Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Gas property variation”

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.

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

366 records · Page 21
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

Advances in imaging of chemically reacting flows

Many important chemically reacting systems are inherently multi-dimensional with spatial and temporal variations in the thermochemical state, which can be strongly coupled to interactions with transport processes. Fundamental insights into these systems require multi-dimensional measurements of the thermochemical state as well as fluid dynamics quantities. Laser-based imaging diagnostics provide spatially and temporally resolved measurements that help address this need. The state of the art in imaging diagnostics is continually progressing with the goal of attaining simultaneous multi-parameter measurements that capture transient processes, particularly those that lead to stochastic events, such as localized extinction in turbulent combustion. Development efforts in imaging diagnostics benefit from advances in laser and detector technology. This article provides a perspective on the progression of increasing dimensionality of laser-based imaging diagnostics and highlights the evolution from single-point measurements to 1D and 2D multi-parameter imaging and 3D high-speed imaging. This evolution is demonstrated using highlights of laser-based imaging techniques in combustion science research as an exemplar of a complex multi-dimensional chemically reacting system with chemistry–transport coupling. Imaging diagnostics impact basic research in other chemically reacting systems as well, such as measurements of near-surface gases in heterogeneous catalysis. The expanding dimensionality of imaging diagnostics leads to larger and more complex datasets that require increasingly demanding approaches to data analysis and provide opportunities for increased collaboration between experimental and computational researchers in tackling these challenges.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2022

Influence of temporal variations in plasma conditions on the electric potential near self-organized dust chains

Self-organization of dust grains into stable filamentary dust structures (or “chains”) largely depends on dynamic interactions between individual charged dust grains and complex electric potential arising from the distribution of charges within a local plasma environment. Recent studies have shown that the positive column of the gas discharge plasma in the Plasmakristall-4 (PK-4) experiment at the International Space Station supports the presence of fast-moving ionization waves, which lead to variations of plasma parameters by up to an order of magnitude from the average background values. The highly variable environment resulting from ionization waves may have interesting implications for the dynamics and self-organization of dust particles, particularly concerning the formation and stability of dust chains. Here, we investigate the electric potential surrounding dust chains in the PK-4 experiment by employing a molecular dynamics model of the dust and ions with boundary conditions supplied by a particle-in-cell with Monte Carlo collision simulation of the ionization waves. The model is used to examine the effects of the plasma conditions within different regions of the ionization wave and compare the resulting dust structure to that obtained by employing the time-averaged plasma conditions. Here, the comparison between simulated dust chains and experimental data from the PK-4 experiment shows that the time-averaged plasma conditions do not accurately reproduce observed results for dust behavior, indicating that more careful treatment of plasma conditions in the presence of ionization waves is required. It is further shown that commonly used analytic forms of the electric potential do not accurately describe the electric potential near charged dust grains under these plasma conditions.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
NASA NTRS2004

