SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Building Energy Codes Program”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

155 records · Page 9

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2016

Generalized Fluid System Simulation Program, Version 6.0

The Generalized Fluid System Simulation Program (GFSSP) is a general purpose computer program for analyzing steady state and time-dependent flow rates, pressures, temperatures, and concentrations in a complex flow network. The program is capable of modeling real fluids with phase changes, compressibility, mixture thermodynamics, conjugate heat transfer between solid and fluid, fluid transients, pumps, compressors, and external body forces such as gravity and centrifugal. The thermofluid system to be analyzed is discretized into nodes, branches, and conductors. The scalar properties such as pressure, temperature, and concentrations are calculated at nodes. Mass flow rates and heat transfer rates are computed in branches and conductors. The graphical user interface allows users to build their models using the 'point, drag, and click' method; the users can also run their models and post-process the results in the same environment. Two thermodynamic property programs (GASP/WASP and GASPAK) provide required thermodynamic and thermophysical properties for 36 fluids: helium, methane, neon, nitrogen, carbon monoxide, oxygen, argon, carbon dioxide, fluorine, hydrogen, parahydrogen, water, kerosene (RP-1), isobutene, butane, deuterium, ethane, ethylene, hydrogen sulfide, krypton, propane, xenon, R-11, R-12, R-22, R-32, R-123, R-124, R-125, R-134A, R-152A, nitrogen trifluoride, ammonia, hydrogen peroxide, and air. The program also provides the options of using any incompressible fluid with constant density and viscosity or ideal gas. The users can also supply property tables for fluids that are not in the library. Twenty-four different resistance/source options are provided for modeling momentum sources or sinks in the branches. These options include pipe flow, flow through a restriction, noncircular duct, pipe flow with entrance and/or exit losses, thin sharp orifice, thick orifice, square edge reduction, square edge expansion, rotating annular duct, rotating radial duct, labyrinth seal, parallel plates, common fittings and valves, pump characteristics, pump power, valve with a given loss coefficient, Joule-Thompson device, control valve, heat exchanger core, parallel tube, and compressible orifice. The program has the provision of including additional resistance options through User Subroutines. GFSSP employs a finite volume formulation of mass, momentum, and energy conservation equations in conjunction with the thermodynamic equations of state for real fluids as well as energy conservation equations for the solid. The system of equations describing the fluid network is solved by a hybrid numerical method that is a combination of the Newton-Raphson and successive substitution methods. The application and verification of the code has been demonstrated through 30 example problems.

Majumdar, A. K.↗

DOE OSTI2020

Proposed guidance for preparing and reviewing a molten salt non-power production or utilization facility application

