Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Federal Transit Administration”

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.

58 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2014

Investigation of Spiral Bevel Gear Condition Indicator Validation Via AC-29-2C Using Damage Progression Tests

This report documents the results of spiral bevel gear rig tests performed under a NASA Space Act Agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to support validation and demonstration of rotorcraft Health and Usage Monitoring Systems (HUMS) for maintenance credits via FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 29-2C, Section MG-15, Airworthiness Approval of Rotorcraft (HUMS) (Ref. 1). The overarching goal of this work was to determine a method to validate condition indicators in the lab that better represent their response to faults in the field. Using existing in-service helicopter HUMS flight data from faulted spiral bevel gears as a "Case Study," to better understand the differences between both systems, and the availability of the NASA Glenn Spiral Bevel Gear Fatigue Rig, a plan was put in place to design, fabricate and test comparable gear sets with comparable failure modes within the constraints of the test rig. The research objectives of the rig tests were to evaluate the capability of detecting gear surface pitting fatigue and other generated failure modes on spiral bevel gear teeth using gear condition indicators currently used in fielded HUMS. Nineteen final design gear sets were tested. Tables were generated for each test, summarizing the failure modes observed on the gear teeth for each test during each inspection interval and color coded based on damage mode per inspection photos. Gear condition indicators (CI) Figure of Merit 4 (FM4), Root Mean Square (RMS), +/- 1 Sideband Index (SI1) and +/- 3 Sideband Index (SI3) were plotted along with rig operational parameters. Statistical tables of the means and standard deviations were calculated within inspection intervals for each CI. As testing progressed, it became clear that certain condition indicators were more sensitive to a specific component and failure mode. These tests were clustered together for further analysis. Maintenance actions during testing were also documented. Correlation coefficients were calculated between each CI, component, damage state and torque. Results found test rig and gear design, type of fault and data acquisition can affect CI performance. Results found FM4, SI1 and SI3 can be used to detect macro pitting on two more gear or pinion teeth as long as it is detected prior to progressing to other components or transitioning to another failure mode. The sensitivity of RMS to system and operational conditions limit its reliability for systems that are not maintained at steady state. Failure modes that occurred due to scuffing or fretting were challenging to detect with current gear diagnostic tools, since the damage is distributed across all the gear and pinion teeth, smearing the impacting signatures typically used to differentiate between a healthy and damaged tooth contact. This is one of three final reports published on the results of this project. In the second report, damage modes experienced in the field will be mapped to the failure modes created in the test rig. The helicopter CI data will then be re-processed with the same analysis techniques applied to spiral bevel rig test data. In the third report, results from the rig and helicopter data analysis will be correlated. Observations, findings and lessons learned using sub-scale rig failure progression tests to validate helicopter gear condition indicators will be presented.

