Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Systems Performance Lab”

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 1,207 records · Page 67
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2023

Approaches for Validation of Lighting Environments in Realtime Lunar South Pole Simulations

NASA’s Artemis campaign is making heavy use of simulation to help return humans to the lunar surface by the end of the decade. There are several aspects of the lunar surface and its environment which must be accurately modeled before these simulations can be relied upon to influence decisions being made under these programs. Digital Lunar Exploration Sites, a paper submitted to the 2022 IEEE Aerospace Conference, outlined the process used to generate the lunar surface in a digital environment. This paper will expand upon this topic and delve into the steps being taken by the NASA Exploration Systems Simulations (NExSyS) team at NASA’s Johnson Space Center (JSC) to properly verify and validate these simulations, with a focus on the visual aspects of the environment. Natural lighting validation relies in part on the wealth of data generated during the Apollo program. Many images taken by Apollo astronauts on the lunar surface have been replicated in the simulated environments to gain confidence in the accuracy of terrain and lighting models. However, because the environment the Artemis astronauts will experience at the Lunar South Pole (LSP) is dissimilar from the near-equatorial Apollo sites, other validation techniques must be applied. At the LSP, the sun crests only about 1.5 degrees above the horizon and when combined with the lack of a lunar atmosphere, lighting in this region is often very different than what a human would experience on Earth. Solar illumination, earthshine, human eye response, solar blooming, lunar regolith optical properties, and shadows cast by rocks and crater walls will play a significant role in an astronaut’s ability to safely conduct an Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) or perform a traverse with a lunar rover. Approaches for validation of these aspects of the rendered LSP environment are considered in this paper. In addition to natural lighting, approaches for the validation of artificial lighting models at the LSP are discussed. The JSC Lighting Lab has been studying the illumination profile of the Exploration Informatics Subsystem (xINFO) lighting on the Exploration EVA Mobility Unit (xEMU). How these lights interact with the solar illumination and the shadows being cast on the lunar surface is of particular interest, so the validity of models representing these lights in a human-in-the-loop virtual reality environment becomes very important. This paper also touches on some of the simulation performance considerations when a Human in the Loop (HITL) is present, which drives the need for realtime rendering of the environment. Natural and artificial lighting will play a crucial role to decisions being made when planning and executing missions at the Lunar South Pole (LSP) and it is vitally important to understand the LSP environment before we return.

Lunar↗
DOE OSTI2018

Materials for Advanced Ultra-Supercritical (AUSC) Steam Turbines – AUSC Component Demonstration