Development of non-power molten salt reactors (MSRs) are under consideration to further establish an MSR experience base, support the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.43(e), and provide any additional analyses needed for development of a full-scale MSR. Guidance provided in this report is based on MSRs operating with liquid fuel (i.e., fuel dissolved within a molten salt). These reactors, unless owned by the DOE or DOD, will require licensing by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff. Standard review plan (SRP) guidance for large light water reactors (LWRs) is available in NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants; Light Water Reactor (LWR) Edition. However, NRC staff observed that NUREG-0800 is very cumbersome to apply to non-power reactors “because of the great differences in complexity and hazards between non-power reactors and nuclear power plants.” Therefore, a program to develop performance-based guidance applicable to non-power reactors was initiated. In 1996, NUREG-1537, Parts 1 and 2, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors, was published. Part 1, the format and content guide, suggests a uniform format for presenting information in non-power reactor applications that is acceptable to the NRC staff, but conformance with the format and content is not required. Part 2, the SRP, ensures the quality and uniformity of the staff review of an application. Unfortunately, the application guidelines and SRP do not provide adequate guidance for all advanced non-LWR technologies and applications. This discrepancy eventually led to the 2012 development of interim staff guidance (ISG) for NUREG-1537, which includes criteria for describing and reviewing aqueous homogeneous reactors (AHRs). Specifically, NUREG-1537 ISG, 2012 expanded the original document to address three areas: 1. updated criteria for heterogeneous non-power reactors, 2. criteria for licensing AHRs, and 3. criteria for licensing a Part 50-licensed isotope production facility. In 2015, the US Department of Energy (DOE) opted to build on the AHR NUREG-1537 ISG experience by performing a gap analysis of the guidance that would be used to license a non-power MSR. MSRs represent one of the advanced non-LWR technologies selected by DOE for development through a multiyear cost share award with Southern Company Services. Under this Advanced Reactor Concepts 2015 (DOE Advanced Reactor Concepts [ARC] 15) award program, the DOE tasked Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to evaluate the guidance changes that the NRC may need to consider when licensing an MSR non-power reactor. ORNL staff, with support from Boston Government Services, LLC, focused on five system-related chapters in NUREG-1537 that were considered most relevant to inform the effort that would be required for a non-power MSR applicant. ORNL documented this review in a technical report, ORNL/TM-2018/834, Proposed Guidance for Preparing and Reviewing Molten Salt Non-Power Reactor License Applications (NUREG-1537). The report was subsequently shared with industry and the NRC. The 2018 review was limited in scope, focusing on key system chapters based on the expected significance of each chapter relative to expected differences in addressing advanced non-LWR technologies, specifically non-power MSRs, compared with heterogeneously fueled non-power reactors. In the ORNL report, proposed generic adaptations were suggested for the following NUREG-1537 chapters: Chapter 4, “Reactor Description”; Chapter 5, “Reactor Coolant Systems”; Chapter 6, “Engineered Safety Features”; Chapter 9, “Auxiliary Systems”; Chapter 11, “Radiation Protection Program and Waste Management” The inclusion of Chapter 11 in the previous review effort was intended to provide guidance for categorizing the waste-handling process for an MSR operating with homogenous fuel. The introductions from Parts 1 and 2 of the 2012 NUREG-1537 ISG provide guidance for the application and review of production facilities. After a period of operation, non-power MSRs with homogenous fuel will include gaseous and soluble fission products. The gaseous fission products will be collected and held for decay in an off-gas system. There might also be an initiative to polish or filter the soluble fission products in the fuel salt by some mechanical or chemical means. The treatment and handling of fission products in the non-power MSR fuel salt and the description of this process in the safety analysis report (SAR) must be very precise to avoid the waste treatment facility being construed as a co-located special nuclear material (SNM) fuel cycle facility (see Section 2.3 of this report). Subsequent to the release of ORNL/TM-2018/834, NRC staff expressed a desire to continue the regulatory gap analysis that was begun in that report. This would provide additional clarity and information addressed in certain sections of the original report, while also providing new guidance on certain topics not addressed in the original report. This revision would benefit the NRC staff reviewing applications involving non-power MSR designs and would help developers understand how the NRC staff might approach the review of such applications. The focus of this report is to provide infrastructure support to the NRC staff for the regulatory review of non-power MSRs.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2020

Basic Design Layout of a Modular Pumped Hydro Teaching Unit

This work was originally completed in July 2015 as a proposal to Santa Fe Community College (SFCC) for their engineering program and a follow up to a feasibility study completed for the Community College the year earlier as indicated below. The work was ahead of its time and funding was hard to obtain to implement a project. This work is now being formally released for distribution to a wider audience based on the evolving circumstances in greater society that now favor this approach with funding more readily available. Due to the distribution outside of SFCC, specific architectural drawing sets of the pertinent buildings called out in the design have been removed. No changes to the design have been made. The design layout utilizing a building is not meant to limit the implementation of the design. The elevation difference required may be obtained with a building, a small hill, jacking up the upper tank, or similar means. The design presented is a basic design, identifying major components and how they are connected together. The user may change components under their own liability. All local applicable codes and standards must be followed when building an actual unit, under the authority of a responsible engineer or owner. Appropriate measures must be followed to protect people from hazards such as electricity, water pressure, and general construction. A leak test to verify water tightness of the system should be conducted prior to any operations. The vision of this design is to allow a class of 10 to 15 students to construct the assembly within a month or so time period, and then learn to operate the assembly at their school location under the guidance of their instructor. This will allow the students to learn about the practical concept of storing electricity with water, and gain a hands on experience of the real world challenges faced with full Modular Pumped Hydro Projects.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2022

US Department of Energy, Office of Science High Performance Computing Facility Operational Assessment 2021: Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility

Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s (ORNL’s) Leadership Computing Facility (OLCF) continues to surpass its operational target goals of supporting users; delivering fast, reliable computational ecosystems; creating innovative solutions for high-performance computing (HPC) needs; contributing to the community to build the next generation HPC workforce, and managing risks, safety, and security associated with operating some of the most powerful computers in the world. The results can be seen in the cutting-edge science conducted by users and the praise from the research community. Calendar year (CY) 2021 saw continued excellence in research supported by the OLCF’s leadership-class computing resources, including Summit (the nation’s most powerful supercomputer), the global scratch file system Alpine, the Scalable Protected Infrastructure (SPI), the Exploratory Visualization Environment for Research in Science and Technology (EVEREST), and the archival mass-storage resource High-Performance Storage System (HPSS). While maintaining access and exceptional user support for Summit, the OLCF continued to make progress on the installation and deployment of Frontier, which will be the nation’s first exascale system when it comes online at the start of CY 2023. Users have already begun running and optimizing scientific codes on Crusher, the OLCF test and development system equipped with Frontier’s architecture. Throughout the year, the OLCF maintained a strong culture of operational excellence, including risk management, workplace safety, and cybersecurity. The OLCF’s rigorous risk management strategy anticipated and mitigated risks, and at this time there are no high-priority operational risks. Similarly, ORNL and the OLCF were committed to operating under the US Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) safety regulations that ensure a safe workplace. Technical staff tracked and monitored existing threats and vulnerabilities within the OLCF while continually developing tools and practices to enhance operations without increasing the facility’s risk. CY 2021 was filled with outstanding results and accomplishments, including a very high rating from users on overall satisfaction for the eighth consecutive year; a tremendous number of node hours delivered to 1,671 researchers on Summit; and the successful delivery of the allocation split of roughly 60%, 20%, and 20% of core-hours offered for the Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on Theory and Experiment (INCITE), Advanced Scientific Computing Research Leadership Computing Challenge (ALCC), and Director’s Discretionary (DD) programs, respectively (Section 2). COVID-19 research remained a focus in 2021, and the ALCC and DD programs allocated over 1 million Summit hours to the COVID-19 High Performance Computing Consortium. These accomplishments, coupled with the high utilization rates (i.e., overall and capability usage), represent the fulfillment of the promise of leadership class machines: efficient facilitation of leadership-class computational applications.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2020

Assessment of the Griffin Reactor Multiphysics Application Using the Empire Micro Reactor Design Concept

