Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “FACILITIES”

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.

At least 613 records · Page 34
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2017

Assessment of Aquifer Baseline Conditions at the Idaho National Laboratory Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility

This document provides an analysis of radiologic concentrations in the aquifer and vadose zone near Idaho National Laboratory’s (INL’s) Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste (RH-LLW) disposal facility. This document identifies pre-existing sources of radiologic contaminants that could be transported to the aquifer near the RH-LLW disposal facility based on releases from nearby facility operations. It contains a summary of radionuclide concentration data in the upstream perched water and in the aquifer upstream and downstream of the RH LLW disposal facility in order to establish known variability from these pre existing radiologic sources. Using this historical data allows meaningful aquifer monitoring targets to be established for the RH-LLW disposal facility monitoring system (i.e., vadose zone wells and aquifer wells) to allow potential releases from the RH-LLW disposal facility to be distinguished from the pre existing sources of contaminants that are likely to be detected in the monitoring system.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2013

License Amendment Request for Storing Exelon Sister Nuclear Stations Class B/C LLRW in the LaSalle Station Interim Radwaste Storage Facility - 13620

Exelon Nuclear (Exelon) designed and constructed an Interim Radwaste Storage Facility (IRSF) in the mid-1980's at LaSalle County Nuclear Station (LaSalle). The facility was designed to store low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) on an interim basis, i.e., up to five years. The primary reason for the IRSF was to offset lack of disposal in case existing disposal facilities, such as the Southeast Compact's Barnwell Disposal Facility in Barnwell, South Carolina, ceased accepting radioactive waste from utilities not in the Southeast Compact. Approximately ninety percent of the Radwaste projected to be stored in the LaSalle IRSF in that period of time was Class A, with the balance being Class B/C waste. On July 1, 2008 the Barnwell Disposal Facility in the Southeast Compact closed its doors to out of- compact Radwaste, which precluded LaSalle from shipping Class B/C Radwaste to an outside disposal facility. Class A waste generated by LaSalle is still able to be disposed at the 'Envirocare of Utah LLRW Disposal Complex' in Clive, Utah. Thus the need for utilizing the LaSalle IRSF for storing Class B/C Radwaste for an extended period, perhaps life-of-plant or more became apparent. Additionally, other Exelon Midwest nuclear stations located in Illinois that did not build an IRSF heretofore also needed extended Radwaste storage. In early 2009, Exelon made a decision to forward Radwaste from the Byron Nuclear Station (Byron), Braidwood Nuclear Station (Braidwood), and Clinton Nuclear Station (Clinton) to LaSalle's IRSF. As only Class B/C Radwaste would need to be forwarded to LaSalle, the original volumetric capacity of the LaSalle IRSF was capable of handling the small number of additional expected shipments annually from the Exelon sister nuclear stations in Illinois. Forwarding Class B/C Radwaste from the Exelon sister nuclear stations in Illinois to LaSalle would require an amendment to the LaSalle Station operating license. Exelon submitted the License Amendment Request (LAR) to NRC on January 6, 2010; NRC approved the LAR on July 21, 2011. A similar decision was made by Exelon in early 2009 to forward Radwaste from Limerick Nuclear Station to its sister station, the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station; both in Pennsylvania. A LAR submittal to the NRC was also provided and NRC approval was received in 2011. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Laser Cleaning for Decontamination of a Nuclear Facility - 20609

This paper describes laser cleaning of contaminated tools in a nuclear power facility in Chalk River, Ontario Canada and also the same for EnergySolutions facility in Memphis facility. For the Chalk River facility, other methods of cleaning which included dry ice blasting, disassemble and wipe clean and steam cleaning, generated secondary waste and were time consuming. Laser cleaning of the tools in facility did not create secondary waste, was more efficient and safer for the operator. The laser cleaning method was compared with other methods. For the EnergySolutions facility in Memphis, laser cleaning was compared with hands on cleaning and laser removal by applying them to a rail car, a metal plate and a metal skate. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2017

A New Graphical Dismantling Process Simulation Technology for Flexible Planning of Nuclear Facility