The work by the United States Department of Energy (U.S. DOE)/Ohio Coal Development Office (OCDO) Advanced Ultra-Supercritical (AUSC) Steam Boiler and Turbine Materials Consortia from 2001 through September 2015 was primarily focused on lab scale and pilot scale materials testing. The field testing included air-cooled probes and steam-cooled “loops” that were installed into existing utility boilers to gain exposure of these materials to realistic conditions of high temperature and corrosion due to the constituents in the coal ash. Successful research and development resulted in identification of metallic alloy materials and fabrication processes suited for power generation applications with metal temperatures up to approximately 1472°F (800°C). These materials or alloys have shown, in extensive laboratory tests and shop fabrication studies, to have excellent applicability for high-efficiency low CO2 transformational power generation technologies. However, as valuable as these material field tests have been for obtaining information, their scale is significantly below that required to minimize the risk associated with a power company building a multi-billion-dollar AUSC power plant. To decrease the identified risk barriers to full-scale implementation of these advanced materials, the U.S. DOE/OCDO AUSC Steam Boiler and Turbine Materials Consortia identified the key areas of the technology that need to be tested at a larger scale. Based upon the recommendations and outcome of a Consortia-sponsored workshop with the U.S.’s leading utilities, a Component Test (ComTest) Program for AUSC was proposed. The AUSC ComTest program would define materials performance requirements, plan for overall advanced system integration, design critical component tests, fabricate components for testing from advanced materials, and carry out the tests. A Pre-FEED evaluation of the test facility including the evaluation of three potential sites has been completed and previously reported. This report describes the Front-End Engineering Design (FEED), Detailed Engineering and the Environmental Assessment of the ComTest project. A significant amount of work was accomplished during Phase 1 to identity the components, as well as the component size, that would be manufactured from advanced alloys such as INCONEL 740H or HAYNES 282 alloys. Pathways to supply these components for ComTest have been identified as well as any further development that would be required. Every project of this nature has challenges and this project was no exception. The greatest challenge has been the project cost. Largely due to the infrastructure and balance of plant equipment upgrades required for Youngstown Thermal, the estimated project cost for the “base case” project was greater than originally budgeted. The project team spent a significant amount of time exploring opportunities for reducing the project cost. These options included: • Youngstown Thermal was exploring building a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) unit at their facility. The Youngstown Thermal staff, supported by Thermal Engineering Group, worked with the project team to determine whether it was economically desirable to supply ComTest with steam and other utilities, which would be supplied by the CHP project. • The project team also evaluated opportunities to optimize the project scope to reduce cost, such as reducing project scope by eliminating the Superheater Outlet Header test. • Southern Company had offered two sites as possible host locations for ComTest. Both sites had infrastructure in place such as steam from an existing unit, natural gas, cooling water and ample electrical power that would be required to be added at the Youngstown Thermal site. Utilizing this existing infrastructure could reduce the project cost. An additional project challenge was the departure of Babcock and Wilcox from the project in September 2016. This project setback was overcome by GE Power’s willingness to assume the design of the ComTest superheater. Since the project could not proceed without the superheater, this was a very positive project development. The merger of the GE Power and Alstom Power steam turbine divisions created synergies leading to the conclusion that instead of building a small-scale turbine, a more practical and useful endeavor would be to validate the manufacturing technology and supplier readiness for fabricating and machining full scale steam turbine components. Consequently, in March 2017, GE Power decided that a steam turbine test would not be necessary as part of the ComTest demonstration. Removing the operational testing of the steam turbine from ComTest further reduced the total project cost. Additionally, there was an opportunity to move ComTest from Youngstown Thermal to one of the Southern Company sites and operate ComTest at supercritical steam conditions and test the steam turbine main stop/control valve at a temperature and pressure that would be representative of the conditions of a high pressure steam turbine inlet valve. The steam could also possibly be returned to the host boiler so there would be no economic penalty of using this steam for ComTest. Relocating the project could further reduce the project cost due to the infrastructure already in place, including high pressure natural gas and cooling water, and the potential for heat integration, allowing a reduction of operating costs. Due to these potential cost reductions, it was decided to move the project away from Youngstown Thermal in March 2017. As integrating ComTest at the Southern Company site was explored, an issue was raised regarding the integration of the ComTest cycle with the plant steam cycle. Steam would be supplied to ComTest at nominally ~3865 psia and 775°F. The steam would be heated with natural gas to 1400°F for the valve test and then cooled to 1000°F so that the steam would be returned to the host boiler at the same conditions as their high pressure steam turbine inlet. However, there were concerns raised that the addition of the energy (natural gas) to the steam could trigger a New Source Review on the unit. Southern Company did not want ComTest to cause this review, so condensing all of the steam exiting ComTest and returning it to the host steam cycle as condensate was explored to insure there would be no implication that ComTest was adding energy to the host plant’s steam cycle. Ultimately, Southern Company decided that they wanted to “decouple” ComTest from the operating unit, making ComTest self-supporting, similar to the Youngstown Thermal “base case.” Without the steam turbine, the project team reached a consensus that operating the ComTest Superheater and steam turbine valves at the typical pressure of a package boiler (~1000 psig) would not generate enough useful technical information to justify the cost of the test. Therefore, it was decided in the December 2017 project quarterly meeting to cancel the operational phase of ComTest. Throughout the engineering phase of ComTest, manufacturing and supply chain challenges were identified. When GE Power recommended dropping the steam turbine test from ComTest, they identified many important manufacturing issues that should be evaluated and demonstrated. Other challenges had been raised by the GE Power group designing the superheater as well as those engineering components such as pressure relief and steam turbine bypass valves. In the December 2017 meeting, the project team decided that it was more beneficial to the AUSC technology to pursue these manufacturing and supply chain issues as Phase 2 of the ComTest project. This report is organized in the following manner: • Section 2 discusses the ComTest project background and organization. • Section 3 discussed project management. • Section 4 discusses the design of the ComTest AUSC components – the Superheater, steam turbine and Superheater Outlet Header. • Section 5 discusses the implementation of ComTest at Youngstown Thermal and the Southern Company site. • Section 6 discusses the development of the AUSC Supply Chain • Section 7 discusses the recommended plan for Phase 2 of ComTest

