SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Fire Safety”

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.

149 records · Page 9

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS1999

System Identification for Integrated Aircraft Development and Flight Testing [l'Identification Des Systemes Pour le Developpement Integre des Aeronefs et les Essais en Vol]

Over the last decades flight vehicles such as aircraft and helicopters entering service and requiring increased operational effectiveness have with few exceptions experienced prolonged flight test development to achieve full certification. In many cases the original requirements had later to be reduced to enable release to service. The impact on the customer, and manufacturer has been considerable leading to increased costs and or reduced operational capabilities. These costly experiences are largely a result of the flight vehicle not behaving as modelled and designed. The evaluation of flight test data can be used as a tool for validating windtunnel results and mathematical models describing the flight dynamical behaviour. In this sense the uncertainty of important aerodynamic stability and control parameters can be reduced and the confidence of aircraft mathematical models improved. An additional important factor comes from the implementation of active control systems offering the promise of significantly increased flight vehicle performance and operational capability. This approach extends the traditional trade-offs between aerodynamics, structures and propulsion systems to include full- time, full-authority fly-by-wire/light systems. It is imperative that the aerodynamic stability and control parameters of such integrated flight and propulsion control systems have to turn out inflight as predicted, since inherent stability margins will be lower and the flight control system must correct these deficiencies to provide flight critical redundancy and safety. With the methodology of system identification from flight tests it is possible to sense the control inputs and the flight vehicle reactions Such as accelerations, rates and attitudes. The mathematical model, e.g. the model structure and parameters, has to be determined from the relationship of the measured control inputs and the system's responses. The aim of this symposium was to review the present state of the art of flight vehicle system and parameter identification techniques, and to provide a critical appraisal of current methods developed and applied to flight test data in a number of NATO nations. Particular emphasis was placed on practical aspects and lessons learned in order to generate information useful to the flight test community in industry and government agencies. The technical papers share invaluable experience and emphasize the advances of flight vehicle system identification over the last years to the point where confidence and robustness level is now reasonably high. The symposium covered overviews of identification methodologies, flight test techniques, recent aircraft and helicopter application programs, and a session of short papers covering up-to-the-minute flight test results. A final discussion included prepared comments from experts and concluded with key issues learned in the application of system identification and future research needs. The essential benefits to NATO nations can be condensed as follows: More accurate mathematical models for high bandwidth flight control systems, Improved assessment and evaluation of flying qualities, High fidelity mathematical models for flight vehicle development and mission training simulators, and generally, Reduced flight test time and costs.

Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Developm↗

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

Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) In-Trail Procedures (ITP)

Aircraft in oceanic and remote non-radar airspace frequently fly for extended periods of time in the same direction, at the same time, along similar flight paths as other aircraft. Since there is no radar surveillance, controllers use procedural separation to ensure that aircraft remain separated. Procedural separation distances are typically larger than radar separation distances and as a result aircraft operating in oceanic airspace are sometimes held at non-optimal flight levels due to conflicting traffic at intervening flight levels. Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) In-Trail Procedures (ITP) were developed to enable flight level change maneuvers that would otherwise not be possible with current procedural separation standards. Aircraft operators choosing to equip with an ADS-B transceiver and an appropriate onboard decision support system would be able to take advantage of these procedures when operating in proximity to aircraft equipped with a suitable ADS-B transmitter (“ADS-B Out”). The ability to perform in-trail maneuvers to achieve more time at optimum altitudes could result in more efficient and predictable flight profiles thereby saving fuel and in some cases allowing operators to make beneficial operational decisions. NASA first began developing ADS-B ITP in 2003 as a result of a desire to develop methodologies, concepts, and procedures to reduce separation requirements for future air transportation systems using airborne ADS-B. The objectives were to provide insight into the details necessary to reduce separation requirements for the future and to develop applications that could provide incentives for operators to voluntarily equip with transformational technologies. From 2003 to 2008, NASA conducted research that supported the development of ITP including batch simulations, human-in-the-loop experiments and avionics and separation standards development. This research showed enough maturity and benefit that in 2008, the FAA Surveillance and Broadcast Services (SBS) program adopted ADS-B ITP as one of their three key, near-term applications to make use of ADS-B-In. The FAA developed an agreement with NASA to transition the technology and established an FAA project for the purpose of performing an operational trial of ADS-B ITP in revenue service in the summer of 2011. The objectives of the project are to a) validate the operational performance and economic benefits of ITP; and b) develop and validate ADS-B ITP Minimum Operational Performance Specifications (MOPS) material. As a part of this project, the FAA established agreements with United Airlines and Honeywell. The agreements include the work necessary for the development, certification and installation of onboard systems for twelve United Airlines 747-400s. ITP system development is nearly complete and certification activities are underway. The FAA project has also been working with Oakland Oceanic Control Center (ZOA) and the FAA’s Oceanic and Offshore Operations Office to develop controller procedures and safety analyses that are required to support the flight trial. The FAA has also been working on the development of an ITP Operational Specification that should be approved this April. The presentation will cover some of the key aspects of the development, challenges, and integration required to successfully transition ADS-B ITP from a concept in 2003 to flight trials in revenue service in 2011.

