent fuel nozzles. The plurality of panel fuel injectors extends in an axially downstream direction so as to separate adjacent primary combustion zones. Each panel fuel injector discharges a combustible mixture into at least one secondary combustion zone.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2021

A Circularity Assessment for Silicon Solar Panels Based on Dynamic Material Flow Analysis

Solar photovoltaics (PV) are the fastest growing renewable energy technology for clean, inexpensive, and sustainable electricity generation. Along with numerous technical roadmaps to improve system cost, performance and reliability, the PV industry should also plan to handle large volumes of silicon panel waste, which is initially estimated to be ~13 million metric tons (MT) by 2050 in the U.S. alone. Understanding the magnitude of material needs and how material flows throughout the PV panel life cycle could respond to design, operational and different end-of-life (EOL) circular pathways will help transition into a circular, resource-conserving economy. Herein, we introduce a dynamic material flow analysis (DMFA) framework based on electricity generation to quantify time-series stocks and flows of bulk PV materials (e.g., solar glass and aluminum frames) throughout the life cycles of utility-scale silicon PV systems in the U.S. in the period 2000-2100. We apply the model to a range of scenarios to understand how material demands depend on selected PV-related parameters, different material circularity strategies, and recent module design trends (e.g., bifacial, frameless). We found that float glass and aluminum in PV installations would likely reach 100 million MT and 12 million MT by 2100, respectively, in the baseline scenario. The most influential parameters for PV installation and subsequent waste reduction are found to be module lifetime, module efficiency, annual degradation, and material reduction. Module recycling and component remanufacturing were found to be the most effective material circularity strategies for waste minimization. Panel reuse has negligible savings on waste under current module efficiencies compared to replacements with newer generations with higher efficiency. Ongoing trends to produce larger power frameless modules could save 10 million MT of glass and ~9 million MT of aluminum. Our results enable advanced planning for future materials needs and provide insight into potential opportunities to minimize waste.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

A Circularity Assessment for Silicon Solar Panels Based on Dynamic Material Flow Analysis: Preprint

Solar photovoltaics (PV) are the fastest growing renewable energy technology for clean, inexpensive, and sustainable electricity generation. Along with numerous technical roadmaps to improve system cost, performance and reliability, the PV industry should also plan to handle large volumes of silicon panel waste, which is initially estimated to be ~13 million metric tons (MT) by 2050 in the U.S. alone. Understanding the magnitude of material needs and how material flows throughout the PV panel life cycle could respond to design, operational and different end-of-life (EOL) circular pathways will help transition into a circular, resource-conserving economy. Herein, we introduce a dynamic material flow analysis (DMFA) framework based on electricity generation to quantify time-series stocks and flows of bulk PV materials (e.g., solar glass and aluminum frames) throughout the life cycles of utility-scale silicon PV systems in the U.S. in the period 2000-2100. We apply the model to a range of scenarios to understand how material demands depend on selected PV-related parameters, different material circularity strategies, and recent module design trends (e.g., bifacial, frameless). We found that float glass and aluminum in PV installations would likely reach 100 million MT and 12 million MT by 2100, respectively, in the baseline scenario. The most influential parameters for PV installation and subsequent waste reduction are found to be module lifetime, module efficiency, annual degradation, and material reduction. Module recycling and component remanufacturing were found to be the most effective material circularity strategies for waste minimization. Panel reuse has negligible savings on waste under current module efficiencies compared to replacements with newer generations with higher efficiency. Ongoing trends to produce larger power frameless modules could save 10 million MT of glass and ~9 million MT of aluminum. Our results enable advanced planning for future materials needs and provide insight into potential opportunities to minimize waste.

circular economy↗
DOE OSTI2023

Impingement panel support structure and method of manufacture

An integrated combustor nozzle includes a combustion liner that extends between an inner liner segment and an outer liner segment along a radial direction. The combustion liner including a forward end portion, an aft end portion, a first side wall, and a second side wall. An impingement panel having an impingement plate disposed along an exterior surface of one of the inner liner segment or the outer liner segment. The impingement plate defines a plurality of impingement apertures that direct coolant in discrete jets towards the exterior surface of the inner liner segment or the outer liner segment. The impingement panel includes an inlet portion that extends from the impingement plate to a collection duct. The impingement panel further includes a plurality of supports spaced apart from one another. The plurality of supports extend between, and are coupled to, the inlet portion, the collection duct, and the impingement plate.

