Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Simulation”

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 811 records · Page 45
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2012

Integrated Simulation Design Challenges to Support TPS Repair Operations

During the Orbiter Repair Maneuver (ORM) operations planned for Return to Flight (RTF), the Shuttle Remote Manipulator System (SRMS) must grapple the International Space Station (ISS), undock the Orbiter, maneuver it through a long duration trajectory, and orient it to an EVA crewman poised at the end of the Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS) to facilitate the repair of the Thermal Protection System (TPS). Once repair has been completed and confirmed, then the SRMS proceeds back through the trajectory to dock the Orbiter to the Orbiter Docking System. In order to support analysis of the complex dynamic interactions of the integrated system formed by the Orbiter, ISS, SRMS, and SSMS during the ORM, simulation tools used for previous ‘nominal’ mission support required substantial enhancements. These upgrades were necessary to provide analysts with the capabilities needed to study integrated system performance. Prevalent throughout this ORM operation is a dynamically varying topology. In other words, the ORM starts with the SRMS grappled to the mated Shuttle/ISS stack (closed loop topology), moves to an open loop chain topology consisting of the Shuttle, SRMS, and ISS, and then, at the repair configuration, extends the chain topology to one consisting of the Shuttle, SMS, ISS, and SSRMS/EVA crewman. The resulting long dynamic chain of vehicles and manipulators may exhibit significant motion between the Shuttle worksite and the EVA crewman due to the system flexibility throughout the topology (particularly within the SRMS/SSRMS joints and links). Since the attachment points of both manipulators span the flexible structure of the ISS, simulation analysis may also need to take that into consideration. Moreover, due to the lengthy time duration associated with the maneuver and repair, orbital effects become a factor and require the ISS vehicle control system to maintain active attitude control. Several facets of the ORM operation make the associated analytical efforts different from previous mission support, including: (1) the magnitude of the SRMS handled payload (Le., Orbiter class), (2) the orbital effects induced on the integrated system consisting of the large Shuttle and ISS masses connected by a light flexible SRMS, (3) long duration environmental consequences due to the lengthy operational times associated with the maneuver and repair of the TPS, (4) active attitude control (as opposed to free drift) interacting with the SRMS and SSRMS manipulators (also due to the length of the maneuver and repair), (5) relative dynamics between the EVA crewman and thc worksite influenced by the extended flexible topology. In order to meet these analysis challenges, an ORM simulation architecture was developed leveraging upon numerous pre-existing simulation elements to analyze the various subsystems individually. For example, core manipulator subsystem simulations for both the SRMS and SSRMS were originally combined to provide the dual-arm dynamics topology simulation (in the absence of orbital dynamics and vehicle control). This capability was later merged with the simulation used to analyze SRMS loading with a heavy payload in the orbital environment with an active payload control system (in this case, the ISS Attitude Control System (ACS)), configured for the ORM. The resulting worksite dynamics simulation, based off of the modified ORM simulation, provided the extended topological chain of vehicles and manipulators, while taking into account the orbital effects of both the Shuttle and ISS (as well as its ACS). Verification and validation (V&V) of these integrated simulations became a challenge in itself. A systematic approach needed to be developed such that integration simulation results could be tested against previous constituent simulations upon which these simulations were built. General V&V categories included: (1) core orbital state propagation, (2), stand-alone SRMS, (3) stand-alone SSRMS, (4) stand-alone ISS ACS, (5) integrated Shuttle, SRMS, ISS (with active ACS) in the orbital environment, and (5) dual-arm SRMS/SSRMS dynamics topology. Integrated simulation V&V run suites were created and correlated to verification runs from subsystem simulations, in order to establish the validity of the results. This paper discusses the simulation design challenges encountered while developing simulation capabilities to mirror the ORM operations. The paper also describes the incremental build approach that was utilized, starting with the subsystem simulation elements and integration into increasing more complex simulations until the resulting ORM worksite dynamics simulation had been assembled. Furthermore, the paper presents an overall integrated simulation V&V methodology based upon a subsystem level testing, integrated comparisons, and phased checkout.

