Results for “purchasing behavior” — Page 7

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Enabling Mission Flexibility to Battery Driven Deep Space Endeavors With Generalized Battery-Health-Monitoring Using Physics-Based and Data-Driven Reduced-Order Models

The needs and requirements for an electrochemical energy storage for deep space exploration is well explored. It is often understood that different mission sites and environmental conditions require different battery chemistries or technologies. Additionally, various engineering solutions are deployed to overcome specific chemical challenges. One often overlooked need is the “health” monitoring of an electrochemical storage system. The term generalized health monitoring, as envisioned in this work, refers to the monitoring of various aspects such as electrode health, electrolyte health, reaction pathway health, cooling system health, sensor health, and BMS health [1]. Generalized health monitoring allows mission leads, engineers, and scientists to incorporate flexibility in mission designs, make on-the-fly mission changes, and extend the duration of science missions. Moreover, it enables automation and data-driven decision-making without compromising safety and performance. Recently, our group developed a hierarchy of thermal reduced-order models (TROM) by combining a physics-based modeling approach and data-driven model reduction techniques applied to flight data [2]. The resulting TROMs were found to be not only accurate but also identifiable from the flight data. Consequently, the coefficient of variance of the model parameters is small over the course of hundreds of flights, allowing for monitoring the parameter evolution trajectories as the battery ages and degrades. These parameters constitute the metrics of the generalized health of a battery. Monitoring their evolution allows such models to be used for anomaly detection and prognostics, improving early detection of abnormal behavior and thus enabling timely maintenance, longer battery life, and enhanced battery safety. For this presentation, the practicality of the thermal model will be validated on a pack of 14cells under various topology configurations such as 1S14P, 2P7S, 7S2P, and 1P14S. It is well known that manufacturing and non-uniform aging lead to variability in the performance of a cell, which is exacerbated by cell balancing during active load. Additionally, in extreme scenarios, the paramount objective is to complete the mission, regardless of the stresses on the battery. Topology-induced balancing issues further stress the battery. The goal of this study is to determine if the noise (identifiability) in the reduced-order thermal model parameters is sensitive to topology, cell spacing, cooling strategy, and manufacturing or age variability. The variability in cells is considered by assuming a multimodal distribution for microscopic parameters of a cell (such as porosity, tortuosity, reaction kinetics, volumetric thermal conductivity, and volumetric heat capacity). The compounded effect of manufacturing variability, topological selection, cooling strategies, and cell balancing ages each cell in a battery differently. The study aims to clarify whether the challenge in extracting maximum information depends on the minimum number of sensors or models used for data extraction.

Automation↗

NASA NTRS2005

Chapter 12 - Flight Envelope

The term "flight envelope" is used to refer to the boundaries of aircraft loading and flight conditions within which operation of the aircraft is satisfactory, and beyond which some aspect becomes unacceptable. This flight envelope represents, in fact, the limiting conditions arising from a matrix of inter-related flight envelopes covering the appropriate variables. Thus, for each loading (i.e., external stores configuration and its associated range of weight and center of gravity (c.g.) position) and aircraft configuration (i.e., position of undercarriage (u/c), flaps, slats, etc.), the envelopes of airspeed versus altitude, airspeed versus load factor, angle of attack versus angle of sideslip, etc., must be investigated to establish the limits within which all aspects such as handling qualities, engine behavior, structural loads, etc., remain acceptable. Flight testing of new or derivative aircraft models is carried out with the initial purpose of defining a flight envelope which is, first and foremost, safe and secondarily, which enables the effective use of the vehicle for its intended purpose. Flight testing occurs only after numerous reviews of the design and review of results from ground tests and predictions of flight characteristics in such areas as structures, aerodynamics, stability and control, flight controls (particularly fly-by-wire control systems, propulsion, etc.). Accordingly, opening and expanding the envelope is a task that must be approached cautiously, systematically, and with coordination and cooperation of the many disciplines involved in the design and test of an airplane. (Sections 8 and 10 cover test planning and safety of flight considerations, respectively). The fundamental tenet in establishing a flight envelope via flight test is risk reduction. This is reflected in the typical sequence of events leading to initial flight test - design reviews (both hardware and software), then ground test involving singular disciplines (windtunnel tests for aerodynamics, structurally loading the wing/fuselage/nacelle on a ground test article with loads anticipated to occur in flight, flight control system control law checkout, propulsion test cell runs and/or flying test bed tests, etc.), and then ground tests involving multi-disciplines (See Section 9). Only after these have been accomplished will an initial, limited, low-risk, flight envelope be established. The limited envelope will typically be in the middle of the projected final flight envelope. Subsequent flight tests will then be devoted to expanding the initial envelope by operating the airplane at increasing ranges - representing increasing risk - of engine operation, airspeeds both fast and slow, altitude, load factor both above and below 1g, centers of gravity (fore and aft), and with system/subsystem failures. Whether flight tests are to define a flight envelope on a new model airplane with the attendant new airframe, new engine(s), and new subsystems (hydraulics, pressurization, etc.), or on an airplane involving only a few of these areas such as new engines in an old airframe, the fundamental approach to establishing an envelope is the same.