Chemical Reaction and Flow Modeling in Fullerene and Nanotube Production

The development of processes to produce fullerenes and carbon nanotubes has largely been empirical. Fullerenes were first discovered in the soot produced by laser ablation of graphite [1]and then in the soot of electric arc evaporated carbon. Techniques and conditions for producing larger and larger quantities of fullerenes depended mainly on trial and error empirical variations of these processes, with attempts to scale them up by using larger electrodes and targets and higher power. Various concepts of how fullerenes and carbon nanotubes were formed were put forth, but very little was done based on chemical kinetics of the reactions. This was mainly due to the complex mixture of species and complex nature of conditions in the reactors. Temperatures in the reactors varied from several thousand degrees Kelvin down to near room temperature. There are hundreds of species possible, ranging from atomic carbon to large clusters of carbonaceous soot, and metallic catalyst atoms to metal clusters, to complexes of metals and carbon. Most of the chemical kinetics of the reactions and the thermodynamic properties of clusters and complexes have only been approximated. In addition, flow conditions in the reactors are transient or unsteady, and three dimensional, with steep spatial gradients of temperature and species concentrations. All these factors make computational simulations of reactors very complex and challenging. This article addresses the development of the chemical reaction involved in fullerene production and extends this to production of carbon nanotubes by the laser ablation/oven process and by the electric arc evaporation process. In addition, the high-pressure carbon monoxide (HiPco) process is discussed. The article is in several parts. The first one addresses the thermochemical aspects of modeling; and considers the development of chemical rate equations, estimates of reaction rates, and thermodynamic properties where they are available. The second part addresses modeling of the arc process for fullerene and carbon nanotube production using O-D, 1-D and 2-D fluid flow models. The third part addresses simulations of the pulsed laser ablation process using time-dependent techniques in 2-D, and a steady state 2-D simulation of a continuous laser ablation process. The fourth part addresses steady state modeling in O-D and 2-D of the HiPco process. In each of the simulations, there is a variety of simplifications that are made that enable one to concentrate on one aspect or another of the process. There are simplifications that can be made to the chemical reaction models , e.g. reduction in number of species by lumping some of them together in a representative species. Other simulations are carried out by eliminating the chemistry altogether in order to concentrate on the fluid dynamics. When solving problems with a large number of species in more than one spatial dimension, it is almost imperative that the problem be decoupled by solving for the fluid dynamics to find the fluid motion and temperature history of "particles" of fluid moving through a reactor. Then one can solve the chemical rate equations with complex chemistry following the temperature and pressure history. One difficulty is that often mixing with an ambient gas is involved. Therefore, one needs to take dilution and mixing into account. This changes the ratio of carbon species to background gas. Commercially available codes may have no provision for including dilution as part of the input. One must the write special solvers for including dilution in decoupled problems. The article addresses both ful1erene production and single-walled carbon nanotube (SWNT) production. There are at least two schemes or concepts of SWNT growth. This article will only address growth in the gas phase by carbon and catalyst cluster growth and SW T formation by the addition of carbon. There are other models that conceive of SWNT growth as a phase separation process from clusters me up carbon and metal catalyst, with the carbon precipitating from the cluster as it cools. We will not deal with that concept in this article. Further research is needed to determine the rates at which these composite clusters form, evaporate, and segregate.

Scott, Carl D.↗
DOE OSTI2025

Real-Time Partitioning of Diurnal Stem CO 2 Efflux into Local Stem Respiration and Xylem Transport Processes

The apparent respiratory quotient (ARQ) of tree stems, defined as the ratio of net stem CO 2 efflux (E S_CO2 ) to net stem O 2 influx (E S_O2 ), offers insights into the balance between local respiratory CO 2 production and CO 2 transported via the xylem. Traditional static chamber methods for measuring ARQ can introduce artifacts and obscure natural diurnal variations. Here, we employed an open flow-through stem chamber with ambient air coupled with cavity ring-down spectrometry, which uses the molecular properties of CO 2 and O 2 molecules to continuously measure E S_CO2 , E S_O2 , and ARQ, at the base of a California cherry tree (Prunus ilicifolia) during the 2024 growing season. Measurements across three stem chambers over 3–11-day periods revealed strong correlations between E S_CO2 and E S_O2 and mean ARQ values ranging from 1.3 to 2.9, far exceeding previous reports. Two distinct diurnal ARQ patterns were observed: daytime suppression with nighttime recovery, and a morning peak followed by gradual decline. Partitioning E S_CO2 into local respiration and xylem-transported CO 2 indicated that the latter can dominate when ARQ exceeds 2.0. Furthermore, transported CO 2 exhibited a higher temperature sensitivity than local respiration, with both processes showing declining temperature sensitivity above 20 °C. These findings underscore the need to differentiate stem CO 2 flux components to improve our understanding of whole-tree carbon cycling.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS1999