Thermal Protection System↗
NASA NTRS2007

2007 Lunar Regolith Simulant Workshop Overview

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) vision has as a cornerstone, the establishment of an Outpost on the Moon. This Lunar Outpost will eventually provide the necessary planning, technology development, and training for a manned mission to Mars in the future. As part of the overall activity, NASA is conducting Earth-based research and advancing technologies to a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 6 maturity under the Exploration Technology Development Program that will be incorporated into the Constellation Project as well as other projects. All aspects of the Lunar environment, including the Lunar regolith and its properties, are important in understanding the long-term impacts to hardware, scientific instruments, and humans prior to returning to the Moon and living on the Moon. With the goal of reducing risk to humans and hardware and increasing mission success on the Lunar surface, it is vital that terrestrial investigations including both development and verification testing have access to Lunar-like environments. The Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) is supporting this endeavor by developing, characterizing, and producing Lunar simulants in addition to analyzing existing simulants for appropriate applications. A Lunar Regolith Simulant Workshop was conducted by MSFC in Huntsville, Alabama, in October 2007. The purpose of the Workshop was to bring together simulant developers, simulant users, and program and project managers from ETDP and Constellation with the goals of understanding users' simulant needs and their applications. A status of current simulant developments such as the JSC-1A (Mare Type Simulant) and the NASA/U.S. Geological Survey Lunar Highlands-Type Pilot Simulant (NU-LHT-1 M) was provided. The method for evaluating simulants, performed via Figures of Merit (FoMs) algorithms, was presented and a demonstration was provided. The four FoM properties currently being assessed are: size, shape, density, and composition. Some of the Workshop findings include: simulant developers must understand simulant users' needs and applications; higher fidelity simulants are needed and needed in larger quantities now; simulants must be characterized to allow "apples-to-apples" comparison of test results; simulant users should confer with simulant experts to assist them in the selection of simulants; safety precautions should be taken in the handling and use of simulants; shipping, storing, and preparation of simulants have important implications; and most importantly, close communications among the simulant community must be maintained and will be continued via telecoms, meetings, and an annual Lunar Regolith Simulant Workshop.

McLemore, Carole A.↗
NASA NTRS2007

2007 Lunar Regolith Simulant Workshop Overview

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) vision has as a cornerstone, the establishment of an Outpost on the Moon. This Lunar Outpost will eventually provide the necessary planning, technology development, and training for a manned mission to Mars in the future. As part of the overall activity, NASA is conducting Earth-based research and advancing technologies to a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 6 maturity under the Exploration Technology Development Program that will be incorporated into the Constellation Project as well as other projects. All aspects of the Lunar environment, including the Lunar regolith and its properties, are important in understanding the long-term impacts to hardware, scientific instruments, and humans prior to returning to the Moon and living on the Moon. With the goal of reducing risk to humans and hardware and increasing mission success on the Lunar surface, it is vital that terrestrial investigations including both development and verification testing have access to Lunar-like environments. The Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) is supporting this endeavor by developing, characterizing, and producing Lunar simulants in addition to analyzing existing simulants for appropriate applications. A Lunar Regolith Simulant Workshop was conducted by MSFC in Huntsville, Alabama, in October 2007. The purpose of the Workshop was to bring together simulant developers, simulant users, and program and project managers from ETDP and Constellation with the goals of understanding users' simulant needs and their applications. A status of current simulant developments such as the JSC-1A (Mare Type Simulant) and the NASA/U.S. Geological Survey Lunar Highlands-Type Pilot Simulant (NU-LHT-1M) was provided. The method for evaluating simulants, performed via Figures of Merit (FoMs) algorithms, was presented and a demonstration was provided. The four FoM properties currently being assessed are: size, shape, density, and composition. Some of the Workshop findings include: simulant developers must understand simulant users' needs and applications; higher fidelity simulants are needed and needed in larger quantities now; simulants must be characterized to allow "apples-to-apples" comparison of test results; simulant users should confer with simulant experts to assist them in the selection of simulants; safety precautions should be taken in the handling and use of simulants; shipping, storing, and preparation of simulants have important implications; and most importantly, close communications among the simulant community must be maintained and will be continued via telecoms, meetings, and an annual Lunar Regolith Simulant Workshop.

