Results for “drop tower” — Page 24

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

Cameron J. Hines↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boiloff Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Welding in Space: Past, Present, and Future

It has been over fifty years since the first welds were made in space by Soviet cosmonauts on Soyuz-6 in October of 1969. The United States performed bead-on-plate welding, brazing, and metal melting experiments onboard the Skylab orbital space station several years later in 1973. Finally, Soviet cosmonauts departed their Salyut-7 capsule and made the first (and last) welds in open space in 1984. Progress on further demonstrations of welding in space stagnated, and subsequent microgravity welding research work shifted to lower-cost earth-based experiments that include drop towers and parabolic flights. With the advent of the International Space Station, relevant microgravity research was undertaken in the field of metal solidification science, and limited studies of brazing and soldering were undertaken; however, no welds have ever been on the Space Station. Therefore, it has been almost 40 years since a weld was made in space. Much like terrestrial construction and manufacturing industries, welding, joining, and allied processes will be enabling technologies for In-space Assembly and Manufacturing (ISAM) in the nascent “Space Economy”, a sector that is expected to approach a value of 10^12 USD within the next decade. It is critical that the welding and joining research community, along with the welding industry, engages the space industry to advance the understanding of those critical manufacturing processes which must be evaluated and matured in the extreme environments of space. Such environments include variable gravity (microgravity in low earth orbit, 0.17 gravity on the lunar surface, and 0.38 gravity on the martian surface), reduced pressure (extreme vacuum in space and the lunar surface to a predominantly CO2 atmosphere on Mars), and extreme temperatures (between 40 and 400 K). Past experiments and analyses are reviewed to suggest requirements that the welding and joining community should target to make strides on closing the current space welding gaps. Efforts to continue welding in space are currently underway at NASA in conjunction with academia and industry. Those are explored along with future agency goals which are seen as opportunities to engage the welding community on this historic effort.

in-space assembly and manufacturing↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Component Characterization of an eVTOL Reference Model for Crashworthiness Studies

Researchers at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Langley Research Center (LaRC) have conducted a series of structural component and seat level tests to improve finite element model (FEM) characterization of a representative vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) test article developed by NASA. A full-scale dynamic test was conducted on the representative eVTOL test article in November of 2022. The test article represented a high wing, six passenger eVTOL design concept and is referred to as the lift plus cruise (LPC) test article. The full-scale test identified limitations in the analytical models used to predict aircraft structural response, in particular the composite material models did not effectively capture brittle failure of the structure which were measured during dynamic loading. To better understand the mechanism behind the composite material failure mechanisms observed and to improve the FEM, intact sample specimens of the composite airframe structure were recovered from the test article post-test and used in material characterization testing. In addition, the seat configurations used in the LPC test article were further studied using isolated seat and anthropomorphic test device (ATD) drop tower testing. Dynamic compression tests and three-point bend tests, conducted at varied impact speeds, were performed on the recovered frame section specimens. Additional testing was conducted to characterize the material properties of the forming foam, which remained in the frames after fabrication. These tests were used to improve characterization of the damage and failure parameters of the composite material model used in the FE model of the LPC test article. Seat level tests were conducted on the seats used in the LPC test article using acceleration pulses inclusive of current general aviation and rotorcraft certification load levels as well as conditions representative of those measured at the seat base during the LPC test. The structural material models and seat environment models of the LPC test article FEM were calibrated using the generated component test data. The updates made to these models were then integrated into the LPC FEM and simulated in the full-scale test condition. Results demonstrated the effectiveness of component testing to improve predictive capability of composite aerospace structural models within the crash and dynamic loading environments. Demonstration of the LPC FEM response across an accumulation of coupon, component, seat environment, and full-scale test levels provides confidence in the predictive capability of this model for future use in the study of occupant safety within eVTOL relevant crash environments.

Craswhorthiness↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Component Characterization of an eVTOL Reference Model for Crashworthiness Studies

