Results for “thermal drawdown”

NASA NTRS2020

CMIP6 Historical Simulations (1850‐2014) with GISS‐E2.1

Simulations of the CMIP6 historical period 1850‐‐2014, characterized by the emergence of anthropogenic climate drivers like greenhouse gases, are presented for different configurations of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Earth System ModelE2.1. The GISS‐E2.1 ensembles are more sensitive to forcing than their CMIP5 predecessors (GISS‐E2), but warm less during recent decades due to reduced total forcing. This forcing reduction is attributed to an increase in longwave opacity in pre‐industrial simulations, resulting in an atmosphere less sensitive to further increases in opacity that result from rising greenhouse gas concentrations. This demonstrates the importance of the base climatology to forcing and forced climate trends. Most model versions match observed temperature trends since 1979 from the ocean to the stratosphere. The choice of ocean model is important to the transient climate response, as found in CMIP5 GISS‐E2: the model that more efficiently exports heat to the deep ocean shows a smaller rise in tropospheric temperature. Model sea level rise over the historical period is traced to excessive drawdown of aquifers to meet irrigation demand with a smaller contribution from thermal expansion. This shows how fully coupled models can provide indirect observational constraints upon forcing, in this case, constraining irrigation rates with observed sea level changes. The overall agreement of GISS‐E2.1 with observed trends is familiar from evaluation of its predecessors, as is the conclusion that these trends are almost entirely anthropogenic in origin.

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Ea↗

NASA NTRS2008

Computational Analyses in Support of Sub-scale Diffuser Testing for the A-3 Facility: Unsteady Analyses and Risk Assessment - Part 2

Simulation technology can play an important role in rocket engine test facility design and development by assessing risks, providing analysis of dynamic pressure and thermal loads, identifying failure modes and predicting anomalous behavior of critical systems. This is especially true for facilities such as the proposed A-3 facility at NASA SSC because of a challenging operating envelope linked to variable throttle conditions at relatively low chamber pressures. Design Support of the feasibility of operating conditions and procedures is critical in such cases due to the possibility of startup/shutdown transients, moving shock structures, unsteady shock-boundary layer interactions and engine and diffuser unstart modes that can result in catastrophic failure. Analyses of such systems is difficult due to resolution requirements needed to accurately capture moving shock structures, shock-boundary layer interactions, two-phase flow regimes and engine unstart modes. In a companion paper, we will demonstrate with the use of CFD, steady analyses advanced capability to evaluate supersonic diffuser and steam ejector performance in the sub-scale A-3 facility. In this paper we will address transient issues with the operation of the facility especially at startup and shutdown, and assess risks related to afterburning due to the interaction of a fuel rich plume with oxygen that is a by-product of the steam ejectors. The primary areas that will be addressed in this paper are: (1) analyses of unstart modes due to flow transients especially during startup/ignition, (2) engine safety during the shutdown process (3) interaction of steam ejectors with the primary plume i.e. flow transients as well as probability of afterburning. In this abstract we discuss unsteady analyses of the engine shutdown process. However, the final paper will include analyses of a staged startup, drawdown of the engine test cell pressure, and risk assessment of potential afterburning in the facility. Unsteady simulations have been carried out to study the engine shutdown process in the facility and understand the physics behind the interactions between the steam ejectors, the test cell and the supersonic diffuser. As a first approximation, to understand the dominant unsteady mechanisms in the engine test cell and the supersonic diffuser, the turning duct in the facility was removed. As the engine loses power a rarefaction wave travels downstream that disrupts the shock cell structure in the supersonic diffuser. Flow from the test cell is seen to expand into the supersonic diffuser section and re-pressurizes the area around the nozzle along with a upstream traveling compression wave that emanates from near the first stage ejectors. Flow from the first stage ejector expands to the center of the duct and a new shock train is formed between the first and second stage ejectors. Both stage ejectors keep the facility pressurized and prevent any large amplitude pressure fluctuations from affecting the engine nozzle. The resultant pressure loads the nozzle experiences in the shutdown process are small.

Ahuja, Vineet↗