The dismantling of highly radioactive components of the nuclear facility is one of the most difficult activities in decommissioning. In the planning stage, the dismantling scenario including dismantling equipment and processes has a significant effect on the cost and safety of the whole decommissioning. High level radiation of the dismantling object such as a reactor pressure vessel (RPV) and its internals restricts access by human workers, and makes an accident during the dismantling process more difficult to deal with. Decommissioning of nuclear facilities demand a large scale of budget and high level of safety, and therefore the preliminary verification of dismantling scenarios by graphical simulation has special importance at planning stage. In recent years, the manufacturing industry has aggressively adopted the virtual manufacturing technology to verify the facilities and processes with high efficiency. The virtual manufacturing technology was beginning to be adopted in the area of the nuclear facility decommissioning. The dismantling process of the Rotary Specimen Rack (RSR) in the Korea Research Reactor-1 and 2 was established and it was also applied to replace the steam generators on time and on budget in San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Current virtual manufacturing technologies are not sufficient for the area of nuclear facility decommissioning because the object segmenting function absolutely required for graphical simulations over various dismantling scenarios is unavailable. This paper proposes a new technology for graphical decommissioning simulator which is able to simulate various dismantling scenarios over nuclear facilities including repetitive object cuttings of heavy and complex structures by applying flexible cutting algorithm.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2012

Lead Coolant Test Facility Systems Design, Thermal Hydraulic Analysis and Cost Estimate

The Idaho National Laboratory prepared a preliminary technical and functional requirements (T&FR), thermal hydraulic design and cost estimate for a lead coolant test facility. The purpose of this small scale facility is to simulate lead coolant fast reactor (LFR) coolant flow in an open lattice geometry core using seven electrical rods and liquid lead or lead-bismuth eutectic coolant. Based on review of current world lead or lead-bismuth test facilities and research needs listed in the Generation IV Roadmap, five broad areas of requirements were identified as listed: (1) Develop and Demonstrate Feasibility of Submerged Heat Exchanger; (2) Develop and Demonstrate Open-lattice Flow in Electrically Heated Core; (3) Develop and Demonstrate Chemistry Control; (4) Demonstrate Safe Operation; and (5) Provision for Future Testing. This paper discusses the preliminary design of systems, thermal hydraulic analysis, and simplified cost estimate. The facility thermal hydraulic design is based on the maximum simulated core power using seven electrical heater rods of 420 kW; average linear heat generation rate of 300 W/cm. The core inlet temperature for liquid lead or Pb/Bi eutectic is 4200 C. The design includes approximately seventy-five data measurements such as pressure, temperature, and flow rates. The preliminary estimated cost of construction of the facility is $3.7M (in 2006 $). It is also estimated that the facility will require two years to be constructed and ready for operation.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2014

EARTHQUAKE CAUSED RELEASES FROM A NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE FACILITY

The fuel cycle facility (FCF) at the Idaho National Laboratory is a nuclear facility which must be licensed in order to operate. A safety analysis is required for a license. This paper describes the analysis of the Design Basis Accident for this facility. This analysis involves a model of the transient behavior of the FCF inert atmosphere hot cell following an earthquake initiated breach of pipes passing through the cell boundary. The hot cell is used to process spent metallic nuclear fuel. Such breaches allow the introduction of air and subsequent burning of pyrophoric metals. The model predicts the pressure, temperature, volumetric releases, cell heat transfer, metal fuel combustion, heat generation rates, radiological releases and other quantities. The results show that releases from the cell are minimal and satisfactory for safety. This analysis method should be useful in other facilities that have potential for damage from an earthquake and could eliminate the need to back fit facilities with earthquake proof boundaries or lessen the cost of new facilities.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2015