Berry, Jonathan Dwight↗
DOE OSTI2019

Panel Session 14: US DOE WIPP - Future Plans for the Utilization of a National Asset

This panel focused on the next phase of restoring the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP: located in Carlsbad, New Mexico, USA) to full disposal operations. The US DOE Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) is funded for two Capital Asset Projects that will facilitate the restoration of WIPP to full capability and allow for future repository space planning. The panel will include updates on the capital projects, infrastructure improvements to extend WIPP's operational life, regulatory actions in support of capital projects, and improvements in new processes to implement WAC and DSA enhancements. This panel is filled by CBFO and WIPP contractor leaders to provide the big picture leading to WIPP's future. Presentations proposed include: 1 - 2018 WIPP Year in Review (Bruce Covert, Nuclear Waste Partnership, LLC (USA)); 2 - TRU Waste Shipments and WIPP Operations (Mark Pearcy, Nuclear Waste Partnership, LLC (USA)); 3 - Projects and Activities at WIPP (Ronald Gill, US DOE (USA)); 4 - The Future of WIPP (J.R. Stroble, US DOE (USA), Todd Shrader, US DOE (USA))

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2019

Panel Session 56: Nuclear Power Plant Waste Management - US LLW Disposal Issues

This panel focused on specific disposal site issues with the disposal site operators. Representatives from each of the operating commercial disposal sites presented an update of their facility, license, and waste acceptance criteria (WAC) followed by a panel discussion in response to audience questions. WM attendees that ship their radioactive waste to one or more of these commercial disposal sites attended this panel session. Presentations proposed include: 1 - US Nuclear Power Plant Waste Management - US LLW Disposal Issues (Joe Weismann, US Ecology (USA)); 2 - Waste Control Specialists Update 2019 (Dan Burns, Waste Control Specialists LLC (USA)); 3 - Barnwell LLRW Disposal Facility (Mark Lewis, EnergySolutions (USA), Benjamin Smith, Chem Nuclear Systems (USA)); 4 - EnergySolutions Clive Treatment and Disposal Facility Update (Bret Rogers, EnergySolutions (USA))

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2019

Panel Session 75: US NRC - Current and Emerging US NRC Regulatory Topics

The panel addressed several current and emerging NRC regulatory issues impacting the radioactive waste arena. The panelists provided different perspectives on several key issues such as the revision of 10 CFR Part 61, scoping study on very low-level waste and consolidated interim storage of spent nuclear fuel among other timely regulatory topics. Co-Chairs, John Tappert and Larry Camper, introduced the session panel members and provided a summary of the purpose of the session. The panel focused on several current and emerging US NRC regulatory issues impacting the radioactive waste arena and stakeholders. The panelists provided different perspectives on several key regulatory issues such as: the revision of 10CFR Part 61, the Greater-than-Class C (GTCC) and Transuranic (TRU) waste disposal, coping with studies on very low-level waste and waste classification system, as well as other timely regulatory topics. Presentations proposed include: 1 - Overview of NRC Low-Level Radioactive Waste Activities and Initiatives (Christepher McKenney, US NRC (USA)); 2 - Is the Grass Really Greener? Canadian Regulatory Perspective (Karine Glenn, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (Canada)); 3 - EPRI Perspectives on 10CFR61 Revision (Lisa Edwards, EPRI (USA)); 4 - State of Nuclear Industry and Radwaste Management (Janet Schlueter, Nuclear Energy Institute (USA)); 5 - Concrete Steps the U.S. NRC Can Take to Improve LLW Disposal (Tom Magette, Talisman International (USA))

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2019

Panel Session 81: Engaging on Safety at the Work Face - Workers, Front Line Managers, and Subcontractors