Trace Chemistry

The goals of the trace chemistry group were to identify the processes relevant to aerosol and aerosol precursor formation occurring within aircraft gas turbine engines; that is, within the combustor, turbine, and nozzle. The topics of discussion focused on whether the chemistry of aerosol formation is homogeneous or heterogeneous; what species are important for aerosol and aerosol precursor formation; what modeling/theoretical activities to pursue; what experiments to carry out that both support modeling activities and elucidate fundamental processes; and the role of particulates in aerosol and aerosol precursor formation. The consensus of the group was that attention should be focused on SO2, SO3, and aerosols. Of immediate concern is the measurement of the concentration of the species SO3, SO2, H2SO4 OH, HO2, H2O2, O, NO, NO2, HONO, HNO3, CO, and CO2 and particulates in various engines, both those currently in use and those in development. The recommendation was that concentration measurements should be made at both the combustor exit and the engine exit. At each location the above species were classified into one of four categories of decreasing importance, Priority I through IV, as follows: Combustor exit: Priority I species - SO3:SO2 ratio, SO3, SO2, and particulates; Priority II species: OH and O; Priority III species - NO and NO2; and Priority IV species - CO and CO2. For the Engine exit: Priority I species - SO3:SO2 ratio, SO3, SO2,H2SO4, and particulates; Priority II species: OH,HO2, H2O2, and O; Priority III species - NO, NO2, HONO, and HNO3; and Priority IV species - CO and CO2. Table I summarizes the anticipated concentration range of each of these species. For particulate matter, the quantities of interest are the number density, size distribution, and composition. In order to provide data for validating multidimensional reacting flow models, it would be desirable to make 2-D, time-resolved measurements of the concentrations of the above species and, in addition, of the pressure, temperature, and velocity. A near term goal of the experimental program should be to confirm the nonlinear effects of sulfur speciation, and if present, to provide an explanation for them. It is also desirable to examine if the particulate matter retains any sulfur. The recommendation is to examine the effects on SOx production of variations in fuel-bound sulfur and aromatic content (which may affect the amount of particulates formed). These experiments should help us to understand if there is a coupling between particulate formation and SO, concentration. Similarly, any coupling with NOx can be examined either by introducing NOx into the combustion air or by using fuel-bound nitrogen. Also of immediate urgency is the need to establish and validate a detailed mechanism for sulfur oxidation/aerosol formation, whose chemistry is concluded to be homogeneous, because there is not enough surface area for heterogeneous effects. It is envisaged that this work will involve both experimental and theoretical programs. The experimental work will require, in addition to the measurements described above, fundamental studies in devices such as flow reactors and shock tubes. Complementing this effort should be modeling and theoretical activities. One impediment to the successful modeling of sulfur oxidation is the lack of reliable data for thermodynamic and transport properties for several species, such as aqueous nitric acid, sulfur oxides, and sulfuric acid. Quantum mechanical calculations are recommended as a convenient means of deriving values for these properties. Such calculations would also help establish rate constants for several important reactions for which experimental measurements are inherently fraught with uncertainty. Efforts to implement sufficiently detailed chemistry into computational fluid dynamic codes should be continued. Zero- and one-dimensional flow models are also useful vehicles for elucidating the minimal set of species and reactions that must be included in two- and three-dimensional modeling studies.