In late 2019, INL and ANL agreed to jointly develop the reactor physics code named Griffin based on the integration of the two code suites, MAMMOTH/Rattlesnake (INL) and MC2 - 3/PROTEUS (ANL). Griffin is being developed based on the MOOSE framework and MOOSE quality assurance procedures. This decision was made to be able to allow DOE-NE to efficiently invest funding to this area and to provide effective and timely support for existing and potential users; the latter includes industry and government organizations who are developing various types of advanced reactors in the near and long term. Since MAMMOTH/Rattlesnake has been developed based on the MOOSE framework, the INL/ANL Griffin development team agreed to build Griffin beginning with a merger of MAMMOTH and Rattlesnake into a single code and moving forward by implementing capabilities from the PROTEUS suite into Griffin. Moving forward, both ANL and INL efforts are equally invested in the Griffin project, with management support, to provide an advanced reactor multiphysics tool to assist in reactor design, optimization, and safety analysis. Much work remains in moving Griffin forward to migrate PROTEUS capabilities and to optimize performance to meet user needs. The main objective of this work is to assess the current status of Griffin capabilities in terms of performance and accuracy, to determine priorities for PROTEUS migration, and to identify capabilities and features to improve for supporting the code integration effort. For this assessment, the Empire micro reactor problem that was developed in the ARPA-E MEITNER program was selected as an advance reactor concept of interest to the technical community. The Empire reactor problem was expanded from its original incomplete specification to be a small heat-pipe-cooled micro reactor core with ~113 cm radius and 70 cm in height, composed of 18 fuel assemblies, 12 control drums, and beryllium radial and axial reflectors. In the current model, using 5 cm axial reflectors specified in the original Empire assembly model, more than 10% of neutrons leak axially and through the empty center safety hole, as well as through heat pipe channels in fuel assembly elements that extend through the top reflector region. Several calculation models of the core were defined for systematic assessment, including 2-D and 3-D fuel assemblies and whole cores with cylindrical boundaries. Cross sections were generated using Serpent 2, and meshes were produced using the Argonne mesh tool or the INL neutronics meshing tools combined with CUBIT. Cross sections and meshes were converted to the ISOXML and Exodus formats, respectively, so that Griffin and PROTEUS could use consistent data for solving the reactor problems. With the prepared cross sections and meshes, PROTEUS was run first to ensure that all input data were correctly generated and input options in terms of angle, mesh, and energy group were accurately determined. Comparisons against Serpent 2 solutions were made in terms of eigenvalue and pin power. The same calculations and comparisons were then conducted using Griffin. For the fuel assembly and whole core problems, the PROTEUS eigenvalues agreed well with reference Serpent 2 solutions within 100 and 30 pcm, respectively, and pin power differences relative to Serpent 2 were overall less than 2.2% and RMS 0.8% for the whole core models. This indicated that all input data were properly prepared. Using the same data, Griffin was run selecting the SAAF-CFEM SN solver with Legendre-Gaussian quadrature and NDA and DSA for acceleration. It was found that the SAAF-CFEM solver of Griffin required finer meshes to achieve eigenvalue and pin power solutions in good agreement with Serpent 2, consequently requiring more memory requirement and longer computation time. On the other hand, the SPH-Diffusion 2-D core calculations performed using Griffin were able to recover the exact eigenvalue from the reference Serpent 2 solutions, resulting in a pin-power distribution with an RMS of 0.6% and maximum absolute difference of less than 1.4%. The runtimes for SPH-Diffusion for the 2-D core were less than 3 minutes on 40 cores. During this evolution of this evaluation, many updates were made in Griffin by the Griffin development team of INL (focusing on software updates) and ANL (reviewing and supporting software updates) to complete this assessment. Observations from the code assessment are presented in the conclusion section of this report, followed by a discussion of recommendations for future work.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

DOE OSTI2021

MOOSE Framework Meshing Enhancements to Support Reactor Analysis

MOOSE-based physics codes require an input finite element mesh on which the physics solution is calculated, reported, and transferred to other physics codes. The use of difficult-touse, external licensed software is often required to generate high quality meshes for reactor geometries. High-fidelity geometry modeling also requires elaborate tracking of groups of elements for material property assignment and output reporting which can be considerably complex for the user to identify and maintain. Under the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NEAMS) program, several meshingrelated enhancements have been developed for the MOOSE framework to address user challenges in creating finite element meshes for advanced reactor geometries. MOOSE mesh generators have been developed to mesh hexagonal geometries (pins, ducted assemblies, and cores) commonly found in liquid-metal cooled fast reactor concepts. The mesh generator used for hexagonal pin cells is generic for regular polygons and therefore may also be used for Cartesian pin cells. Hexagonal pin cells can be stitched into ducted assemblies, and assemblies can be stitched together into a core. The user may specify region ids, region names, and other preferences on the mesh. This control is useful for later material mapping in the MOOSE-based physics codes input. A capability was also developed for meshing rotating control drums including determination of material volume fractions in each mesh element as a function of time. Control drum meshes may be stitched to other hexagonal assemblies to create a core configuration. Additional mesh generators were developed that wrap around the hexagonal meshing capabilities and utilize “extra element integer” ID values on each element. In regular Cartesian or hexagonal assemblies or cores, the bookkeeping of element groups for both material assignment and output reporting can now be automated through assignment of pin, assembly, core, axial and depletion id values stored as extra element integers. The extra element tags on the mesh greatly speed the reactor analyst’s efforts to map materials to meshes, track depletion zones, and parse output such as axial pin power distributions. At the highest level, pin, assembly, and core mesh generators (with this reactor terminology) have also been developed to easily generate regular Cartesian and hexagonal cores, including axial extrusion. These reactor geometry builders call upon the previously mentioned capabilities to produce analysis-ready 3D meshes including material assignments. Open source mesh triangulation capabilities were also investigated for integration into the MOOSE framework to address the need for meshing the core periphery region which extends from the irregular outer assembly border to a cylindrical boundary. Options are limited due to licensing constraints, and the recommendation is pursue building a native MOOSE Delaunay triangulator routine with full functionality. Finally, a series of verification problems were performed with NEAMS physics tools. All developed capabilities will be available in the new open-source “Reactor” module of the MOOSE framework, which is accessible to any MOOSE-based NEAMS physics tool.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2023