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2025

ClimGen: Learning the Forcing-Response Relationship in Climate System

Solar Radiation Management (SRM) is emerging as a potential geoengineering strategy to address the anthropogenic impact on climate, but its effective implementation requires an iterative and large ensemble of highly accurate and efficient climate projections. Traditional climate projections rely on executing computationally demanding and time-consuming numerical climate models. Recent advances in machine learning (ML) aim to enhance these approaches by emulating traditional methods. In this work, we propose a novel framework for directly learning the relationship between solar radiation flux at the top of the atmosphere and the corresponding surface temperature response. To evaluate the feasibility of this direct ML-based projection, we developed a dataset using an intermediate complexity model, incorporating a comprehensive suite of different forcing patterns and evaluation metrics to rigorously assess the ML model’s performance. We introduce a Conditional Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Model (cDDPM) for this task, which demonstrates encouraging skill in representing climate statistics under previously unseen forcing patterns. This approach provides a promising pathway for direct climate projections by accurately learning the forcing-response relationship, with a wide range of applications in impact mitigation, emissions policy design, and SRM strategies.

Chen, Tse-Chun [BATTELLE (PACIFIC NW LAB)] (ORCID:↗
DOE OSTI2026

Providing Thermal Stability for an Exascale Supercomputer: A Case Study of Frontier's Cooling System

High performance computing (HPC) systems frequently produce large dynamic power swings, even under typical operating conditions, that can present a significant challenge for their direct-liquid cooling systems. Further, the primary cooling loops that must remove this waste heat have response times measured in minutes while the underlying HPC component thermal stress is measured in seconds. The per-socket power demand for both compute processing units (CPUs) and graphic processing units ( GPUs) continues to increase with each successive generation while case temperatures are declining. New HPC systems are expected to exacerbate the challenge of these dynamic power swings and the impact on effective and timely cooling systems. This paper describes the cooling and controls system for Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s Frontier Supercomputer, the first sustained exascale system, as a case study for this situation. The cooling and control system for Frontier demonstrates specific success, but with a number of trade-offs and decisions that suggest further design and operating optimizations for the community at large to consider.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2017

Progress Updates for the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Project - 17275

The Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) Project is vital to the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) mission to cleanup radioactive waste at the Hanford Site, located in southeastern Washington State. The overall WTP Project objective is to design, build, and commission the facilities and systems that will treat and immobilize approximately 211 983 m{sup 3} (56 million gallons) of radioactive waste stored in Hanford's 177 underground storage tanks. The combination of technologies in the WTP makes it a first-of-a-kind facility at a scale larger than ever built for radioactive waste processing. In 2012, DOE suspended production work on the WTP's Pretreatment (PT) Facility and to a lesser degree the High-Level Waste (HLW) Facility because of unresolved technical issues associated with those facilities. DOE is proceeding with its approach to complete the WTP Project in phases, which includes the following principal actions: - Completing construction of the Low-Activity Waste (LAW) Facility, Balance of Facilities (BOF), and Analytical Laboratory (LAB), collectively known as LBL; - Implementing a direct-feed low-activity waste (DFLAW) process to treat low-activity waste independent of the PT Facility; - Completing the design and construction of the HLW Facility; - Resolving the technical issues associated with the PT Facility; - Completing all WTP facilities to enable integrated WTP operations. In March 2016, a federal judge amended the 2010 Consent Decree, establishing revised milestone dates for the Hanford WTP that generally align with DOE's plans for completing the WTP facilities in sequence. In December 2016, DOE executed a contract modification and approved a change to the project's performance baseline to complete the LBL facilities and incorporate modifications needed to accommodate direct feed of low-activity waste to the LAW Facility. The contract modification and revised performance baseline support completion of hot commissioning of the WTP facilities needed for DFLAW operations no later than December 31, 2023. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2025

Interplay between hydrogen, temperature, and character angle on dissociated dislocation energies in Fe–Ni–Cr austenitic stainless steels

Dislocation energy has an important role in the mechanical performance of structural metals. While dislocation energies cannot be fully obtained from continuum theories due to the contribution of the dislocation core, they have been calculated via atomistic simulations in elemental metals. However, constraints on the local atomic environments have prevented the use of such approaches in systems that incorporate alloying or interstitial solutes. In this work, we develop robust molecular dynamics methods to resolve these issues through a geometric construction of dislocation dipoles and the calculation of time-averaged energies. Furthermore, we apply these methods to calculate dislocation energies (including core energies) in an Fe 70 Ni 11 Cr 19 austenitic steel at a variety of character angles, hydrogen concentrations, temperatures, and dipole spacings. The resulting highly converged energies show an excellent agreement with continuum expressions. Overall, hydrogen concentrations up to 1.0 % do not have a significant effect on the elastic parameters and dislocation energy. The methods and insights derived in this work have the potential to facilitate the calculation of dislocation energies in a wide range of systems, and to guide our understanding of hydrogen embrittlement.

Alloyed systems↗
DOE OSTI2016

Materials for Advanced Ultra-supercritical (A-USC) Steam Turbines – A-USC Component Demonstration

The work by the United States Department of Energy (U.S. DOE)/Ohio Coal Development Office (OCDO) advanced ultra-supercritical (A-USC) Steam Boiler and Turbine Materials Consortia from 2001 through September 2015 was primarily focused on lab scale and pilot scale materials testing. This testing included air- or steam-cooled “loops” that were inserted into existing utility boilers to gain exposure of these materials to realistic conditions of high temperature and corrosion due to the constituents in the coal. Successful research and development resulted in metallic alloy materials and fabrication processes suited for power generation applications with metal temperatures up to approximately 1472°F (800°C). These materials or alloys have shown, in extensive laboratory tests and shop fabrication studies, to have excellent applicability for high-efficiency low CO 2 transformational power generation technologies previously mentioned. However, as valuable as these material loops have been for obtaining information, their scale is significantly below that required to minimize the risk associated with a power company building a multi-billion dollar A-USC power plant. To decrease the identified risk barriers to full-scale implementation of these advanced materials, the U.S. DOE/OCDO A-USC Steam Boiler and Turbine Materials Consortia identified the key areas of the technology that need to be tested at a larger scale. Based upon the recommendations and outcome of a Consortia-sponsored workshop with the U.S.’s leading utilities, a Component Test (ComTest) Program for A-USC was proposed. The A-USC ComTest program would define materials performance requirements, plan for overall advanced system integration, design critical component tests, fabricate components for testing from advanced materials, and carry out the tests. The AUSC Component Test was premised on the program occurring at multiple facilities, with the operating temperatures, pressure and/or size of these components determining the optimum test location. The first step of the ComTest, the steam turbine test, was determined best suited for a site in Youngstown, Ohio. Efforts were also undertaken to identify and evaluate other potential sites for high pressure testing.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
NASA NTRS2015