This panel focuses on engaging on safety at the work face, with the people who are there every day. This panel will discuss management approaches deployed to directly engage internal and subcontracted workers that have delivered measurable improvements in safety performance and culture. The panelists will share what they did that worked and their perspectives on why. About 24 to 30 people were in attendance. All statements below are paraphrased by the panel reporter and should not be considered direct quotes by the panelists. Presentations proposed include: 1 - Engaging on Safety at the Work Face: Workers, Front Line Managers, and Subcontractors (Jan Preston, Fluor Corporation (USA)); 2 - Responsibility for Safety: Workers and Line Management Joining Together to Improve Performance (Cynthia Williams, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (Canada)); 3 - Worker Involvement: Trust and the Processing of the Remediated Nitrate Salts (David Funk, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)); 4 - Safety Culture: How Employee Engagement is Transforming the Paducah Site (Myrna Espinosa Redfield, Four Rivers Nuclear Partnership (USA)); 5 - Hazard Identification and Control: Subcontractor Performance, Oversight, and Continuous Improvement (Clint Wolfley, URS/CH2M Oak Ridge - UCOR (USA)); 6 - Managing Safety Performance Through Change (Alice Doswell, Fluor (USA))

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2019

Panel Session 83: Development of the DOE Mercury Management Strategy

This panel discussion addressed the current efforts to develop an integrated strategy for managing the mercury (Hg) challenges across the DOE complex, including challenges in remediation of Hg contamination and related ongoing or planned technology development efforts across the EM complex. Panel members discussed opportunities for collaboration in defining and implementing a mercury management strategy for the various sites, national laboratories, and contractors and for all to provide technical information for DOE to develop an integrated, cost effective Hg management strategy. Emphasis of the panel was placed on challenges at the Oak Ridge Reservation and the Savannah River Site. Opening remarks were made by Ming Zhu. Ming stated that the Academy of Sciences recently released a report on the challenges of addressing Hg in the environment; the report leveraged recent remedial efforts. Presentations proposed include: 1 - Approach to Addressing Mercury at Y-12 (Brian Henry, US DOE OREM (USA)); 2 - Mercury Management Strategy (Renee Echols, FireWater Associates, LLC (USA)); 3 - Integration of Science to Address Mercury Clean-up Challenge (Eric Pierce, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (USA)); 4 - Mercury Related Research and Development by CRESP (Kevin Brown, Vanderbilt University - CRESP (USA)); 5 - Lessons Learned from D and D of West COLEX (Kent Fortenberry, UCOR (USA)); 6 - Mercury in the SRS Liquid Waste System (Richard Edwards, Savannah River Remediation (USA)); 7 - TDD Program on Mercury at Savannah River (Bill Wilmarth, Savannah River National Laboratory (USA))

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2019

Panel Session 126: US and International Waste Classifications; Differences and Issues

The panel focused and addressed the existing US waste classification scheme set forth in US 10 CFR Part 61 and DOE Order 435.1 focusing upon the commensurate risk associated with the disposal of radioactive Low-Level (LLW) and High-Level Waste (HLW). The panel provided insights on the ongoing efforts by the NRC in conducting its Very LLW Scoping Study, the waste classification scheme used by the IAEA with a comparison of that system to the waste classification regulatory process in the US and the increasing role of RCRA sites in disposal of LLW in the US. The process used for very low activity waste disposal known as Bulk Survey for Release in the State of Tennessee was discussed as well as various studies conducted by EPRI addressing the relative risks of very low activity waste will be addressed. The panel strived to compare the risks of radioactive LLW and HLW to the operational process used for its disposal in the US and Internationally and determine if changes are needed in the process. The audience heard the perspectives from six panelists that addressed issues ranging from the technical basis used to establish the waste classification system specified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 61 developed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; the approaches and impacts for dispositioning materials with Very Low Levels of Radioactive Waste (VLLRW); approaches used by the Department of Energy (DOE) to disposition Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLW) in accordance with Order 435.1; and methods adopted by the international community to classify and disposition LLW and Intermediate Level Waste (ILW). A summary of each of the presentations given by the panelists is provided herein. Presentations proposed include: 1 - U.S. Low-Level Radioactive Waste Classification System 10 CFR Part 61 - Basis, Updates, and Issues (Rateb (Boby) Abu Eid, US NRC (USA)); 2 - EPRI Research on the Technical Basis for VLLW Classification (Lisa Edwards, EPRI (USA)); 3 - Division of Radiological Health (Anthony Hogan, State of Tennessee (USA)); 4 - Perspectives on VLLW Based on EPA's Low Activity Waste Effort (Thomas Peake, US EPA (USA)); 5 - US Department of Energy Perspectives on Waste Classification (Justin Marble, US DOE (USA))