Data-Driven Optimization of the Processing Window for 316H Components Fabricated Using Laser Powder Bed Fusion

The Advanced Materials and Manufacturing Technologies Program is focused on accelerating the development and deployment of advanced materials and components fabricated via additive manufacturing with a specific focus on laser powder bed fusion (LPBF). As an initial case study, the program has selected 316H stainless steel (SS) as an initial material around which to develop a code case development strategy. This strategy involves two parallel approaches: (1) an equivalency approach whereby round-robin testing across multiple collaborating laboratories demonstrates repeatability in processing and direct comparisons with conventional wrought 316H material and (2) a revolutionary approach to code qualification combining in situ data collection and high-fidelity modeling to capture, predict, and bound the performance of LPBF 316HSS components. As part of this campaign, this work package has initiated an extensive process optimization campaign across three laboratories, each printing variations of LPBF 316HSS using three different LPBF units (Concept Laser, EOS, and Renishaw). In FY23, ORNL has focused on unique experimental designs spanning wide ranges in energy inputs and turning knobs such as scan speed, laser power, hatch spacing, layer thickness, spot size, scan rotation, and more. On the Concept Laser M2, 72 different combinations of processing variables were investigated with duplicate samples and different powder compositions. In total, 252 samples were printed with combined in situ sensing data. A parallel design of experiments was conducted on the Renishaw AM400 with an additional 390 printed specimens for analysis. All 642 miniature specimens, each with unique features included in each print to capture geometry-related heterogeneity, were subjected to high-throughput x-ray computed tomography (XCT) analysis to enable the downselection of specific processing parameters of interest. Then, using electrical discharge machining (EDM), miniature tensile specimens were extracted for mechanical testing and microscopy investigations. From the analysis performed in FY23, it was found that powder composition drastically affects the resulting microstructure and mechanical performance of 316SS. Specifically, changing from 316L to 316HSS powder results in a wide range of grain sizes with varying degrees of preferred grain orientation, which increases as a function of energy density. It was also found that due to stored heat in thin fin–type features, large microstructural differences can be seen within one part printed with one set of processing parameters. These variations in microstructure features, including grain size, the nanoscale dislocation structure, and grain texture, will all affect the irradiation performance and high-temperature mechanical performance of LPBF 316HSS parts. Two sets of concept laser processing parameters, spanning both refined and columnar grain structures, were scaled to print larger 316H builds for campaign testing (high-temperature creep and irradiation). In addition, at least two optimized processing parameter sets were identified for the Renishaw AM400 for round-robin testing in FY24 with Argonne National Laboratory. Future work includes printing samples using identical parameters identified by partner institutions, providing material for corrosion and high-temperature mechanical testing, and continuing evaluations of heterogeneity in larger printed parts.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

DOE OSTI2023

Data-Driven Optimization of the Processing Window for 316H Components Fabricated Using Laser Powder Bed Fusion