gears↗
DOE OSTI2023

Onshore U.S. Carbon Pipeline Deployment: Siting, Safety, and Regulation

Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technology has significant potential to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mitigate the impact of climate change, particularly in hard to decarbonize industrial and commercial sectors. CCUS involves capturing carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) from industrial processes or power generation and utilizing it for other purposes, such as enhanced oil recovery (EOR), or storing the captured CO 2 underground. CCUS technology can reduce the environmental impact of continued fossil fuel use while smoothing the transition to a low-carbon economy. CCUS can create new economic opportunities, such as the development of new industries and job creation, and can enhance energy security by diversifying energy sources. For these reasons, enabling CCUS has become a key objective of the Biden-Harris administration’s clean energy policy and has received bipartisan support. Despite its environmental and economic potential, CCUS faces multiple barriers to widespread deployment. One of the main challenges is the high cost and technical difficulty of implementing and operating large-scale CCUS infrastructure. CCUS remains a relatively expensive way to reduce carbon emissions (e.g., compared to solar photovoltaic technology’s displacement of coal generation). Additionally, financial incentives and supportive policies like those enacted to support solar photovoltaic development, especially at the state level, are inconsistent or nonexistent, which can discourage investment in CCUS projects. There are also technical challenges associated with safe and secure underground CO 2 storage and the development of new carbon utilization technologies. Public opposition to various aspects of CCUS technologies, ranging from concerns that CCUS will extend reliance on fossil fuels to CCUS infrastructure being sited in disadvantaged communities, is a growing challenge. This paper focuses on another significant barrier to broad CCUS deployment: the need for considerable expansion of the dedicated land-based CO 2 pipeline network in the United States to meet CCUS goals and the unique regulatory challenges to its development. To reach carbon emissions targets in the United States by 2050, CCUS technology will need to be supported by tens of thousands of miles of CO 2 pipelines. Estimates range from a minimum of roughly 29,000 pipeline miles (according to a 2020 Great Plains Institute study) to 66,000 pipeline miles (as per a 2021 Princeton University–led study). As of October 2022, however, the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) reports fewer than 5,400 miles of U.S. pipelines carrying CO 2 . This deficit—and what it means for the prospect of moving substantially larger quantities of CO 2 from source to use or storage—threatens to stifle the development of CCUS projects and technologies identified as an important tool to meet emissions targets. The current regulatory landscape facing CO 2 pipeline development can best be described as uncertain. At the federal level, the U.S. DOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) oversees safety regulation of pipelines transporting hazardous materials, including CO 2 upon commencement of operation. However, PHMSA’s definition of CO 2 as “a fluid consisting of more than 90 percent CO 2 molecules compressed to a supercritical state” has not been updated since its 1991 addition to the Federal Register. Because CO 2 can be transported in a gaseous, liquid, or supercritical state (indeed, the physical state of CO 2 can fluctuate within a single pipeline due to environmental changes), doubts persist about the extent of PHMSA’s purview—and raise questions about what, if anything, states should do to address this apparent gap. PHMSA has begun a major revision of its existing rules, but the agency does not expect a first draft before 2024. Economic oversight of CO 2 pipelines is even less clear. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and Surface Transportation Board (STB)—which regulate the rates of interstate oil/natural gas and non-energy pipelines, respectively—have both declined jurisdiction over interstate CO 2 pipelines. This presumably leaves economic regulation to state and/or local governments, but few if any states have the laws or resources in place to oversee just and reasonable rates. Further, the interstate nature of CO 2 pipeline development creates questions around how different states should align their rate-making decisions. Onshore U.S. Carbon Pipeline Deployment: Siting, Safety, and Regulation Currently, regulatory responsibilities regarding CO 2 pipeline siting and permitting fall to state and local governments. The variety of laws and regulations across the country, however, creates a maze of requirements for pipeline developers to navigate. To secure necessary permits, most states require pipeline companies to be “common carriers” that provide transport service to the public at uniform rates. However, the specific definition of that term varies. Some states require clear evidence that a pipeline services the public, while others automatically deem any pipeline company transporting energy products or hazardous materials to be a “common carrier”—with little consideration for accessibility to third parties. Other states have eschewed common-carrier terminology entirely, placing private and publicly accessible pipelines on equal footing. Much like the variation in common-carrier requirements, laws governing eminent domain authority to secure rights-of-way (ROW) to commence construction on a planned pipeline route differ by state. Several states have no laws or rules governing CO 2 pipelines. In addition to creating questions about whether long-standing rules for other pipelines (e.g., natural gas or petroleum products) apply to CO 2 , this policy vacuum leaves local governments as the sole authority over sections of pipe within their boundaries. With dozens of counties along a given route, the probability of inconsistent regulation of the same pipeline is significant. Even in states with CO 2 pipeline laws in place, local regulatory attempts to address rising concerns over pipeline routing and safety have triggered lawsuits by pipeline companies seeking to delimit areas of federal, state, and local government responsibility. Meanwhile, legislators across the country have introduced bills to restrict the application of eminent domain to CO 2 pipeline projects, which could threaten a key means of securing ROW that companies cannot secure through negotiation with landowners. Taken separately, any of these regulatory issues—the narrow federal definition of CO 2 , FERC’s and STB’s decisions that CO 2 pipelines are not within their jurisdiction, and the considerable variation in state and local governments’ laws regulating CO 2 pipeline technologies—are extremely difficult to resolve. Adding the required scale of CO 2 pipeline expansion and the currently identified narrow window of time in which to reach climate target goals, the task becomes even more difficult—and raises a host of urgent questions for regulators. How should CO 2 be defined in federal regulations to ensure consistent safety standards across the country? What is the potential impact radius of a CO 2 pipeline rupture, and how should that inform local emergency response? In the absence of centralized federal oversight, what should state legislatures do to increase alignment for interstate CO 2 pipeline projects? This paper intends to serve as a primer for regulators and stakeholders who seek to better understand the regulatory challenges and opportunities facing this critical infrastructure.