Analysis of material recovery facilities for use in life-cycle assessment

Highlights: • Life-cycle assessment of solid waste management relies on accurate process models. • Material recovery facility (MRF) processes were modeled with new primary data. • Single stream, dual stream, pre-sorted, and mixed waste MRFs were considered. • MRF electricity consumption ranges from 4.7 to 7.8 kW h per Mg input. • Total cost ranges from $19.8 to $24.9 per Mg input. - Abstract: Insights derived from life-cycle assessment of solid waste management strategies depend critically on assumptions, data, and modeling at the unit process level. Based on new primary data, a process model was developed to estimate the cost and energy use associated with material recovery facilities (MRFs), which are responsible for sorting recyclables into saleable streams and as such represent a key piece of recycling infrastructure. The model includes four modules, each with a different process flow, for separation of single-stream, dual-stream, pre-sorted recyclables, and mixed-waste. Each MRF type has a distinct combination of equipment and default input waste composition. Model results for total amortized costs from each MRF type ranged from $19.8 to $24.9 per Mg (1 Mg = 1 metric ton) of waste input. Electricity use ranged from 4.7 to 7.8 kW h per Mg of waste input. In a single-stream MRF, equipment required for glass separation consumes 28% of total facility electricity consumption, while all other pieces of material recovery equipment consume less than 10% of total electricity. The dual-stream and mixed-waste MRFs have similar electricity consumption to a single-stream MRF. Glass separation contributes a much larger fraction of electricity consumption in a pre-sorted MRF, due to lower overall facility electricity consumption. Parametric analysis revealed that reducing separation efficiency for each piece of equipment by 25% altered total facility electricity consumption by less than 4% in each case. When model results were compared with actual data for an existing single-stream MRF, the model estimated the facility’s electricity consumption within 2%. The results from this study can be integrated into LCAs of solid waste management with system boundaries that extend from the curb through final disposal.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2011

Materials and Security Consolidation Complex Facilities Radioactive Waste Management Basis and DOE Manual 435.1-1 Compliance Tables

Department of Energy Order 435.1, 'Radioactive Waste Management,' along with its associated manual and guidance, requires development and maintenance of a radioactive waste management basis for each radioactive waste management facility, operation, and activity. This document presents a radioactive waste management basis for Idaho National Laboratory's Materials and Security Consolidation Center facilities that manage radioactive waste. The radioactive waste management basis for a facility comprises existing laboratory-wide and facility-specific documents. Department of Energy Manual 435.1-1, 'Radioactive Waste Management Manual,' facility compliance tables also are presented for the facilities. The tables serve as a tool for developing the radioactive waste management basis.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2011

Advanced Test Reactor Complex Facilities Radioactive Waste Management Basis and DOE Manual 435.1-1 Compliance Tables

U.S. Department of Energy Order 435.1, 'Radioactive Waste Management,' along with its associated manual and guidance, requires development and maintenance of a radioactive waste management basis for each radioactive waste management facility, operation, and activity. This document presents a radioactive waste management basis for Idaho National Laboratory's Advanced Test Reactor Complex facilities that manage radioactive waste. The radioactive waste management basis for a facility comprises existing laboratory-wide and facility-specific documents. U.S. Department of Energy Manual 435.1-1, 'Radioactive Waste Management Manual,' facility compliance tables also are presented for the facilities. The tables serve as a tool to develop the radioactive waste management basis.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2011

Research and Education Campus Facilities Radioactive Waste Management Basis and DOE Manual 435.1-1 Compliance Tables

U.S. Department of Energy Order 435.1, 'Radioactive Waste Management,' along with its associated manual and guidance, requires development and maintenance of a radioactive waste management basis for each radioactive waste management facility, operation, and activity. This document presents a radioactive waste management basis for Idaho National Laboratory Research and Education Campus facilities that manage radioactive waste. The radioactive waste management basis for a facility comprises existing laboratory-wide and facility-specific documents. Department of Energy Manual 435.1-1, 'Radioactive Waste Management Manual,' facility compliance tables also are presented for the facilities. The tables serve as a tool to develop the radioactive waste management basis.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2011

Materials and Fuels Complex Facilities Radioactive Waste Management Basis and DOE Manual 435.1-1 Compliance Tables

Department of Energy Order 435.1, 'Radioactive Waste Management,' along with its associated manual and guidance, requires development and maintenance of a radioactive waste management basis for each radioactive waste management facility, operation, and activity. This document presents a radioactive waste management basis for Idaho National Laboratory's Materials and Fuels Complex facilities that manage radioactive waste. The radioactive waste management basis for a facility comprises existing laboratory-wide and facility-specific documents. Department of Energy Manual 435.1-1, 'Radioactive Waste Management Manual,' facility compliance tables also are presented for the facilities. The tables serve as a tool for developing the radioactive waste management basis.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2017