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

NASA NTRS1997

TURBO-AE: An Aeroelastic Code for Propulsion Applications

NASA's Advanced Subsonic Technology (AST) program is developing new technologies to increase the fuel efficiency of commercial aircraft engines, improve the safety of engine operation, and reduce engine emissions and noise. With the development of new designs for ducted fans, compressors, and turbines to achieve these goals, a basic aeroelastic requirement is that there should be no flutter or high resonant blade stresses in the operating regime. To verify the aeroelastic soundness of these designs, we need an accurate prediction and analysis code. Such a two-dimensional viscous propulsion aeroelastic code, named TURBO-AE, is being developed at the NASA Lewis Research Center. The TURBO-AE aeroelastic code is based on a three-dimensional unsteady aerodynamic Euler/Navier-Stokes turbomachinery code TURBO, developed under a grant from NASA Lewis. TURBO-AE can model viscous flow effects that play an important role in certain aeroelastic problems, such as flutter with flow separation (or stall flutter) and flutter in the presence of shock and boundary-layer interaction. The structural dynamics representation of the blade in the TURBO-AE code is based on a normal mode representation. A finite element analysis code, such as NASTRAN, is used to calculate in-vacuum vibration modes and the associated natural frequency. A work-per-cycle approach is used to determine aeroelastic (flutter) stability. With this approach, the motion of the blade is prescribed to be a harmonic vibration in a specified in vacuum normal mode. The aerodynamic forces acting on the vibrating blade and the work done by these forces on the vibrating blade during a cycle of vibration are calculated. If positive work is being done on the blade by the aerodynamic forces, the blade is dynamically unstable, since it will extract energy from the flow, leading to an increase in the amplitude of the blade's oscillation. Initial calculations have been done for a configuration representative of the Energy Efficient Engine fan rotor. The accompanying figure shows the work-per-cycle after each cycle of vibration. It can be seen that the work-per-cycle does not vary much after the fourth cycle. The negative sign of the converged work-per-cycle shows that the fan blade is dynamically stable and will not flutter. TURBO-AE will provide a useful aeroelastic prediction/analysis capability for engine manufacturers. It will reduce design cycle times by allowing new blade designs to be verified for aeroelastic soundness before blades are built and tested. With this prediction capability, it will be possible to build thinner, lighter, and faster rotating blades without encountering aeroelastic problems like stall flutter and high-cycle fatigue due to forced vibrations.

Bakhle, Milind A.↗

DOE OSTI2021

Risk-based area of review estimation in overpressured reservoirs to support injection well storage facility permit requirements for CO 2 storage projects

This paper by the Energy & Environmental Research Center presents a workflow and modeling approach for delineating a risk-based area of review (AOR) to support a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Class VI permit for a carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) storage project. The approach combines semianalytical solutions for estimating formation fluid leakage through a hypothetical leaky wellbore with the results of numerical reservoir simulations to define the AOR. The modeling utilizes 1) semianalytical solutions from the peer-reviewed literature for formation fluid leakage through abandoned wellbores by Raven (1990) and Avci (1994), 2) a FORTRAN model compiled and described in Cihan et al. (2011, 2012) called ASLMA (Analytical Solution for Leakage in Multilayered Aquifers), and 3) a computational framework for estimating a risk-based AOR first proposed by Oldenburg et al. (2014, 2016). Therefore, the approach builds upon well-established research and underlying hydrogeological principles that have been upheld for nearly three decades. Moreover, the ASLMA model has been broadly applied to an array of storage projects. The work presented herein extends these earlier works using a custom wrapper written in the software environment, R (R Core Team, 2020), which was developed to perform multiple runs of the ASLMA model using given ranges for one or more input parameters. In addition, the current work simulates the pressure buildup within the storage reservoir in response to CO 2 injection using a compositional simulator to better accommodate the temporospatial evolution of pressure buildup within the storage reservoir that is more accurately modeled using a heterogeneous geologic model and a compositional simulator that accounts for the multiphase interactions. The workflow is demonstrated using a case study for a 180,000-metric-ton-per-year storage project located in the PCOR (Plains CO 2 Reduction) Partnership region. For the storage project evaluated here, under the scenario where the leaky wellbore is open to a saline aquifer (thief zone) between the overlying seal (cap rock) and the underground sources of drinking water (USDW), the risk-based AOR essentially collapses to the areal extent of the CO 2 plume in the storage reservoir because the pressure buildup in the storage reservoir beyond the CO 2 plume is insufficient to drive formation fluids up a hypothetical leaky wellbore into the USDW. However, even under the conservative assumption that the leaky wellbore is not open to a thief zone, beyond the areal extent of the CO 2 plume, the incremental leakage is less than 400 m 3 over 20 years, which represents ~0.0001% or less of the total volume of water contained within the USDW rock volume. As discussed in the text, the threshold criterion for defining the risk-based AOR is site-specific and should be informed by the results of the sensitivity analysis and available site characterization data. The approach outlined in this paper is designed to be protective of USDWs and, therefore, comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act requirements and provisions for the U.S. EPA Class VI Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program (Class VI Rule) and North Dakota Administrative Code Chapter 43-05-01.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

NASA NTRS2015

Use of Generalized Fluid System Simulation Program (GFSSP) for Teaching and Performing Senior Design Projects at the Educational Institutions