42 ENGINEERING↗
NASA NTRS2020

A Summary of Airframe Results from a Fokker F28 Full-Scale Crash Test

On June 20, 2019, a full-scale crash test was conducted on a Fokker F28 MK1000 aircraft as a part of a joint NASA / Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) research effort to investigate the crashworthiness characteristics of a Transport Category Aircraft (TCA), as defined by 14 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25. The test was conducted at NASA Langley Research Center’s Landing and Impact Research Facility and was the third in a test series to further understand TCA crashworthiness characteristics. The test article featured 24 Anthropomorphic Test Devices (ATDs, a.k.a. crash test dummies), and over 700 channels of instrumentation covering major aircraft structures such as the wings, tail, nose, cockpit and cabin, along with recording seat, overhead bin and ATD accelerations. Five different U.S. Government agencies collaborated on the test including: NASA, the FAA, the U.S. Army Research Laboratory, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). This report will covertest article build up, which includes weight and balance measurements and pre-test laser scans. It will also cover the events of the test, which includes the test sequence of events and post-test damage inspections. Finally, it will show airframe level accelerations at all positions measured, with discussion on correlation to the airframe damage witnessed. The test build up consisted of outfitting the main cabin section of the aircraft with 24 ATDs seated in 12 rows of seats, overhead mass and the under floor cargo area with foam representing the luggage. The main cabin also included all of the onboard data system pallets, which recorded711 channels of data from the test. All major portions of the aircraft were instrumented, including locations at the floor / frame junction locations in the cabin where the ATDs were located along with other major exterior components such as the nose, the tail, each engine cowling, and at overhead hat rack ballast locations. The aircraft impacted a soil surface at65.3 ft/s horizontal and 31.8 ft/s vertical velocities. The aircraft plowed through the soil and slid a distance of 32.5 feet from the initial impact location. There was a secondary impact occurring 0.9 s due to the “slap down” of the nose during the post-impact response. The duration of the event from impact to rest was1.62 seconds. There was major structural damage in the lower fuselage areas around the Wingbox and Aft Fuselage sections. The Aft Fuselage section deformation caused some cabin intrusion from the keel beams pushing the aft cabin floor into the cabin. Other structural deformations occurred around the tail and at transition regions in the aircraft structure; mainly in locations of differing overall stiffness. The data obtained showed average vertical accelerations between 12 and 16 g with spikes reaching almost 40 g at certain floor locations. Average horizontal accelerations were approximately 10 g for all floor locations measured with spikes reaching approximately 25 g in some locations. The report includes a full set of results on aircraft deformation and accelerations along with discussions as to the effect on the aircraft structure.

Justin D Littell↗
NASA NTRS2021

NASA Electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing (eVTOL) Aircraft Technology for Public Services – A White Paper

