Results for “propellants” — Page 7

Multi-element unstructured CFD has been utilized at NASA SSC to carry out analyses of propellant tank systems in different modes of operation. The three regimes of interest at SSC include (a) tank chill down (b) tank pressurization and (c) runtime propellant draw-down and purge. While tank chill down is an important event that is best addressed with long time-scale heat transfer calculations, CFD can play a critical role in the tank pressurization and runtime modes of operation. In these situations, problems with contamination of the propellant by inclusion of the pressurant gas from the ullage causes a deterioration of the quality of the propellant delivered to the test article. CFD can be used to help quantify the mixing and propellant degradation. During tank pressurization under some circumstances, rapid mixing of relatively warm pressurant gas with cryogenic propellant can lead to rapid densification of the gas and loss of pressure in the tank. This phenomenon can cause serious problems during testing because of the resulting decrease in propellant flow rate. With proper physical models implemented, CFD can model the coupling between the propellant and pressurant including heat transfer and phase change effects and accurately capture the complex physics in the evolving flowfields. This holds the promise of allowing the specification of operational conditions and procedures that could minimize the undesirable mixing and heat transfer inherent in propellant tank operation. It should be noted that traditional CFD modeling is inadequate for such simulations because the fluids in the tank are in a range of different sub-critical and supercritical states and elaborate phase change and mixing rules have to be developed to accurately model the interaction between the ullage gas and the propellant. We show a typical run-time simulation of a spherical propellant tank, containing RP-1 in this case, being pressurized with room-temperature nitrogen at 540 R. Nitrogen, shown in blue on the right-hand side of the figures, enters the tank from the diffuser at the top of the figures and impinges on the RP-1, shown in red, while the propellant is being continuously drained at the rate of 1050 lbs/sec through a pipe at the bottom of the tank. The sequence of frames in Figure 1 shows the resultant velocity fields and mixing between nitrogen and RP-1 in a cross-section of the tank at different times. A vortex is seen to form in the incoming nitrogen stream that tends to entrain propellant, mixing it with the pressurant gas. The RP-1 mass fraction contours in Figure 1 are also indicative of the level of mixing and contamination of the propellant. The simulation is used to track the propagation of the pure propellant front as it is drawn toward the exit with the evolution of the mixing processes in the tank. The CFD simulation modeled a total of 10 seconds of run time. As is seen from Figure 1d, after 5.65 seconds the propellant front is nearing the drain pipe, especially near the center of the tank. Behind this pure propellant front is a mixed fluid of compromised quality that would require the test to end when it reaches the exit pipe. Such unsteady simulations provide an estimate of the time that a high-quality propellant supply to the test article can be guaranteed at the modeled mass flow rate. In the final paper, we will discuss simulations of the LOX and propellant tanks at NASA SSC being pressurized by an inert ullage. Detailed comparisons will be made between the CFD simulations and lower order models as well as with test data. Conditions leading to cryo collapse in the tank will also be identified.

Field, Robert E.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

X-57 “Maxwell” High-Lift Propeller Testing and Model Development

NASA’s X-57 “Maxwell” distributed electric propulsion flight demonstrator has a high-lift system that includes 12 fixed-pitch high-lift propellers located upstream of the wing leading edge for lift augmentation at low speeds. These high-lift propellers are not required at higher speeds and are folded conformally along the nacelles to reduce drag when not in operation. Aircraft performance models and flight simulations incorporate propeller performance to predict thrust, moments, and power consumption and propeller model accuracy is important in identifying safe operating regimes for this aircraft. Current high-lift propeller performance models have been verified and calibrated against numerous computational fluid dynamics analyses under a variety of flight conditions. We performed a series of full-scale wind tunnel tests at the NASA Langley Research Center Low Speed Aeroacoustic Wind Tunnel to further validate these models, to identify any adverse operating conditions for these propellers, and to assess the accuracy of the facility’s new Propeller Test Stand. The results indicate that the models accurately predicted performance and that the right-handed propeller showed lower torque and thrust for a given propeller speed compared to the left-handed version. Acoustic data support these measurements, showing higher tonal noise for the left versus right propeller. We suspect this is due to slight differences in the material properties between the early production (right) and more recent (left) blade sets leading to greater detwisting in the right-handed blades under load. Both propellers demonstrated very stable operation throughout the test including during deployment, stowing, and windmilling. Furthermore, high-speed imagery of the spinning propeller indicated no blade oscillations or instabilities for any test case. We also leveraged these images to analyze the effects of propeller loading on blade detwisting and tip position. Unfortunately, the thrust measurements varied significantly during the test due to cross-loading of the Propeller Test Stand load cell, though trends in the thrust data were still observable. The torque measurement, however, remained very precise for all test points and was used for performance comparisons. As a result of this test, we validated and improved the X-57 high-lift propeller performance models, obtained detailed propeller acoustic data and high-speed imagery, observed the propeller operating safely during a variety of dynamic events, and identified two potentially adverse, low-propeller-speed conditions which will be avoided during normal aircraft operation.