H Walgemoed↗

NASA NTRS2001

Performance of Li-Ion Cells Under Battery Voltage Charge Control

A study consisting of electrochemical characterization and Low-Earth-Orbit (LEO) cycling of Li-Ion cells from three vendors was initiated in 1999 to determine the cycling performance and to infuse the new technology in the future NASA missions. The 8-cell batteries included in this evaluation are prismatic cells manufactured by Mine Safety Appliances Company (MSA), cylindrical cells manufactured by SAFT and prismatic cells manufactured by Yardney Technical Products, Inc. (YTP). The three batteries were cycle tested in the LEO regime at 40% depth of discharge, and under a charge control technique that consists of battery voltage clamp with a current taper. The initial testing was conducted at 20 C; however, the batteries were cycled also intermittently at low temperatures. YTP 20 Ah cells consisted of mixed-oxide (Co and Ni) positive, graphitic carbon negative, LIPF6 salt mixed with organic carbonate solvents. The battery voltage clamp was 32 V. The low temperature cycling tests started after 4575 cycles at 20 C. The cells were not capable of cycling. at low temperature since the charge acceptance at battery level was poor. There was a cell in the battery that showed too high an end-of-charge (EOC) voltage thereby limiting the ability to charge the rest of the cells in the battery. The battery has completed 6714 cycles. SAFT 12 Ah cells consisted of mixed-oxide (Co and NO positive, graphitic carbon negative, LiPF6 salt mixed with organic carbonate solvents. The battery voltage clamp was for 30.8 V. The low temperature cycling tests started after 4594 cycles at 20 C. A cell that showed low end of discharge (EOD) and EOC voltages and three other cells that showed higher EOC voltages limited the charge acceptance at the selected voltage limit during charge. The cells were capable of cycling at 10 C and 0 C but the charge voltage limit had to be increased to 34.3 V (4.3 V per cell). The low temperature cycling may have induced poor chargeability since the voltage had to be increased to achieve the required charge input. The battery has completed 6226 cycles. MSA 10 Ah cells consisted of Co oxide positive, graphitic carbon negative, LiPF6 salt mixed with organic carbonate solvents. The battery voltage clamp was 30.8 V. The low temperature cycling tests were started after 2182 cycles at 20 C. The cells were capable of cycling at 10 C and 0 C. Like SAFT, the voltage limit on charge had to be increased to 36 V (4.5 V per cell). There was a cell (cell S/N 13) in the battery that showed poor performance features such as low EOD voltage and high EOC voltage. The battery has completed 3441 cycles. A reconditioning procedure that consisted of C15 charge to a taper current of C/100 and C/20 discharge improved the voltage behavior of SAFT and MSA cells with no significant effect on YTP cells. We have demonstrated that the charge operation with VT clamp at battery rather than at cell level is feasible for onboard Li-Ion battery operation.

Rao, Gopalakrishna M.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

ARCTRON: A Rapid Experimental Proving Ground for TPS Experiments and Arcjet Technology Development