Researchers at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Langley Research Center (LaRC) have conducted a series of structural component and seat level tests to improve finite element model (FEM) characterization of a representative vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) test article developed by NASA. A full-scale dynamic test was conducted on the representative eVTOL test article in November of 2022. The test article represented a high wing, six passenger eVTOL design concept and is referred to as the lift plus cruise (LPC) test article. The full-scale test identified limitations in the analytical models used to predict aircraft structural response, in particular the composite material models did not effectively capture brittle failure of the structure which were measured during dynamic loading. To better understand the mechanism behind the composite material failure mechanisms observed and to improve the FEM, intact sample specimens of the composite airframe structure were recovered from the test article post-test and used in material characterization testing. In addition, the seat configurations used in the LPC test article were further studied using isolated seat and anthropomorphic test device (ATD) drop tower testing. Dynamic compression tests and three-point bend tests, conducted at varied impact speeds, were performed on the recovered frame section specimens. Additional testing was conducted to characterize the material properties of the forming foam, which remained in the frames after fabrication. These tests were used to improve characterization of the damage and failure parameters of the composite material model used in the FE model of the LPC test article. Seat level tests were conducted on the seats used in the LPC test article using acceleration pulses inclusive of current general aviation and rotorcraft certification load levels as well as conditions representative of those measured at the seat base during the LPC test. The structural material models and seat environment models of the LPC test article FEM were calibrated using the generated component test data. The updates made to these models were then integrated into the LPC FEM and simulated in the full-scale test condition. Results demonstrated the effectiveness of component testing to improve predictive capability of composite aerospace structural models within the crash and dynamic loading environments. Demonstration of the LPC FEM response across an accumulation of coupon, component, seat environment, and full-scale test levels provides confidence in the predictive capability of this model for future use in the study of occupant safety within eVTOL relevant crash environments.

Craswhorthiness↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Validation of a Multiphase Computational Fluid Dynamics Model for Vapor Pull-Through in Normal and Low Gravity

On-orbit fluid transfer such as refueling of propellant tanks and life-support systems can enable long-duration space missions. For safe and efficient liquid transfer operations, prior knowledge of liquid positioning and liquid-vapor interface behavior while draining in a low-gravity environment is required. Numerical models capable of predicting vapor ingestion (or vapor pull-through) can be used to design liquid transfer operations while reducing liquid residuals, mission risk and settling thrust required to prevent vapor ingestion. An experimental program conducted in the 2.2 Second Drop Tower facility at NASA Glenn Research Center investigated the vapor ingestion phenomenon for a range of outflow rates and tank sizes providing a database for validation. This study presents a Computational Fluid Dynamics model capable of accurately predicting the vapor ingestion using the Volume-of-Fluid multiphase solver in commercial code STAR-CCM+. A description of the experimental setup and general trends from similar studies are presented. Comparisons of the numerical prediction and test data in normal and low gravity show good agreement and give confidence in pursuing design of full-scale propellant transfer systems.

Computational Fluid Dynamics↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Validation of a Multiphase Computational Fluid Dynamics Model for Vapor Pull-Through in Normal and Low Gravity

On-orbit fluid transfer such as refueling of propellant tanks and life-support systems can enable long-duration space missions. For safe and efficient liquid transfer operations, prior knowledge of liquid positioning and liquid-vapor interface behavior while draining in a reduced-gravity environment is required. Numerical models capable of predicting vapor ingestion (or vapor pull-through) can be used to design liquid transfer operations while reducing liquid residuals, mission risk and settling thrust required to prevent vapor ingestion. An experimental program conducted in the 2.2 Second Drop Tower facility at NASA Lewis Research Center in 1969 investigated the vapor ingestion phenomenon for a range of outflow rates and tank sizes providing a database for validation. This study presents a Computational Fluid Dynamics model capable of accurately predicting the vapor ingestion using the Volume-of-Fluid multiphase solver in commercial code STAR-CCM+. A description of the experimental setup and general trends from similar studies are presented. Comparisons of the numerical prediction and test data in normal and low gravity show good agreement and give confidence in pursuing design of full-scale propellant transfer systems.

Computational Fluid Dynamics↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Validation of A Multiphase Computational Fluid Dynamics Model for Vapor Pull-Through in Normal and Low Gravity

On-orbit fluid transfer such as refueling of propellant tanks and life-support systems can enable long-duration space missions. For safe and efficient liquid transfer operations, prior knowledge of liquid positioning and liquid-vapor interface behavior while draining in a reduced-gravity environment is required. Numerical models capable of predicting vapor ingestion (or vapor pull-through) can be used to design liquid transfer operations while reducing liquid residuals, mission risk and settling thrust required to prevent vapor ingestion. An experimental program conducted in the 2.2 Second Drop Tower facility at NASA Lewis Research Center in 1969 investigated the vapor ingestion phenomenon for a range of outflow rates and tank sizes providing a database for validation. This study presents a Computational Fluid Dynamics model capable of accurately predicting the vapor ingestion using the Volume-of-Fluid multiphase solver in commercial code STAR-CCM+. A description of the experimental setup and general trends from similar studies are presented. Comparisons of the numerical prediction and test data in normal and low gravity show good agreement and give confidence in pursuing design of full-scale propellant transfer systems.