X-57↗

NASA NTRS2016

Green Propellant Landing Demonstration at U.S. Range

The Green Propellant Loading Demonstration (GPLD) was conducted December 2015 at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF), leveraging work performed over recent years to bring lower toxicity hydrazine replacement green propellants to flight missions. The objective of this collaboration between NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), WFF, the Swedish National Space Board (SNSB), and Ecological Advanced Propulsion Systems (ECAPS) was to successfully accept LMP-103S propellant at a U.S. Range, store the propellant, and perform a simulated flight vehicle propellant loading. NASA GSFC Propulsion (Code 597) managed all aspects of the operation, handling logistics, preparing the procedures, and implementing the demonstration. In addition to the partnership described above, Moog Inc. developed an LMP-103S propellant-compatible titanium rolling diaphragm flight development tank and loaned it to GSFC to act as the GPLD flight vessel. The flight development tank offered the GPLD an additional level of flight-like propellant handling process and procedures. Moog Inc. also provided a compatible latching isolation valve for remote propellant expulsion. The GPLD operation, in concert with Moog Inc. executed a flight development tank expulsion efficiency performance test using LMP-103S propellant. As part of the demonstration work, GSFC and WFF documented Range safety analyses and practices including all elements of shipping, storage, handling, operations, decontamination, and disposal. LMP-103S has not been previously handled at a U.S. Launch Range. Requisite for this activity was an LMP-103S Risk Analysis Report and Ground Safety Plan. GSFC and WFF safety offices jointly developed safety documentation for application into the GPLD operation. The GPLD along with the GSFC Propulsion historical hydrazine loading experiences offer direct comparison between handling green propellant versus safety intensive, highly toxic hydrazine propellant. These described motives initiated the GPLD operation in order to investigate the handling and process safety variances in project resources between LMP-103S and typical in-space propellants. The GPLD risk reduction operation proved successful for many reasons including handling the green propellant at a U.S. Range, loading and pressurizing a flight-like tank, expelling the propellant, measuring the tank expulsion efficiency, and most significantly, GSFC propulsion personnel's new insight into the LMP-103S propellant handling details.

Propellant↗

NASA NTRS2016

Green Propellant Loading Demonstration at U.S. Range

The Green Propellant Loading Demonstration (GPLD) was conducted December 2015 at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF), leveraging work performed over recent years to bring lower toxicity hydrazine replacement green propellants to flight missions. The objective of this collaboration between NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), WFF, the Swedish National Space Board (SNSB), and Ecological Advanced Propulsion Systems (ECAPS) was to successfully accept LMP-103S propellant at a U.S. Range, store the propellant, and perform a simulated flight vehicle propellant loading. NASA GSFC Propulsion (Code 597) managed all aspects of the operation, handling logistics, preparing the procedures, and implementing the demonstration. In addition to the partnership described above, Moog Inc. developed an LMP-103S propellant-compatible titanium rolling diaphragm flight development tank and loaned it to GSFC to act as the GPLD flight vessel. The flight development tank offered the GPLD an additional level of flight-like propellant handling process and procedures. Moog Inc. also provided a compatible latching isolation valve for remote propellant expulsion. The GPLD operation, in concert with Moog Inc. executed a flight development tank expulsion efficiency performance test using LMP-103S propellant. As part of the demonstration work, GSFC and WFF documented Range safety analyses and practices including all elements of shipping, storage, handling, operations, decontamination, and disposal. LMP-103S has not been previously handled at a U.S. Launch Range. Requisite for this activity was an LMP-103S Risk Analysis Report and Ground Safety Plan. GSFC and WFF safety offices jointly developed safety documentation for application into the GPLD operation. The GPLD along with the GSFC Propulsion historical hydrazine loading experiences offer direct comparison between handling green propellant versus safety intensive, highly toxic hydrazine propellant. These described motives initiated the GPLD operation in order to investigate the handling and process safety variances in project resources between LMP-103S and typical in-space propellants. The GPLD risk reduction operation proved successful for many reasons including handling the green propellant at a U.S. Range, loading and pressurizing a flight-like tank, expelling the propellant, measuring the tank expulsion efficiency, and most significantly, GSFC propulsion personnel's new insight into the LMP-103S propellant handling details.