Innovation in high-enthalpy facilities is fundamentally limited by the cost and risk of experimentation. New concepts for plasma control, diagnostics, facility components, and plasma-material interaction often require repeated iterations that are impractical to perform in production arcjets. As a result, promising ideas may remain unexplored or reach operational facilities only after significant development effort. ARCTRON is being developed as a rapid experimental proving ground where new ideas in plasma science, arcjet engineering, diagnostics, and material response can be conceived, tested, and quantitatively evaluated before transition to large-scale facilities. The platform combines radio-frequency (RF) and DC arc plasma generation, externally applied magnetic fields, configurable gas composition, reduced-pressure operation, laser heating, electrical biasing, and modular diagnostic access. These capabilities permit the plasma source, applied forcing, test article, and measurement configuration to be modified independently, allowing individual physical mechanisms to be isolated more readily than in a traditional test environment. One class of investigations addresses fundamental plasma-surface interaction physics. Conventional material tests often expose a specimen simultaneously to convective heating, reactive species, pressure, shear, radiation, and surface-current effects. The resulting material response may be measured accurately, while the contribution of each mechanism remains difficult to identify. ARCTRON is designed to vary these effects selectively. Plasma chemistry can be changed independently through configurable gas mixtures; magnetic fields and electrical biasing can modify charged-particle transport; laser heating can provide a non-plasma thermal input; and pressure, flow, and discharge mode can be varied over a broad operating space. This enables controlled tests of hypotheses involving surface catalycity, reactive-species transport, plasma-assisted oxidation, electromagnetic effects, shear, and the relative contributions of thermal and chemical loading. A second class of investigations enabled by this approach concerns the engineering of high-enthalpy facilities themselves. Arc-heated facilities are limited by electrode erosion, unstable arc attachment, localized heating, and damage to nozzles and other plasma-facing components. ARCTRON provides a lower-cost environment for testing concepts intended to mitigate these limitations. Candidate investigations include the use of applied magnetic fields to alter current paths and reduce plasma interaction with nozzle walls, ExB forcing to introduce controlled plasma rotation, magnetic or geometric approaches for distributing arc attachment, and alternative electrode or discharge configurations intended to reduce erosion and improve stability. Because the platform is reconfigurable, these concepts can be evaluated through repeated design--build--test cycles before they are considered for implementation in operational facilities. The platform also supports the development and validation of diagnostics that may be difficult to introduce initially into a large arcjet. Current and planned measurements include spatially resolved optical emission spectroscopy, electrostatic probes, fast imaging, pyrometry, calorimetry, laser-induced fluorescence, and absorption spectroscopy. These diagnostics are intended not merely to document a nominal operating condition, but to constrain the local plasma state and its relationship to component or material response. The modular facility geometry allows diagnostic concepts to be tested, calibrated, and compared under repeatable conditions before deployment in more demanding environments. ARCTRON is also supported by an integrated software suite. Automated control and data acquisition allow discharge parameters, gas composition, magnetic fields, diagnostic timing, and test configuration to be recorded as part of each experiment (STARDAC - Software for Testing, Analysis, Research Data, and Control). The Backend for Experiment Analysis, Storage, and Traceability (BEAST) is a database that provides the infrastructure needed to associate heterogeneous measurements with facility configuration, specimen identity, calibration state, geometry, and analysis provenance. This backend is particularly important for exploratory campaigns, in which many related configurations may be tested, and the value of an individual experiment depends on its connection to earlier and subsequent iterations. Complementary analysis capabilities, including computer-vision-based transient response measurements (arcjetCV), three-dimensional surface reconstruction (STARSCAN), and model-based Bayesian inference (SHIELD), and tomography data analysis (TOMATO, PuMA) can be incorporated when required by a specific hypothesis without becoming the focus of every campaign. The central objective of ARCTRON is therefore not to maximize heat flux or reproduce a complete flight environment. Its purpose is to reduce the cost and time required to ask consequential questions about plasma behavior, plasma-facing materials, diagnostics, and arcjet technology. By providing a controlled environment for rapid reconfiguration, mechanism isolation, quantitative measurement, and iterative engineering, ARCTRON can help mature concepts that would otherwise remain too speculative or too risky for evaluation in production facilities. The resulting knowledge can then guide the design of material models, focus test objectives in larger arcjets, reduce facility-development risk, and improve the physical basis of high-enthalpy ground testing. This work will present the ARCTRON architecture, operating modes, diagnostic suite, and digital experimental workflow. Initial experimental results from the first integrated operation of the facility will be presented, including flow characterization, power limitations, and deployment of the initial diagnostic suite. Ongoing development efforts aimed at catalycity characterization, magnetic plasma control, and advanced optical diagnostics will also be discussed, illustrating how the platform supports rapid iteration from concept to experiment.

experimental diagnostics↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

ARCTRON: A Rapid Experimental Proving Ground for TPS Experiments and Arcjet Technology Development