3-D CFD Simulation and Validation of Oxygen-Rich Hydrocarbon Combustion in a Gas-Centered Swirl Coaxial Injector using a Flamelet-Based Approach

Injector design is a critical part of the development of a rocket Thrust Chamber Assembly (TCA). Proper detailed injector design can maximize propulsion efficiency while minimizing the potential for failures in the combustion chamber. Traditional design and analysis methods for hydrocarbon-fuel injector elements are based heavily on empirical data and models developed from heritage hardware tests. Using this limited set of data produces challenges when trying to design a new propulsion system where the operating conditions may greatly differ from heritage applications. Time-accurate, Three-Dimensional (3-D) Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) modeling of combusting flows inside of injectors has long been a goal of the fluid analysis group at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) and the larger CFD modeling community. CFD simulation can provide insight into the design and function of an injector that cannot be obtained easily through testing or empirical comparisons to existing hardware. However, the traditional finite-rate chemistry modeling approach utilized to simulate combusting flows for complex fuels, such as Rocket Propellant-2 (RP-2), is prohibitively expensive and time consuming even with a large amount of computational resources. MSFC has been working, in partnership with Streamline Numerics, Inc., to develop a computationally efficient, flamelet-based approach for modeling complex combusting flow applications. In this work, a flamelet modeling approach is used to simulate time-accurate, 3-D, combusting flow inside a single Gas Centered Swirl Coaxial (GCSC) injector using the flow solver, Loci-STREAM. CFD simulations were performed for several different injector geometries. Results of the CFD analysis helped guide the design of the injector from an initial concept to a tested prototype. The results of the CFD analysis are compared to data gathered from several hot-fire, single element injector tests performed in the Air Force Research Lab EC-1 test facility located at Edwards Air Force Base.

Richardson, Brian↗
NASA NTRS2011

Design, Development and Test Challenges: Separation Mechanisms for the Orion Pad Abort-1 Flight Test

On May 6, 2010, NASA launched the first successful integrated flight test, Pad Abort-1, of the Orion Project from the White Sands Missile Range in Las Cruces, New Mexico. This test demonstrated the ability to perform an emergency pad abort of a full-scale 4.8 m diameter, 8200 kg crew capsule. During development of the critical separation mechanisms for this flight test, various challenges were overcome related to environments definition, installation complications, separation joint retraction speed, thruster ordnance development issues, load path validation and significant design loads increases. The Launch Abort System retention and release (LAS R&R) mechanism consisted of 6 discrete structural connections between the LAS and the crew module (CM) simulator, each of which had a preloaded tension tie, Superbolt torque-nut and frangible nut. During the flight test, the frangible nuts were pyrotechnically split, permitting the CM to separate from the LAS. The LAS separation event was the driving case in the shock environment for many co-located hardware items. During development testing, it was necessary to measure the source shock during the separation event so the predicted shock environment could be validated and used for certification testing of multiple hardware items. The Lockheed Martin test team measured the source separation shock due to the LAS R&R function, which dramatically decreased the predicted environment by 90% at 100 Hz. During development testing a hydraulic tensioner was used to preload the joint; however, the joint relaxation with the tensioner proved unsatisfactory so the design was modified to include a Superbolt torque-nut. The observed preload creep during lab testing was 4% after 30 days, with 2.5% occurring in the first 24 hours. The conversion of strain energy (preload) to kinetic energy (retraction) was measured to be 50-75%. Design features and careful monitoring of multiple strain gauges on each tension tie allowed a pure tensile load to be applied after stacking at the launch pad. Following installation, preload in each joint was monitored for 24 hours. Due to unforeseen complications and the influence of temperature on the portable data acquisition system, the team encountered difficulty in tracking the joint relaxation. In some cases, bond-line failure of the strain gauges occurred.