Propellant Transfer↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Behavior of Ullage Bubbles During Blowdown in Low-g Experiment (BUBBLE): Overview of a Cryogenic Tank Depressurization Test

Behavior of Ullage Bubbles during Blowdown in Low-g Experiment (BUBBLE) is a cryogenic tank depressurization drop tower experiment currently being designed at NASA Glenn Research Center. There is a need for liquid level rise data while venting a cryogenic propellant tank below the liquid saturation pressure in a reduced gravity environment. When a cryogenic tank is vented to a vapor pressure below the liquid saturation pressure, bubbles become entrained in the liquid causing the bulk liquid-vapor interface to rise. In reduced gravity, bubble rise velocity is diminished leading to a larger liquid level rise compared to a 1g environment. The purpose of the experiment is to gain further understanding of tank depressurization fluid physics and obtain high-fidelity data for model validation in 1g and reduced gravity environments. On-orbit cryogenic propellant tanks operating at high fill levels must efficiently manage venting operations to avoid the risk of liquid entrainment in the vent line, which could lead to asymmetric control thruster loads, freezing and clogging, and loss of liquid propellant. Validated models could be used to design settling and venting profiles to reduce risk and increase efficiency for cryogenic storage and transfer operations.

tank venting↗

DOE OSTI2021

Combustion studies of n-butyl acetate synthesized by a new biological process and comparisons with neat n-butyl acetate

Blending petroleum fuels with biofuels is a common approach for stemming the depletion of crude oil while also mitigating the impact of their combustion on the environment. It has recently been considered that n-butyl acetate (BA, C6H12O2, boiling point of 399K) could be a viable biofuel additive to diesel fuel. This paper reports the combustion dynamics of BA droplets in the absence of external convection. Two grades of BA were examined: one synthesized by a new process that uses a solventogenic Clostridium strain through an extractive fermentation process using n-hexadecane as the extractant (SBA); the other commercially available as a high-purity (99.9%) 'neat' BA grade produced by Fischer esterification (NBA). The mass concentration of by-products from the synthesis process amounted to approximately 6% of the total composition and included n-butanol, n-hexadecane, iso-propyl alcohol and ethyl acetate. The platform used to study the combustion of commercial and synthesized BA was an isolated droplet burning with spherical symmetry. Initial droplet diameters were fixed at 0.6 mm. Experiments were carried out in a drop tower to promote one-dimensional transport dynamics, in the standard atmosphere, and with ignition accomplished by spark discharge. Differences in droplet burning rates and flame structures were undetectable between NBA and SBA, despite the differences in burning among the SBA components individually. The results presented show that the new synthesis process for butyl acetate yields a sustainable alternative to conventional methodologies with burning characteristics that are identical to NBA in stagnant gas transport fields.

Wang, Yujie↗

DOE OSTI2019

CSP Systems Analysis - Final Project Report

The CSP Systems Analysis project was a three-year effort supporting the Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) Subprogram within the Solar Energy Technologies Office of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The goal of the CSP Systems Analysis project was to provide timely and accurate CSP cost data to the DOE and predict performance and cost for emerging technologies that may impact research directions and industry investment. The project consisted of six, mostly independent tasks. Major accomplishments over the three-year period of performance were as follows. The NREL team maintained current cost estimates for CSP technologies by annual updates to the cost input parameters within NREL's System Advisor Model (SAM). SAM is a performance and cost simulation software that includes technology models for the primary CSP technologies. During the period from 2016 to 2018, the estimated cost within SAM's default CSP molten-salt power tower technology dropped from 13.0 to 11.1 cent/kWh (real dollars without incentives). Power cycle models for the supercritical carbon dioxide (sCO2) Brayton Cycle were developed and made an option within SAM's molten-salt power tower model. These models were subsequently used to evaluate the cost reduction potential of alternative salts. The partial-cooling model was found to provide the greatest cost-reduction potential due to its combination of efficiency and temperature differential across the turbine and thermal energy storage (TES) system. These studies were documented in two journal articles. NREL's optical modeling software SolTrace and SolarPILOT were made more versatile and released as open-source software to the CSP community. These tools help researchers and developers to model and optimize the optical performance of CSP collector systems. The new features were highlighted in a recorded webinar that can be accessed from the NREL SAM website. New models for solar-thermal systems, that is, applications for solar industrial process heat, were developed, validated, and installed within SAM. The analysis includes a 2018 review of linear collectors in the market that are tailored for solar process heat applications. In 2018 the NREL team also developed an annual simulation for a direct steam generation system integrated with a latent-heat TES system. This analysis was submitted for journal publication. The NREL team continued to support the exchange of information and development of CSP guidelines within the international CSP community of SolarPACES. Much of the work under this project was presented at SolarPACES, including the development of a modeling checklist to help CSP stakeholders standardize the models used for estimating CSP performance and cost. The CSP Systems Analysis project also supported DOE requests for tracking and reporting programmatic targets for the CSP Subprogram.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2012