Green Propellant↗

NASA NTRS1993

Ignition propagation and heat effects of propellant chips embedded in castable inhibitor using a laser flux test bomb

A castable inhibitor is applied to the aft face of the Space Shuttle Redesigned Solid Rocket Motor (RSRM) forward segment propellant grain to control propellant surface burn area. During fabrication, the propellant surface is trimmed prior to the inhibitor application. This produces a potential for small propellant chips to remain undetected on the propellant surface and contaminate the inhibitor during application. The concern was that undetected propellant chips in the inhibitor might provide a fuse path for premature propellant ignition underneath the inhibitor. To evaluate the fuse path potential, testing was performed on inhibitor samples with embedded propellant. The internal motor environment was simulated with a calibrated CO2 laser beam directed onto a sample which was placed in a 4100 kPa (600 psi) nitrogen pressurized bomb (laser bomb). The testing showed definitive results pertaining to fuse path formation. Embedded propellant chips did not autoignite until the receding heat affected inhibitor surface reached, or passed, the propellant chip. Samples with embedded propellant chips in alignment did not propagate ignition from one chip to another with separation distances as small as 0.010 cm(0.004 inc) and some as little as 0.0051 cm (0.002 in). Propellant chips with volumes approximately less than 0.025 cu cm (0.0015 cu in) (which did not propagate ignition) did not increase the inhibitor material decomposition depth more than the resulting void cavity of the burned out propellant chip. In addition, the depth of this void cavity did not increase until it was overtaken by the surrounding material decomposition depth. This was due, in part, to the retention of the protective inhibitor char layer. Samples with embedded propellant strings, whose thicknesses were below 0.023 cm (0.009 in), did not propagate ignition. Propellant string thicknesses above 0.038 cm (0.015 in) did propagate ignition. Test sample char and heat affected layer measurements and observations compared well with those from the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) Technical Evaluation Motor no. 9(TEM-9).

Bolton, Douglas E., Jr.↗

NASA NTRS1989

Noise of a model counterrotation propeller with simulated fuselage and support pylon at takeoff/approach conditions

Two modern high-speed advanced counterrotation propellers, F7/A7 and F7/A3 were tested in the NASA Lewis Research Centers's 9- by 15-foot Anechoic Wind Tunnel at simulated takeoff/approach conditions of 0.2 Mach number. Both rotors were of similar diameter on the F7/A7 propeller, while the aft rotor diameter of the F7/A3 propeller was 85 percent of the forward propeller to reduce tip vortex-aft rotor interaction. The two propellers were designed for similar performance. The propellers were tested in both the clean configuration, and installed configuration consisting of a simulated upstream nacelle support pylon and fuselage section. Acoustic measurements were made with an axially translating microphone probe, and with a polar microphone probe which was fixed to the propeller nacelle and could make both sideline and circumferential acoustic surveys. Aerodynamic measurements were also made to establish propeller operating conditions. The propellers were run at blade setting angles (fron angle/rear angle) of 41.1/39.4 deg for the F7/A7 propeller, and 41.1/46.4 deg for the F7/A3 propeller. The forward rotors were tested over a range of tip speeds from 165 to 259 m/sec (540 to 850 ft/sec), and both propellers were tested at the maximum rotor-rotor spacing, based on pitch change axis separation, of 14.99 cm (5.90 in.). The data presented in this paper are for 0 deg propeller axis angle of attack. Results are presented for the baseline, pylon-alone, and strut + fuselage configurations. The presence of the simulated fuselage resulted in higher rotor-alone tone levels in a direction normal to the advancing propeller blade near the fuselage. A corresponding rotor-alone tone reduction was often observed 180 deg circumferentially from this region of increased noise. A significant rotor-alone increase for both rotors was observed diametrically opposite the fuselage. In some cases, interaction tone levels were likewise affected by the simulated installation.

Woodward, Richard P.↗