Dinsel, Alison↗
DOE OSTI2023

Design and Modeling of an Open-Source Baseline Floating Marine Turbine: Preprint

Marine energy resources such as river, tidal, and ocean currents can provide abundant, predictable, and clean power to both densely populated and remote communities globally. However, marine turbine technologies are still in an early stage of development. Recently, features have been added to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's open-source wind turbine modeling tool OpenFAST to support the simulation of axial-flow marine turbines. These new features enable marine energy developers to predict the performance and safety of their turbines and allow researchers and students to advance the field through the exploration of novel designs. Developing and demonstrating the new capabilities of OpenFAST for marine turbines requires a baseline design that can be used as an example and test case. There are limited open-source turbine models suitable for this purpose. One existing baseline design is the Reference Model 1 (RM1), a fixed-bottom, dual-rotor marine turbine that was published in 2014 as part of the Department of Energy's Water Power Reference Model Project. To test and demonstrate OpenFAST's ability to model floating marine turbines, several modifications were made to the RM1. A floating platform and mooring system were designed to support a single RM1 rotor in a wide range of possible current and wave conditions. The system and model are intended to be a stable reference case and starting point for research efforts. The platform features all cylindrical members and familiar design elements from the offshore wind industry; the mooring system uses simple catenary chains. While not optimized for the lowest platform cost, the design is understandable and robust and can serve as a baseline for floating marine turbine technologies. This is a useful starting point for studies to explore new technologies or design methodologies. Additionally, the floating RM1 design enables cross-collaboration among industry, academia, and national lab researchers and serves as an educational platform for newcomers to marine energy. This short paper presents the specifications of the turbine, including its floating support structure and mooring system. The rationale behind the selection of certain design parameters is described. To enable adoption of this baseline case for research and educational efforts, an OpenFAST model of the full system has been made publicly available at https://github.com/OpenFAST/r-test/tree/main/glue-codes/openfast/MHK_RM1_Floating.

floating↗
DOE OSTI2025

Mixed-Integer Linear Programming Formulation with Embedded Machine Learning Surrogates for the Design of Chemical Process Families

In previous work, we introduced process family design. The main idea is to design a platform of common elements, and, allowing us to capture additional cost savings, simultaneously design a family of processes, and reducing both engineering and deployment timelines. We formulate this as an optimization problem, specifically a nonlinear generalized disjunctive program (GDP). We have proposed two approaches for reformulating and solving this problem: one based on full-discretization of the design space and one that uses Machine Learning (ML) surrogates to replace the nonlinear process models. Using ML surrogates to predict required system costs and performance indicators allows us to reformulate the nonlinearities in the GDP generate an efficient MILP formulation. In this work, we apply the ML surrogate approach to two case studies. One case study involves designing a family of carbon capture systems to cover a set of different flue gas flow rates and inlet CO 2 concentrations, where we consider the absorber and stripper as common unit module types. The second case study focuses on a water-desalination process, where we design a family of these processes for a variety of salt concentrations and flow rates. In both of these case studies, we demonstrate a scalable optimization approach that enables the design of multiple processes simultaneously, reducing the time-to-market and overall costs by maximizing the cost savings due to both economies of scale and economies of numbers.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2024

Exploring the Landscape of Distributed Graph Clustering on Leadership Supercomputers