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Panel Session 134: Stakeholder Involvement in Consolidated ISF Storage, Disposal, and Transportation Initiatives

Planning of activities related to waste storage, transportation, and disposal requires involvement and engagement on the parts of both regulators and stakeholders. There have been challenges felt by both parties, which has led to discussions about how to best proceed with projects not just from a technical perspective, but how to create better relationships between the general public and scientific community. This panel was designed to highlight lessons learned, best practices, and next steps in anticipated projects. This panel focused on the current efforts undertaken by initiatives to involve stakeholders for the success of ISF Storage and Disposal facilities. For example, two license applications were submitted to the US NRC by two private entities - Interim Storage Partners (WCS, Inc, and Orano) and Holtec, Inc./ELLA - for consolidated ISF in West Texas and in NM (respectively). This panel discussed elements needed for success in engaging various stakeholders at all levels of the project life cycle, and can include lessons learned from previous projects. Panelists with presentations: Stakeholder Engagement in SNF Storage and Disposal (Miriam Juckett); Stakeholders, Siting and Nuclear Waste Disposal -Thoughts on a Path Forward (Jim Hamilton)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2024

The Hard Life of Floatovoltaics: Modeling Wind-Driven Oscillations of Floating Solar Panels

Modern, thin photovoltaic (PV) panels for solar power are susceptible to high stress loads in windy conditions. Manufacturers are eager to determine optimal installation practices to reduce these loads, including in the relatively new practice of installing PV on floating structures located on artificial and natural lakes. As part of our effort to develop simulation capabilities for stress on such floating PV systems, we here present our combined model-simulation approach, which simulates the dynamic wind loading and uses modeled elements to capture both the hydrodynamic and mooring-line forces. We discuss the forces important for our model and the challenges inherent in our simulation. Of particular interest is our model of the hysteresis response displayed by the attached mooring lines, which are engineered to damp motion and oscillation of the floating panel system. We validate our approach against the benchmark problem of vortex-induced vibration of a cylinder, which is driven by the same dynamic forces present in floating PV panels.

floating↗
DOE OSTI2025

A review of prefabricated overclad panels for building energy retrofits

Over 50% of existing buildings in the US were constructed before 1980 and lack modern, energy-efficient technologies. Despite the large number of old buildings, less than 2% of buildings are retrofitted each year with many of those retrofits consisting of small incremental improvements that often ignore the building envelope. The opaque building envelope affects 25% of building energy use equating to 10% of total US primary energy use. To meet decarbonization goals by 2035, the US must increase the rate of retrofit of existing building envelopes. The process of prefabrication is one potential opportunity to increase the rate of envelope retrofits and reduce costs. Prefabrication is the process of manufacturing construction components in a controlled environment before shipping them on-site to perform assembly of the construction. The process of prefabrication has been demonstrated to increase production efficiency, quality control, and rate of production. Prefabricated overclad panels, consisting of a cladding material and insulation designed to be installed over the existing envelope, have been successfully used to retrofit existing buildings in countries other than the US; however, the technology still has some barriers to major market adoption within the US. This paper will present a review of current implementations and demonstrations of prefabricated overclad panels. The review will include identification of panel types, materials, and applications and aims to identify barriers to retrofit market entry and widespread adoption.

Hayes, Nolan [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000332245718)↗