Innovation in high-enthalpy facilities is fundamentally limited by the cost and risk of experimentation. New concepts for plasma control, diagnostics, facility components, and plasma-material interaction often require repeated iterations that are impractical to perform in production arcjets. As a result, promising ideas may remain unexplored or reach operational facilities only after significant development effort. ARCTRON is being developed as a rapid experimental proving ground where new ideas in plasma science, arcjet engineering, diagnostics, and material response can be conceived, tested, and quantitatively evaluated before transition to large-scale facilities. The platform combines radio-frequency (RF) and DC arc plasma generation, externally applied magnetic fields, configurable gas composition, reduced-pressure operation, laser heating, electrical biasing, and modular diagnostic access. These capabilities permit the plasma source, applied forcing, test article, and measurement configuration to be modified independently, allowing individual physical mechanisms to be isolated more readily than in a traditional test environment. One class of investigations addresses fundamental plasma-surface interaction physics. Conventional material tests often expose a specimen simultaneously to convective heating, reactive species, pressure, shear, radiation, and surface-current effects. The resulting material response may be measured accurately, while the contribution of each mechanism remains difficult to identify. ARCTRON is designed to vary these effects selectively. Plasma chemistry can be changed independently through configurable gas mixtures; magnetic fields and electrical biasing can modify charged-particle transport; laser heating can provide a non-plasma thermal input; and pressure, flow, and discharge mode can be varied over a broad operating space. This enables controlled tests of hypotheses involving surface catalycity, reactive-species transport, plasma-assisted oxidation, electromagnetic effects, shear, and the relative contributions of thermal and chemical loading. A second class of investigations enabled by this approach concerns the engineering of high-enthalpy facilities themselves. Arc-heated facilities are limited by electrode erosion, unstable arc attachment, localized heating, and damage to nozzles and other plasma-facing components. ARCTRON provides a lower-cost environment for testing concepts intended to mitigate these limitations. Candidate investigations include the use of applied magnetic fields to alter current paths and reduce plasma interaction with nozzle walls, ExB forcing to introduce controlled plasma rotation, magnetic or geometric approaches for distributing arc attachment, and alternative electrode or discharge configurations intended to reduce erosion and improve stability. Because the platform is reconfigurable, these concepts can be evaluated through repeated design--build--test cycles before they are considered for implementation in operational facilities. The platform also supports the development and validation of diagnostics that may be difficult to introduce initially into a large arcjet. Current and planned measurements include spatially resolved optical emission spectroscopy, electrostatic probes, fast imaging, pyrometry, calorimetry, laser-induced fluorescence, and absorption spectroscopy. These diagnostics are intended not merely to document a nominal operating condition, but to constrain the local plasma state and its relationship to component or material response. The modular facility geometry allows diagnostic concepts to be tested, calibrated, and compared under repeatable conditions before deployment in more demanding environments. ARCTRON is also supported by an integrated software suite. Automated control and data acquisition allow discharge parameters, gas composition, magnetic fields, diagnostic timing, and test configuration to be recorded as part of each experiment (STARDAC - Software for Testing, Analysis, Research Data, and Control). The Backend for Experiment Analysis, Storage, and Traceability (BEAST) is a database that provides the infrastructure needed to associate heterogeneous measurements with facility configuration, specimen identity, calibration state, geometry, and analysis provenance. This backend is particularly important for exploratory campaigns, in which many related configurations may be tested, and the value of an individual experiment depends on its connection to earlier and subsequent iterations. Complementary analysis capabilities, including computer-vision-based transient response measurements (arcjetCV), three-dimensional surface reconstruction (STARSCAN), and model-based Bayesian inference (SHIELD), and tomography data analysis (TOMATO, PuMA) can be incorporated when required by a specific hypothesis without becoming the focus of every campaign. The central objective of ARCTRON is therefore not to maximize heat flux or reproduce a complete flight environment. Its purpose is to reduce the cost and time required to ask consequential questions about plasma behavior, plasma-facing materials, diagnostics, and arcjet technology. By providing a controlled environment for rapid reconfiguration, mechanism isolation, quantitative measurement, and iterative engineering, ARCTRON can help mature concepts that would otherwise remain too speculative or too risky for evaluation in production facilities. The resulting knowledge can then guide the design of material models, focus test objectives in larger arcjets, reduce facility-development risk, and improve the physical basis of high-enthalpy ground testing. This work will present the ARCTRON architecture, operating modes, diagnostic suite, and digital experimental workflow. Initial experimental results from the first integrated operation of the facility will be presented, including flow characterization, power limitations, and deployment of the initial diagnostic suite. Ongoing development efforts aimed at catalycity characterization, magnetic plasma control, and advanced optical diagnostics will also be discussed, illustrating how the platform supports rapid iteration from concept to experiment.

experimental diagnostics↗