The rapid growth of large-scale datasets in fields like biology and social networks has driven the need for advanced graph analytics techniques. Community detection, a fundamental task in graph analytics, identifies closely connected groups of nodes within a network, providing valuable insights across various disciplines. This study focuses on two classic community detection methods, the Louvain algorithm and Markov Clustering (MCL), and evaluates the performance of two prominent distributed community detection algorithms: HiPDPL-GPU, our prior implementation, and HipMCL. We conduct experiments on GPU-accelerated heterogeneous HPC systems, Summit and Frontier, to assess their performance under varying conditions. Our objective is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of these algorithms in terms of scalability, and quality of solutions. We evaluate these algorithms on a diverse set of 70+ networks spanning 13 domains, with sizes ranging up to 4.2 billion edges. Our results demonstrate that HiPDPL-GPU consistently outperforms HipMCL, especially for large-scale networks. HiPDPL-GPU achieves significantly faster runtimes (47x to 1439x), higher modularity scores, and improved scalability. These findings highlight HiPDPL-GPU as a promising solution for efficient and effective large-scale graph analytics in diverse application domains, and provide insights into the feasibility of using MCL-based approaches for certain application domains.

Community detection, graph algorithms↗
DOE OSTI2025

Beyond Magic Barrels: Digital manufacturing for crystallization, process development and optimization of explosive materials: Part II Resveratrol Exemplar

This SAND report summarizes work supported by an Engineering Sciences Research Foundation (ESRF) Lab Directed Research and Development (LDRD) project entitled “Beyond Magic Barrels: Digital manufacturing for crystallization, process development and optimization of explosive materials.” This SAND report is written in two parts with Part 1 discusses recrystallization of our explosive exemplar and Part 2 summarizing our work with recrystallization of resveratrol. We have studied resveratrol recrystallization with a multiscale approach combining experiments, modeling and simulation. At the single crystal scale, microscopy experiments illuminate crystal time-dependent growth rates using advanced image analysis. Bench scale experiments were carried out to look at growth of multiple particles in a small reactor creating thousands of particles and analyzing the results with microscopy and μCT. For the modeling we combine kinetic Monte Carlo (kMC) models with subscale information from density functional theory (DFT) or molecular dynamics. This work is discussed in Part 1 and can also be found in a paper from the project discussing a coarse-grained kMC model specifically developed for resveratrol. For well-mixed systems, we have population balance equations (PBE) linked with species mass conservation forming a set of ordinary differential equations that can be solved quickly. For more complicated geometries, such as the vat crystallization used throughout the complex, a coupled computational fluid dynamic (CFD)/PBE method was developed to account for gradients in temperature and concentration and differences in crystallization rates throughout the domain. These simulations are more complex and require high performance computing. We present results for two cases: 5% seed fast cool with parameters fit to the well-mixed case and 5% seed slow cool using the same parameters. We show reasonable agreement with experiments though are particles are significantly larger than the experiments.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
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 OSTI2025

The Sensor Dilemma in Intelligent Transportation Systems

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) are at the forefront in advancing the way we interact and perceive with the transportation network. This revolution is fueled by the significant advancement in sensor perception technologies such as Radar, LiDAR and Video Imaging which are the most popular modalities for ITS. Real-time perception data from these sensors allows intelligent infrastructure side decision making to improve the energy, efficiency and safety at traffic intersections. As traffic departments across the United States are transitioning from traditional loop detectors / emulators and embracing newer technologies, they are often left with a dilemma in choosing a sensor technology for infrastructure-based perception which is reliable, inexpensive, easy to setup and has robust performance in varying weather conditions. However, choosing a sensor which checks all boxes is not straightforward as every sensor type has unique benefits and drawbacks. Radar is excellent at detecting long range vehicles and weather resistance but lacks high resolution. LiDAR is expensive and weather-sensitive, while cameras provide rich visual data at a low cost but are constrained by lighting and visibility. This study examines Radar, LiDAR and camera sensors capabilities to ascertain whether any of these qualifies as the "best" sensor for ITS perception. Through this evaluation, we hope to draw attention to the necessity of National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL) Infrastructure Perception and Control (IPC) framework which presents a multi-sensor track data fusion engine to assimilate multiple data streams in order to provide robust and reliable perception. While no single sensor can meet all the demands of ITS, a hybrid approach combining multiple sensor modalities like Radar, LiDAR and cameras, offers the most robust solution for enhancing the safety and efficiency in intelligent transportation systems.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