Tailoring engineered cementitious composites for impact resistance

This paper presents results of deliberate tailoring of engineered cementitious composites (ECC) for impact resistance. Microstructure control involving fiber, matrix and fiber/matrix interface was based on steady-state dynamic crack growth analyses accounting for rate dependence of composite phases. Uniaxial tensile stress-strain curves of the resulting impact resistant ECC were experimentally determined for strain rates ranging from 10{sup -5} s{sup -1} to 10{sup -1} s{sup -1}. Low speed drop weight tower test on ECC panels and beams was also conducted. Damage characteristics, load and energy dissipation capacities, and response to repeated impacts, were studied.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

DOE OSTI2019

Dynamic Strength Characteristics of Materials: Influence of the Specimen Size on Strain Rate

Test results are presented for an additive material prepared of acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene on a 3D printer. Dynamic tension experiments have been carried out using a tower-type drop hammer with an accelerator. Data obtained from different specimens demonstrate that high-strain-rate tensile experiments are feasible if the working part of the specimen is decreased. A theoretical analysis of test data using the incubation time criterion has been performed, and it has been found that analytical results are in good agreement with experimental data.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

DOE OSTI2023

Low-velocity repeated impact behaviors of Polymer Fiber Reinforced Plastics (PFRPs)

Modern fiber-reinforced composites have become ubiquitous across multiple industries due to their excellent weight-to-strength ratio. Typically glass or carbon fibers are widely used. While Glass or Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Plastics (GFPRs or CFPRs) have good stiffness, strength, and fatigue life, they are expensive and difficult to recycle. Researchers are exploring Polymer Fiber-Reinforced Plastics (PFRPs) as an alternative solution. PFRPs utilize polymer fibers and a polymer matrix. A wide range of materials options is available, including low-cost thermoplastics such as polyethylene or polypropylene. These thermoplastics are easy to handle and recyclable without special methods. Manufacturing parts using thermoplastics are well-established as well. However, their mechanical performances have not been extensively studied compared to GFRPs or CFRPs. This study examines the low-velocity impact resistance of PFRPs made of different thermoplastics. The low-velocity impacts are applied through a drop-weight tower. The experiment is divided into two cases: a single perforation impact and low-energy repeated impacts. Energy absorption and the number of impacts to failure are measured. The results are compared to traditional CFRPs which have a thermoset matrix. The PFRPs demonstrate energy absorption capabilities comparable to or greater than those of CFRPs with respect to specimen thickness and density. Additionally, the PFRPs show significantly higher impacts-to-failure than the CFRPs in low-energy repeated impact tests. This is particularly noteworthy considering that the PFRPs are much simpler and more economical to manufacture than CFRPs. To further

Ko, Seunghyun↗

DOE OSTI2018

Shear Heating of Explosives using the Crush Gun; FY2018 Report

Explosives subject to rapid mechanical deformation can experience large internal velocity gradients; this is a dissipative process, causing internal temperature rise. If this internal frictional heating is sufficiently large and sufficiently localized it can cause ignition of the explosive. Modeling the heat deposition that arises from mechanical insult is an ongoing effort, and additional experimental data is required to develop the model [1]. Apneumatic gun apparatus was designed and built to deliver crushing impacts at velocities of 0-70 m/s. The apparatus is designed to halt the projectile approximately 1 mm before impacting the sapphire imaging surface, preventing a complete “pinch” condition from attaining. The primary diagnostics include high-speed visible videography and infrared imaging to determine spatial temperature rise of the sample during impact. Forty-seven tests were performed with the apparatus during FY18, on four different explosives: Comp-B, PBX 9501, LX-07, and LX-14.No measurable heating was observed with Comp-B at a nominal velocity of 58 m/s. A maximum temperature rise of 17 °C was recorded with PBX 9501 at an impact velocity of 59 m/s. A maximum temperature rise of 32 °C was observed with LX-07 at an impact velocity of 57 m/s. A maximum temperature rise of 15 °C was observed with LX-14 at an impact velocity of 59 m/s. In contrast to drop-weight tower sensitivity testing [2,3], no ignitions were observed in any of the impacts. The lack of appreciable heating is attributed to the arrest mechanism which prevents the projectile from completing the final ~2 mm of crush. Differences between the explosive compositions are attributed primarily to binder effects.

45 MILITARY TECHNOLOGY, WEAPONRY, AND NATIONAL DEF↗

DOE OSTI2022

RRFMC Drop Tester: Conduct of R&D Engineering System Risk Assessment

This report provides a documented risk assessment and subsequent determination of engineering rigor for the modification of the drop tester system inside of the Respirable Release Fraction Measurement Chamber (RRFMC) located in TA03-130. This risk assessment does not apply to the modification of the structural support system, containment barrier, pressure system, nor fluid system of the RRFMC, but only seeks to address the risk associated with the specific system used to raise and drop test articles.

42 ENGINEERING↗