This paper describes the experience of the authors in using the Generalized Fluid System Simulation Program (GFSSP) in teaching Design of Thermal Systems class at University of Alabama in Huntsville. GFSSP is a finite volume based thermo-fluid system network analysis code, developed at NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center, and is extensively used in NASA, Department of Defense, and aerospace industries for propulsion system design, analysis, and performance evaluation. The educational version of GFSSP is freely available to all US higher education institutions. The main purpose of the paper is to illustrate the utilization of this user-friendly code for the thermal systems design and fluid engineering courses and to encourage the instructors to utilize the code for the class assignments as well as senior design projects. The need for a generalized computer program for thermofluid analysis in a flow network has been felt for a long time in aerospace industries. Designers of thermofluid systems often need to know pressures, temperatures, flow rates, concentrations, and heat transfer rates at different parts of a flow circuit for steady state or transient conditions. Such applications occur in propulsion systems for tank pressurization, internal flow analysis of rocket engine turbopumps, chilldown of cryogenic tanks and transfer lines, and many other applications of gas-liquid systems involving fluid transients and conjugate heat and mass transfer. Computer resource requirements to perform time-dependent, three-dimensional Navier-Stokes computational fluid dynamic (CFD) analysis of such systems are prohibitive and therefore are not practical. Available commercial codes are generally suitable for steady state, single-phase incompressible flow. Because of the proprietary nature of such codes, it is not possible to extend their capability to satisfy the above-mentioned needs. Therefore, the Generalized Fluid System Simulation Program (GFSSP1) has been developed at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) as a general fluid flow system solver capable of handling phase changes, compressibility, mixture thermodynamics and transient operations. It also includes the capability to model external body forces such as gravity and centrifugal effects in a complex flow network. The objectives of GFSSP development are: a) to develop a robust and efficient numerical algorithm to solve a system of equations describing a flow network containing phase changes, mixing, and rotation; and b) to implement the algorithm in a structured, easy-to-use computer program. The analysis of thermofluid dynamics in a complex network requires resolution of the system into fluid nodes and branches, and solid nodes and conductors as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 shows a schematic and GFSSP flow circuit of a counter-flow heat exchanger. Hot nitrogen gas is flowing through a pipe, colder nitrogen is flowing counter to the hot stream in the annulus pipe and heat transfer occurs through metal tubes. The problem considered is to calculate flowrates and temperature distributions in both streams. GFSSP has a unique data structure, as shown in Figure 2, that allows constructing all possible arrangements of a flow network with no limit on the number of elements. The elements of a flow network are boundary nodes where pressure and temperature are specified, internal nodes where pressure and temperature are calculated, and branches where flowrates are calculated. For conjugate heat transfer problems, there are three additional elements: solid node, ambient node, and conductor. The solid and fluid nodes are connected with solid-fluid conductors. GFSSP solves the conservation equations of mass and energy, and equation of state in internal nodes to calculate pressure, temperature and resident mass. The momentum conservation equation is solved in branches to calculate flowrate. It also solves for energy conservation equations to calculate temperatures of solid nodes. The equations are coupled and nonlinear; therefore, they are solved by an iterative numerical scheme. GFSSP employs a unique numerical scheme known as simultaneous adjustment with successive substitution (SASS), which is a combination of Newton-Raphson and successive substitution methods. The mass and momentum conservation equations and the equation of state are solved by the Newton-Raphson method while the conservation of energy and species are solved by the successive substitution method. GFSSP is linked with two thermodynamic property programs, GASP2 and WASP3 and GASPAK4, that provide thermodynamic and thermophysical properties of selected fluids. Both programs cover a range of pressure and temperature that allows fluid properties to be evaluated for liquid, liquid-vapor (saturation), and vapor region. GASP and WASP provide properties of 12 fluids. GASPAK includes a library of 36 fluids. GFSSP has three major parts. The first part is the graphical user interface (GUI), visual thermofluid analyzer of systems and components (VTASC). VTASC allows users to create a flow circuit by a 'point and click' paradigm. It creates the GFSSP input file after the completion of the model building process. GFSSP's GUI provides the users a platform to build and run their models. It also allows post-processing of results. The network flow circuit is first built using three basic elements: boundary node, internal node, and branch.

Majumdar, A. K.↗