Kenneth M Jones↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

High-Order Methods in NASA’s Next Generation of Computational Fluid Dynamics Tools

The missions of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) routinely produce unique requirements and challenges for development and application of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) methods. NASA presently embodies four distinct Mission Directorates: Aeronautics Research, Exploration Systems, Science, and Space Operations. These missions generate requirements for systems that operate in a wide variety of environments. They range from the high-speed flight of aerodynamically optimized vehicles operating in the earth’s atmosphere to spacecraft designed for missions that don’t favor aerodynamic optimization, some operating in the atmosphere of planets and planetary moons such as Mars and Venus or Saturn’s moon Titan. Systems supporting these vehicles, such as rocket and jet propulsion, reaction control systems, fluid and thermal transfer systems, etc. can also generate their own unique set of flow phenomena that challenge today’s CFD methodology. Through the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC), NASA annually conducts state-of-the-discipline assessments in fifteen distinct engineering disciplines. These assessments are performed by the NASA Technical Fellows that lead Technical Discipline Teams (TDT) of recognized experts in these fifteen areas. In the Aerosciences discipline, three topics have been identified as the top challenges for the discipline: aero-plume interaction prediction, unsteady separated flows, and aerothermodynamic prediction. These challenge areas are defined by the Agency’s high-risk projects and problems on which the NESC is requested to perform independent testing, analysis, and assessments. When viewed as a whole, these tests, analyses, and assessments provide a clear view of the recurring technical challenges facing Agency engineers and researchers and can be used to guide future research and technology development. The present state-of-the-art in the application of CFD at NASA is the use of Reynolds-Averaged Navier- Stokes (RANS) solvers, primarily executed in a steady-state mode of operation. In isolated cases, Unsteady RANS (URANS) solvers have been employed when steady RANS solutions produce poorly converging or oscillating results or in cases, such as aeroelastic analysis, which require unsteady aerodynamic simulation. For most traditional external and internal aerodynamic flows, structured overset grids or unstructured grids are employed to minimize geometric modeling and grid generation times. Grid adaptation, primarily as a series of coarse-grain intermediate processing steps is also seeing use on particularly complex flow problems and configurations. In the case of aerothermodynamic flows, engineers have been forced to continue to employ structured grid techniques as the present unstructured grid methodology has proven inadequate in the prediction of surface heating. In the area of aero-plume interaction modeling, two-gas, frozen chemistry simulation is generally the state-of-the- art, with some production solvers capable of predicting flows with only a single gas component. Prediction of flows falling into the afore-mentioned top Aerosciences technical challenges have severely stressed the present state-of-the-art in CFD prediction and for some problems, such as unsteady separated flows and aero-plume interaction cases, engineers have begun employing Large Eddy Simulation (LES) and Hybrid RANS/LES techniques. In some isolated aero-propulsion interaction cases, chemically reacting flow simulations have been applied. These methods are highly evolutionary and engineers have little experience in their application, so they cannot be heavily relied upon in today’s application environment. Therefore, this leads one to muse over which numerical technologies will be included in the CFD tools that will be employed 30 years in the future. This presentation will describe specific technical problems that have stressed NASA’s traditional CFD methods to their breaking point and will link these issues to the Agency’s top Aerosciences technical challenges. The discussion will then shift to the characteristics of future CFD solvers that will be required to attack these challenges and how these characteristics differ from the present state-of-the- art. High-order methods certainly appear to have a place in the development of future CFD tools and some of the physical characteristics of our most challenging problems suggest that high-order methods are the only way to effectively solve them. But there are some relatively severe implementation issues that face these methods, particularly in the area of general applicability and robust operation as an engineering tool. Desired characteristics of next-generation CFD solvers will be discussed and the author’s view of which emerging numerical technologies might be employed to address these attributes will also be presented