Phase 1 Testing Results of Immobilization of WTP Effluent Management Facility Evaporator Bottoms Core Simulant

The Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) Low Activity Waste (LAW) vitrification facility will generate an aqueous condensate recycle stream (LAW Melter Off-Gas Condensate) from the off-gas system. The baseline plan for disposition of this stream during full WTP operations is to send it to the WTP Pretreatment Facility, where it will be blended with LAW, concentrated by evaporation and recycled to the LAW vitrification facility. However, during the Direct Feed LAW (DFLAW) scenario, planned disposition of this stream is to evaporate it in a new evaporator in the Effluent Management Facility (EMF) and then return it to the LAW melter. It is important to understand the composition of the effluents from the melter and new evaporator so that the disposition of these streams can be accurately planned and accommodated. Furthermore, alternate disposition of this stream would eliminate recycling of problematic components, and would enable less integrated operation of the LAW melter and the Pretreatment Facilities. Alternate disposition would also eliminate this stream from recycling within WTP when it begins operations and would decrease the LAW vitrification mission duration and quantity of glass waste. This LAW Melter Off-Gas Condensate stream will contain components that are volatile at melter temperatures and are problematic for the glass waste form, such as halides and sulfate, along with entrained, volatile, and semi-volatile metals, such as Hg, As, and Se. Because this stream will recycle within WTP, these components accumulate in the Melter Condensate stream, exacerbating their impact on the number of LAW glass containers that must be produced. Diverting the stream reduces the halides and sulfate that get recycled to the melter, and is a key objective of this work. This overall program examines the potential treatment and immobilization of this stream to enable alternative disposal. The objective of earlier tasks was to formulate and prepare a simulant of the LAW Melter Off-gas Condensate expected during DFLAW operations and use it in evaporator testing to predict the composition of the effluents from the Effluent Management Facility (EMF) evaporator to aid in planning for their disposition. The objective of this task was to test immobilization options for this evaporator bottoms aqueous stream. This document describes the method used to formulate a simulant of this EMF evaporator bottoms stream, immobilize it, and determine if the immobilized waste forms meet disposal criteria.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Los Alamos National Laboratory Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Community Relations Plan

The requirements of the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit are fulfilled through execution of LANL's fourth strategic goal: “Enabling mission delivery through next-generation facility, infrastructure, and operational excellence.” With input from our stakeholders, we will continue to fulfill those requirements and to improve our waste operations. In 2015, the Laboratory purpose statement focused waste management efforts by directing delivery of mission success through operational effectiveness and scientific excellence. This Plan advances that purpose through community involvement. In the process of achieving our national security mission, Los Alamos National Laboratory generates some hazardous and mixed waste. Hazardous waste is solid waste that is dangerous or potentially harmful to human health or the environment. Hazardous wastes can be liquids, solids, gases, or sludges. They can be discarded as commercial products, such as cleaning fluids or pesticides, or as the byproducts of operations. Specific substances are listed in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 261: 40 CFR Part 261. Hazardous waste management activities are regulated by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) pursuant to New Mexico Hazardous Waste Act (HWA; Chapter 74, Article 4 NMSA 1978) and regulations under the Act. In 1989, NMED issued the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit (EPA ID Number NM0890010515-1) that established standards for the Laboratory to manage, store, and treat hazardous wastes on-site and to undertake the closure, post closure care, and cleanup as necessary, of permitted waste management units. On November 30, 2010, NMED renewed the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit (the Permit). In June 2020 the Permittees submitted a permit renewal application to the NMED for their review and approval. The Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Community Relations Plan (CRP) describes the scope of public involvement in the activities of the Permit. The CRP is specifically designed to facilitate the community outreach, engagement, and relations activities concerning the Laboratory’s Hazardous Waste Facility Permit and coordinates with but does not include public involvement for other Laboratory programs, initiatives, or environmental activities.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Performance Assessment for the E-Area Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility at the Savannah River Site: Chapter 1