Radhakrishnan, Krishnan↗
DOE OSTI2022

Kimberlina 1.2 CCUS Geophysical Models and Synthetic Data Sets

This synthetic multi-scale and multi-physics data set was produced in collaboration with teams at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Colorado School of Mines through the Science-informed Machine Learning for Accelerating Real-Time Decisions in Subsurface Applications (SMART) Initiative. Data are associated with the following publication: Alumbaugh, D., Gasperikova, E., Crandall, D., Commer, M., Feng, S., Harbert, W., Li, Y., Lin, Y., and Samarasinghe, S., “The Kimberlina Synthetic Geophysical Model and Data Set for CO2 Monitoring Investigations”, The Geoscience Data Journal, 2023, DOI: 10.1002/gdj3.191. The dataset uses the Kimberlina 1.2 CO2 reservoir flow model simulations based on a hypothetical CO2 storage site in California (Birkholzer et al., 2011; Wainwright et al., 2013). Geophysical properties models (P- and S-wave seismic velocities, saturated density, and electrical resistivity) were produced with an approach similar to that of Yang et al. (2019) and Gasperikova et al. (2022) for 100 Kimberlina 1.2 reservoir models. Links to individual resources are provided below: [CO2 Saturation Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-co2-saturation-models); Resistivity Models – [part 1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-1), [part 2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-2), and [part 3](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-3); [Vp Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vp-velocity-models); [Vs Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vs-velocity-models); [Density Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-density-models). The 3D distributions of geophysical properties for the 33 time stamps of the SIM001 model were used to generate synthetic seismic, gravity, and electromagnetic (EM) responses for 33 times between zero and 200 years. Synthetic surface seismic data were generated using 2D and 3D finite-difference codes that simulate the acoustic wave equation (Moczo et al., 2007). 2D data were simulated for six point-pressure sources along a 2D line with 10 m receiver spacing and a time spacing of 0.0005 s. 3D simulations were completed for 25 surface pressure sources using a source separation of 1 km in both the x and y directions and a time spacing of 0.001 s. Links to individual resources are provided below: [2D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-velocity-models) and [2D surface seismic data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-surface-seismic-data). [3D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-velocity-models), and 3D seismic data [year0](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year0), [year1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year1), [year2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year2), [year5](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year5), [year10](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year10), [year15](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year15), [year20](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year20), [year25](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year25), [year30](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year30), [year35](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year35), [year40](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year40), [year45](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year45), [year49](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year49), [year50](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year50), [year51](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year51), [year52](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year52), [year55](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year55), [year60](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year60), [year65](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year65), [year70](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year70), [year75](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year75), [year80](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year80), [year85](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year85), [year90](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year90), [year95](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year95), [year100](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year100), [year110](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year110), [year120](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year120), [year130](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year130), [year140](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year140), [year150](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year150), [year175](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year175), [year200](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year200). The Python scripts to read these models and data are provided [here](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-python-scripts). EM simulations used a borehole-to-surface survey configuration, with the source located near the reservoir level and receivers on the surface using the code developed by Commer and Newman (2008). Pseudo-2D data for the source at [2500 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz2500m) and [3025 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz3025m), used a 2D inline receiver configuration to simulate a response over 3D resistivity models. The [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-csem-data) contain electric fields generated by borehole sources at monitoring well locations and measured over a surface receiver grid. Vector gravity data, both on the surface and in boreholes, were simulated using a modeling code developed by Rim and Li (2015). The simulation scenarios were parallel to those used for the EM: [pseudo-2D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were calculated along the same lines and within the same boreholes, and [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were simulated over 3D models on the surface and in three monitoring wells. A series of [synthetic well logs](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-well-logs) of CO2 saturation, acoustic velocity, density, and induction resistivity in the injection well and three monitoring wells are also provided at 0, 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years after the initiation of injection. These were constructed by combining the low-frequency trend of the geophysical models with the high-frequency variations of actual well logs collected in the Kimberlina 1 well that was drilled at the proposed site. Measurements of permeability and pore connectivity were made on cores of Vedder Sandstone, which forms the primary reservoir unit: [CT micro scans](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-ct-micro-scans-of-vedder-formation) and [Industrial CT Images](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-industrial-ct-images-vedder-formation). These measurements provide the range of scales in the otherwise synthetic data set to be as close to a real-world situation as possible. References: Birkholzer, J.T., Zhou, Q., Cortis, A. and Finsterle, S., 2011. A sensitivity study on regional pressure buildup from large-scale CO2 storage projects. Energy Procedia, 4, 4371-4378. Commer, M., and Newman, G.A., 2008. New advances in three-dimensional controlled-source electromagnetic inversion, Geophysical Journal International, 172, 513-535. Gasperikova, E., Appriou, D., Bonneville, A., Feng, Z., Huang, L., Gao, K., Yang, X., Daley, T., 2022, Sensitivity of geophysical techniques for monitoring secondary CO2 storage plumes, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control, Volume 114, 103585, ISSN 1750-5836, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2022.103585. Moczo, P., J.O. Robertsson and L. Eisner, 2007, The finite-difference time-domain method for modeling of seismic wave propagation: Advances in geophysics, 48, 421-516. Rim, H., and Y. Li, 2015, Advantages of borehole vector gravity in density imaging, Geophysics, 80, G1-G13. Wainwright, H. M.; Finsterle, S.; Zhou, Q.; Birkholzer, J. T., 2013. Modeling the Performance of Large-Scale CO2 Storage Systems: A Comparison of Different Sensitivity Analysis Methods. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 17, 189205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.05.007, DOI: 10.18141/1603331. Yang, X., Buscheck, T.A., Mansoor, K., Wang, Z., Gao, K., Huang, L., Appriou, D., and Carroll, S.A., 2019. Assessment of geophysical monitoring methods for detection of brine and CO2 leakage in drinking water aquifers, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 90, 102803, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.102803.

CCUS↗