David M Schuster↗

NASA NTRS2010

Ares I-X Ground Diagnostic Prototype

Automating prelaunch diagnostics for launch vehicles offers three potential benefits. First, it potentially improves safety by detecting faults that might otherwise have been missed so that they can be corrected before launch. Second, it potentially reduces launch delays by more quickly diagnosing the cause of anomalies that occur during prelaunch processing. Reducing launch delays will be critical to the success of NASA's planned future missions that require in-orbit rendezvous. Third, it potentially reduces costs by reducing both launch delays and the number of people needed to monitor the prelaunch process. NASA is currently developing the Ares I launch vehicle to bring the Orion capsule and its crew of four astronauts to low-earth orbit on their way to the moon. Ares I-X will be the first unmanned test flight of Ares I. It is scheduled to launch on October 27, 2009. The Ares I-X Ground Diagnostic Prototype is a prototype ground diagnostic system that will provide anomaly detection, fault detection, fault isolation, and diagnostics for the Ares I-X first-stage thrust vector control (TVC) and for the associated ground hydraulics while it is in the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) at John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and on the launch pad. It will serve as a prototype for a future operational ground diagnostic system for Ares I. The prototype combines three existing diagnostic tools. The first tool, TEAMS (Testability Engineering and Maintenance System), is a model-based tool that is commercially produced by Qualtech Systems, Inc. It uses a qualitative model of failure propagation to perform fault isolation and diagnostics. We adapted an existing TEAMS model of the TVC to use for diagnostics and developed a TEAMS model of the ground hydraulics. The second tool, Spacecraft Health Inference Engine (SHINE), is a rule-based expert system developed at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. We developed SHINE rules for fault detection and mode identification. The prototype uses the outputs of SHINE as inputs to TEAMS. The third tool, the Inductive Monitoring System (IMS), is an anomaly detection tool developed at NASA Ames Research Center and is currently used to monitor the International Space Station Control Moment Gyroscopes. IMS automatically "learns" a model of historical nominal data in the form of a set of clusters and signals an alarm when new data fails to match this model. IMS offers the potential to detect faults that have not been modeled. The three tools have been integrated and deployed to Hangar AE at KSC where they interface with live data from the Ares I-X vehicle and from the ground hydraulics. The outputs of the tools are displayed on a console in Hangar AE, one of the locations from which the Ares I-X launch will be monitored. In a previous publication, we discussed how we selected the three tools based primarily on their ability to be certified for human spaceflight and described our plans for the prototype. This abstract is due October 23, 2009, and the Ares I-X launch is currently scheduled for October 27, 2009. If this abstract is accepted, then the full paper will describe how the prototype performed before the launch. It will include an analysis of the prototype's accuracy, including false-positive rates, false-negative rates, and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves. It will also include a description of the prototype's computational requirements, including CPU usage, main memory usage, and disk usage. If the prototype detects any faults during the prelaunch period then the paper will include a description of those faults. Similarly, if the prototype has any false alarms then the paper will describe them and will attempt to explain their causes. Also, the paper will describe the three tools and how they are used in the prototype. It will include a description of the TEAMS models of the Ares I-X first-stage TVC and associated ground hydraulics and how we adapted the TVC model for use in real-time diagnostics. It will describe the SHINE rules used for fault detection and mode identification and the software architecture that interfaces the various pieces of existing software that are part of the prototype to one another. It will describe how we selected the sensor values and commands that were used to train the IMS model and how we optimized the number of clusters in the IMS model. It will include screen shots of the graphical display that we developed in Java to display the outputs of the three tools. Because Ares I-X data was not yet available to us while we were developing the prototype, we used historical data from the Space Shuttle's Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) TVCs and the associated ground hydraulics to train IMS and to test the entire prototype. Because most of the failure modes that we modeled have never occurred in the Shuttle we inserted simulated failures into the Shuttle data. The Ares I-X first-stage TVC is very similar to the SRB TVC and we expect the data will be very similar. After the launch, we will determine how similar the data actually is and report how any differences in the data affected the diagnostic accuracy of the prototype. Finally, although we did not get the prototype certified, we designed it in a way that it could be certified and wrote a preliminary certification plan. The paper will include a brief summary of how we considered the need for certification in the design of the prototype, how we tested the prototype before deploying it to Hangar AE, and how we would propose to get it certified if it were deployed as an operational system. The paper will conclude with a description of some of the challenges we faced and some of the lessons learned in developing and deploying the prototype.

International Space Station↗