This report documents the revised Performance Assessment (PA) analysis for the E-Area Low-Level Waste Facility (ELLWF) at the United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS). A PA analysis is required for DOE-operated facilities that dispose of low-level radioactive waste. PA analyses simulate (1) the release of radionuclides from the disposal site after facility closure, (2) transport of those contaminants through the environment, and (3) exposure/impacts to potential receptors. The purpose of the PA analysis is to demonstrate that the facility is operated in a manner that ensures long-term environmental protection after facility closure, thereby providing for the protection of public health and safety in limiting doses to a hypothetical member of the public (MOP) or an inadvertent human intruder (IHI). DOE Manual (M) 435.1-1, Chg. 3, Radioactive Waste Management (U.S. DOE, 2021b) establishes quantitative post-closure environmental impact limits and requires a facility-specific PA analysis to demonstrate compliance with these limits for DOE low-level waste (LLW) disposed of after September 26, 1988. These limits are defined in terms of human health (e.g., dose limits) with respect to radioactive constituents in the waste.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2024

NSTX-U liquid metal core-edge facility (LMCE)

NSTX-U/LMCE will provide a unique and world-leading research facility to address the primary challenge to delivering economic and timely magnetic fusion energy, namely the need to develop a power and particle exhaust and first-wall system that can withstand very high edge heat fluxes, maximize energy confinement, and avoid the production of large masses of solid eroded first-wall material. The NSTX-U/LMCE facility will assess the ability of liquid metals (LMs) – especially liquid lithium – to provide a new boundary condition for magnetic fusion systems, to extend the lifetime of the plasma facing components (PFCs) and improve core plasma confinement. Such capability is needed to establish the basis for next-step fusion facilities including fusion pilot plants, and to maintain U.S. world leadership in core-edge integration research. NSTX-U/LMCE will leverage the ability to generate very high divertor perpendicular heat flux q⊥ ~ 100MW/m 2 , extensive diagnostics, and liquid-metal-applicable infrastructure of NSTX-U. NSTX-U/LMCE will provide access to a high-confinement plasma core with majority self-driven plasma current, the flexibility to test a range of liquid metal divertor concepts, access to a range of separatrix collisionalities (from high to very low), and the ability to controllably vary the first-wall temperature to vary the plasma- wall interaction physics on liquid lithium components. Further, NSTX-U/LMCE will utilize more reactor-relevant high-Z refractory-metal PFC substrates. With these capabilities the NSTX-U/LMCE facility will explore the full continuum of core-edge solutions ranging from high core radiated power, to conditions with radiative losses concentrated in the scrape-off layer (SOL), and ultimately low recycling conditions. The low collisionality SOL that may be accessible in the low recycling regime is relatively unexplored and will require a kinetic treatment of the edge, which can be addressed theoretically, and with experiments in LTX-β. Additional smaller-scale preparatory R&D facilities will be required to reduce the risk of premature technical/engineering failure of liquid metal systems implemented in NSTX-U. The NSTX-U/LMCE facility aligns very well with recommendations in the FESAC Long-Range Plan and NASEM Pilot Plant reports and the Bold Decadal Vision, will be unique in the world program throughout the next decade, and is garnering private company interest in utilizing NSTX-U/LMCE for development of LM PFCs.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Hazards and Probabilistic Risk Assessments of Advanced Nuclear Reactors Coupled with Industrial Facilities