McLemore, Carole A.↗
DOE OSTI2017

ARM Cloud Radar Simulator Package for Global Climate Models Value-Added Product

It has been challenging to directly compare U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility ground-based cloud radar measurements with climate model output because of limitations or features of the observing processes and the spatial gap between model and the single-point measurements. To facilitate the use of ARM radar data in numerical models, an ARM cloud radar simulator was developed to converts model data into pseudo-ARM cloud radar observations that mimic the instrument view of a narrow atmospheric column (as compared to a large global climate model [GCM] grid-cell), thus allowing meaningful comparison between model output and ARM cloud observations. The ARM cloud radar simulator value-added product (VAP) was developed based on the CloudSat simulator contained in the community satellite simulator package, the Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) Observation Simulator Package (COSP) (Bodas-Salcedo et al., 2011), which has been widely used in climate model evaluation with satellite data (Klein et al., 2013, Zhang et al., 2010). The essential part of the CloudSat simulator is the QuickBeam radar simulator that is used to produce CloudSat-like radar reflectivity, but is capable of simulating reflectivity for other radars (Marchand et al., 2009; Haynes et al., 2007). Adapting QuickBeam to the ARM cloud radar simulator within COSP required two primary changes: one was to set the frequency to 35 GHz for the ARM Ka-band cloud radar, as opposed to 94 GHz used for the CloudSat W-band radar, and the second was to invert the view from the ground to space so as to attenuate the beam correctly. In addition, the ARM cloud radar simulator uses a finer vertical resolution (100 m compared to 500 m for CloudSat) to resolve the more detailed structure of clouds captured by the ARM radars. The ARM simulator has been developed following the COSP workflow (Figure 1) and using the capabilities available in COSP wherever possible. The ARM simulator is written in Fortran 90, just as is the COSP. It is incorporated into COSP to facilitate use by the climate modeling community. In order to evaluate simulator output, the observational counterpart of the simulator output, radar reflectivity-height histograms (CFAD) is also generated from the ARM observations. This report includes an overview of the ARM cloud radar simulator VAP and the required simulator-oriented ARM radar data product (radarCFAD) for validating simulator output, as well as a user guide for operating the ARM radar simulator VAP.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2014

Simulation Technology at NASA

NASA Ames Research Center is home to several high-fidelity research flight and air-traffic control simulation facilities which, together with an experienced workforce, produce high-quality research data and findings that have proven to be applicable in the real world. These assets include the Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS), Crew Vehicle Systems Research Facility (CVSRF), Future Flight Central (FFC) air traffic control tower simulator, and several air-traffic control (ATC) simulators. The VMS combines a high-fidelity simulation capability with an adaptable simulation environment, enabling customization for numerous human-in-the-loop research applications. The distinctive feature of the VMS is its unparalleled large amplitude, high-fidelity motion capability. In over 30 years of continuous operation, the VMS has contributed significantly to the body of knowledge in a range of disciplines directly benefiting several aerospace programs and flight safety, including the design and development of flight control systems for the Joint Strike Fighter, Space Shuttle Orbiter, and rotorcraft. It continues to be used for researching new vehicle configurations, vehicle control and safety, transfer-of-training, etc., by NASA, other government agencies, and Industry.The CVSRF includes two motion-based flight simulators: a Boeing 747-400 full flight simulator and the reconfigurable Advanced Concepts Flight Simulator (ACFS). These simulators are primarily used to research air-traffic management concepts and procedures, advanced navigation and avionics concepts, and cockpit human factors. FFC is a full-sized control tower simulator with a 360-degree external field-of-view display system and reconfigurable system architecture. FFC and the ATC simulators are used for testing air-traffic management automation and decision support tools and demonstrate their feasibility in a realistic environment prior to technology transfer for implementation in the National Airspace System (NAS).To support integrated simulations and flight-tests for NASA's Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project, NASA developed a distributed test environment incorporating Live, Virtual, Constructive, (LVC) concepts. Development of the software enabling the LVC is conducted primarily at the Distributed Simulation Research Lab (DSRL) at NASA Ames. The LVC components provide the core infrastructure supporting simulation of UAS operations by integrating live and virtual aircraft in a realistic air traffic environment. This provides the ability to conduct tests more efficiently by promoting the use of existing distributed assets. The LVC infrastructure was used in several human-in-the-loop simulations to evaluate acceptance of Detect and Avoid (DAA) advisories used by UAS pilots to maintain well clear of other virtual traffic and to negotiate maneuvers with air traffic control. It is currently being used to support testing of self-separation algorithms between unmanned and manned aircraft in live flight. Further simulations with more comprehensive air traffic scenarios mixing live and virtual aircraft is planned.In the current fiscal environment, maintaining and upgrading these high-fidelity simulation assets and retaining the skilled workforce necessary to meet future research needs is the primary non-technical challenge.