History has shown that our personal life is highly dependent on the technology that people have developed. A strategic scan of the aerospace environment at the beginning of the 21st century strongly suggests that the world might be approaching a new age of airpower—the era of electrified/hybrid aircraft propulsion. Undeniably, starting from the Montgolfier Brothers balloon flight in 1783, to the Wright Brothers piston engine flight in 1903, and the jet engine of the 1960s, or the space age of today, one can say that leaps in propulsion technology have marked the different ages of human flight. The technological advancements, brought at the beginning of 21st century by the revolution in data exchange, computational power, sensors, wireless communication, internet, and autonomy, contributed to the vision of this new age of propulsion we are approaching. Historically, conventional vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft have been equipped with propulsion units relying on complex internal combustion machines (turbines, piston engines, for example), and complex mechanical arrangements (gearboxes, shafts, variable pitch propeller). By contrast, electric VTOL aircraft (eVTOL)1 rely on simpler propulsion units (electric motors and in some cases fixed-pitch propellers). This promotes redundancy and improves tolerance to failures, in turn improving safety. The use of simpler electric propulsion units should also allow significant acquisition and operating cost reductions. Whether full-electric (relying solely on batteries) or hybrid-electric (relying on a combination of batteries, fuel-powered engines, and generators.), eVTOLs are also expected to generate less noise and air pollution than conventional aircraft with similar payloads. According to the 2019 Annual Review of IATA (International Air Transport Association) [ref.1], due to an expected increase in air transport traffic by 5% every year and a doubling of air transport passenger numbers to 8.2 billion by 2037 significant challenges are posed to the aviation industry. Furthermore, this report does not factor in the expected demand for short-range (intra-city) air transportation, which is in development and yet to be operational. The increased demand to fly creates a responsibility to expand in a sustainable manner and an endeavor to develop more environmentally-friendly aircraft. eVTOL aircraft, either piloted or autonomous, is gathering considerable interest worldwide. Modern and novel full-electric or hybrid-electric eVTOL configurations enable a new paradigm shift in air transportation as the aviation industry remains committed to its goals of carbon-neutral growth from 2020 onwards and cutting CO2 emissions to half 2005 levels by 2050. While electric power has been used for decades, recent developments in mobile electric/hybrid propulsion coupled with advanced materials and autonomous systems may create the possibility to transition into the next age of air mobility propelled by electric/hybrid VTOL aircraft technology. Although eVTOL aircraft might seem like an incremental improvement or even a counterintuitive regression with regard to past VTOL development, it has in fact the potential to transform air mobility across a wide range of government applications. Previous transformations in aviation generated dramatic leaps in performance, but the cost was commensurate with performance, limiting quantity produced. This next age appears to take a different approach. Performance may not increase, but at this moment technology is poised for future urban mobility that will spawn commercial passenger drone services, that is, autonomous (pilotless) air taxis and thereby add a new dimension to the urban transportation mix of the future [ref. 2]. Advances in electric propulsion, autonomous flight technology, and 5G communication networks will enable this fast new-growing market to become a reality. It is now time to envision the introduction of electric/hybrid eVTOL aircraft for Public Services2. We believe that in the next decades eVTOL aircraft will have the potential to become an essential tool to Public Service agencies around the world in applications such as firefighting, public safety, search and rescue, disaster relief and law enforcement. This is due to several major factors. • First, with the increasing popularity of small, unmanned aircraft vehicles (UAVs) or drones, many companies today are focusing on the development of passenger UAVs designed to accommodate up to five passengers or equivalent cargo payload. Many such configurations are electric or hybrid-electric designs with VTOL capabilities. Several of these projects have started a flight test program and many more are expected to be in the experimental and development phase in 2020. Such revolutionary vehicles could be in commercial operations by 2030. These eVTOL systems could be ready for selected Public Services missions even sooner. • Second, although these advanced eVTOL vehicles under development still need access to fuel (hybrid) and/or electric charging capability, they can take off and land from almost anywhere. Therefore, such vehicles, both manned and unmanned can be successfully integrated for the critical missions of the Public Services with extra deployment flexibilities. • Third, advancement in electric propulsion systems in the automotive industry together with NASA’s leading efforts in electrification of aircraft propulsion systems, FAA’s ongoing active eVTOL certification programs, and EASA’s proposed framework for the certification of electric/hybrid small category VTOL aircraft in Europe [ref. 3] will help accelerate industry electric propulsion system development and integration. • Finally, eVTOL vehicles could be deployed for Public Services sooner than air taxi or other commercial applications, since Public Services missions may be more easily approved based on specific mission criteria, localized airworthiness authority for public-use aircraft3, and are normally operating under centralized airspace management and control by the theater command. Moreover, public perception and acceptance are generally less of a concern when operations save lives and benefit the wider community. The prioritized introduction of eVTOL aircraft in Public Services is ambitious, but we believe it is achievable in the coming decades if fundamental enablers (people and technologies) are engaged in defining the objectives and needs of these missions. The revolution that is currently taking place in eVTOL aircraft represents an unprecedented opportunity to develop a safer, more affordable, more available and more environmentally friendly future of vertical flight. To ensure that these novel aircraft meet the future expectations of Public Services, it is essential to take a collaborative and multi-disciplinary approach to their development, across engineering disciplines, policy-making, program management, business case development, manufacturing, and flight demonstrations. It should be noted that the term eVTOL (in the near term) used throughout this publication implies aircraft capable of transporting up to 5 persons which may or may not include a pilot if operated fully autonomously, assuming an average of 200 pounds (91 kg) per person or equivalent payload and a range up to 60 miles plus a suitable reserve. Hybrid or hydrogen powered eVTOLs would have greater range. For example, a “3-seat” eVTOL aircraft may only be able to carry two fully equipped firemen, and payload capacity is more relevant when used for the supply mission. Moreover, this paper concentrates on the “last-mile” solutions with a deployment time of no more than 6 hours. Although not specifically discussed in this document, it is understood that the future of Transformative Vertical Flight in general and Public Services, in particular, will also involve smaller UAVs that will undoubtedly play a crucial role in future aerial operations. For example, smaller unmanned aircraft may be used to dispatch medical supplies, portable filtration systems or perform the Search task of future Search and Rescue (SAR) operations. Close collaboration between the aircraft industry, the Civil Aviation Authorities (CAA), e.g., Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) and the Department of Defense (DoD) certifiers, will help identify Public Services requirements, define expectations and limit development cost and timescales. Take the US Air Force Agility Prime as an example, the majority of the eVTOL application opportunities and mission elements identified are in line with the NASA TVF WG-4 objectives and use cases. Together, it forms a strong partnership to accelerate the development, certification, and practical deployment for public service missions. The US Air Force Agility Prime has been a collaboration partner on this white paper, and provided valuable input and recommendations. Most of the eVTOL public service mission elements discussed in this paper and additional use cases envisioned by the NASA TVF WG-4 team are shared by the Agility Prime program. The focus and efforts of the Agility Prime in product and system development, industry and government partnership, accelerated certifications as well as early test and deployment are totally in sync with the path forward recommended by this white paper. This kind of collaboration and partnership will help enable the practical use of the eVTOL for public service missions, benefit the eVTOL public acceptance, and accelerate the eVTOL industry revolution.

Johnny T. Doo↗