This report provides a roadmap and tool kit for site specific risk assessments across a broad range of industrial customers co-located with advanced nuclear power plants (ANPP) that are not currently built and operating in the U.S. This report builds upon the body of work sponsored by the Department of Energy (DOE) Integrated Energy Systems Pathway that has produced industrial requirements studies and techno-economic assessments on the topics of feasibility of ANPP supported industrial processes. This report also leverages the DOE Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) program that has presented hazards assessment and generic probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) for the addition of a heat extraction system (HES) to light-water reactors (LWRs) co-located with hydrogen production facilities. Many of the hazard assessments and risk assessments performed for the LWRS report are agnostic to whether the nuclear reactor is an ANPP or were adapted to the ANPP focus. The report performs hazards assessments to include industrial facilities: an oil refinery, a methanol plant, a synthetic fuel (synfuel) plant, the production of synthetic gas (syngas) as part of the methanol and synfuel plants, wood pulp and paper mills, and hydrogen production. Hydrogen production facilities are assessed in depth through prior reports in the LWRS program and the results are leveraged in this report. All these facilities are specified through industrial process and requirements research performed by national laboratories, universities, and interaction with industry. Many of the processes used in this report are pre-conceptual designs to use for decarbonization of the current technology facilities. A process of failure modes and effects analysis (what can go wrong) and accidentology (what has historically gone wrong) was used to determine the hazards presented to the nuclear power plant by the addition of the HES and the industrial customer. Chemical properties of feedstocks and products are summarized as part of the hazards assessment. Example analysis procedures are provided for each of the hazard types identified. These deterministic analyses can be used to assess adherence to licensing criteria. They can also be used to meet other safety goals like protection of the public, workers, or industrial facility equipment. A modular high temperature gas-cooled reactor (MHTGR) PRA only existing on paper was modeled and verified in modern PRA software. This will provide a tool for representative ANPP probabilistic analyses for future research.

10 SYNTHETIC FUELS↗
NASA NTRS2018

NASA Plum Brook Station In-Space Propulsion Facility Test Stand Characterization Hot Fire Test

A test facility modification to enable small scale altitude propulsion testing at the NASA Glenn Research Center's In-Space Propulsion (ISP) Facility was verified with a hot fire test campaign. As the facility's primary steam supply system undergoes refurbishment, the alternate facility configuration, known as the "vacuum accumulator" mode, would enable rocket engine testing up to 10,000 lbf thrust. The NASA Johnson Space Center developed the vehicle for the verification test campaign: the Integrated Cryogenic Propulsion Test Article (ICPTA). Constructed primarily from assets of the former Morpheus Project, the ICPTA provided an integrated liquid oxygen (LOX) / liquid methane (LCH4) propulsion system including a 2,800 lbf thrust main engine. The ISP Facility's vacuum accumulator configuration leveraged the large test volume of the facility and a diffuser insert to maintain altitude conditions. During hot fire, the ICPTA main engine "started" the diffuser insert constructed for the test campaign. As a result, the test chamber upstream of the diffuser insert remained at altitude conditions throughout the hot fire. Upon engine shut down, a backflow deflector mitigated blow back into the test chamber by restricting the mass flow and redirecting it away from the test article. The test campaign successfully characterized the performance of the vacuum accumulator configuration. In addition, it provided an opportunity to collect data for an integrated LOX / LCH4 propulsion system in an altitude and thermal vacuum environment.

Rocket Engine Testing↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Preliminary Study of Inter-Facility LWC Differences in Appendix C and Supercooled Large Droplet Conditions due to Calibration Instruments

The simulation of clouds containing Supercooled Large Droplets has received increasing attention due to the introduction of Appendix O and future associated requirements for means of compliance. Supercooled Large Droplet conditions can cover four orders of magnitude in drop sizes, imposing a larger instrument measurement challenge than for Appendix C conditions. Wind tunnel facilities have adopted different instrumentation for liquid water content measurement, with fundamentally different principles of operation. In order to explore the comparability of the different instruments used for Appendix C and SLD measurement, and its impact on confidence in measurements used for means of compliance, a project was established to conduct a series of dedicated tests at three wind tunnel facilities. To date, liquid water content measurements have been completed using a Multi-Element sensor as the common instrument at two of the facilities. The data have provided preliminary information suggesting that substantial inter-facility differences likely exist in liquid water content estimates in Supercooled Large Droplet conditions that appear to be largely attributable to the choice of calibration instruments. These results are dependent on the assumption that the Multi-Element probe would produce equivalent measurements at the two facilities if the liquid water content were the same, regardless of other environmental differences that may exist between the two facilities. Planned further testing with other liquid water content measurement techniques may provide further information to confirm or refute the results of this study.

aircraft icing↗