CVSRF↗
DOE OSTI2018

Cold Commissioning Simulant Selection for the Hanford Tank Waste Treatment Plant LAW Facility - 18465

Commissioning the Low-Activity Waste (LAW) Facility of the Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) will require large volumes (∼2,000,000 liters) of a non-radioactive, chemically analogous waste simulant. Cold commissioning will provide for operator training in an integrated facility, demonstration of mechanical process equipment capacity, environmental performance demonstration of emissions control systems, and process control systems shakedown and tuning. Selection of the cold commissioning simulant is following a structured four-phase process to arrive at the preferred composition and recipe. Phases I, II and III are complete. Phase I laid the framework for decision making with preparation of a Project Management Plan, an update to the Simulant Development, Approval, Validation, and Documentation procedure, and a kickoff meeting to gather stakeholder input into the simulant definition and selection criteria. Phase II consisted of a comprehensive literature search and compilation of LAW simulant recipes, followed by initial screening against the selection criteria identified in Phase I. This process identified 72 candidate simulant recipes and down-selected 9 for further study. Phase III studies involved a) statistical comparisons of the similarity of candidate simulant compositions to the tank waste feed vector, b) process modelling of the commissioning sequence with each simulant to estimate glass former and simulant material consumption, offgas and effluent volumes and compositions, and product glass volumes and compositions, and c) evaluation of simulants against the immobilized LAW glass composition algorithm to determine allo able waste loading to ensure compliance with product specifications and process constraints. The results of these studies identified two of the candidate recipes to be carried forward to full-scale testing. Phase IV consists of testing these two recipes at vendor facilities to determine scalability, fabricability, and stability of the simulants when produced at industrial scale. Scalability is the ability to take a recipe from bench scale (1 to 40 liters) batch size to full scale (>35,000 liters) batch size. Fabricability is the ability of a recipe to be prepared in large batches without the need for complex or expensive mechanical equipment, heating, or cooling systems. Stability is the ability of a simulant to withstand long term storage and variations in environmental conditions without unacceptable changes in key characteristics (the set of chemical, physical, and rheological parameters that the simulant is intended to exhibit during cold commissioning tests). Simulants will also be tested for compatibility with other startup material (i.e., frit), tuning simulants, and environmental performance demonstration test spiking solutions to ensure against unexpected situations. Using a structured process is essential when making high impact decisions such as waste simulant selection. Proper planning and a clear explanation of how the decision process will unfold is key to obtaining stakeholder buy-in as more information is gathered. The documentation resulting from this structured selection process will be compiled and summarized in a Cold Commissioning Simulant Definition deliverable due to the Department of Energy 24 months before the start of Cold Commissioning. (authors)

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

CyDER: A Cyber Physical Co-simulation Platform for Distributed Energy Resources in Smartgrids

The CyDER project aimed at developing an open-source, modular and scalable co-simulation platform for power grids with large shares of Distributed Energy Resources (DERs). The project partners are the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL), Lawrence Livermore National Lab (LLNL), PG&E, SolarCity, and ChargePoint. The prime recipient is LBNL; SolarCity and ChargePoint were partners for the project’s first two years. Increased DER integration introduces a number of challenges in power grid operation including a more dynamic interaction between the transmission grid and distribution grids, and increased modeling complexity. Although specialized software exists to precisely model different components of the power system, it is far from trivial to integrate all various models and perform a holistic simulation. Instead of replicating all models in a common simulation program, a commonly accepted approach to tackle this model diversity is to couple third-party simulators and models through a co-simulation platform that coordinates information exchange among the various components. Following this line of research, this project’s objective was to develop a co-simulation platform based on a widely accepted industrial standard called Functional Mockup Interface (FMI). Within this process, the project developed models compliant with the FMI standard, called Functional Mockup Units (FMUs), and used them to perform various operational and planning power system analyses. Relying and building upon an industrial standard is the main differentiation of this project compared with previous or parallel efforts in the co-simulation area. Particular emphasis was put on delivering software utilities to facilitate setting up and running co-simulations by end-users. Furthermore, a strong aspect of this project is demonstrating that co-simulation techniques can be used to perform Hardware-in-the-Loop (HIL) simulations that couple software components (e.g., simulated models) with hardware components (e.g., real devices such PV systems and batteries). The long-term goal of CyDER project is to help establish FMI as a powerful standard for co-simulation and promote adoption by electric utilities and other interested stakeholders. The main accomplishments of the project include the development of several FMUs including distribution and transmission grid models, PV inverters with Volt/Var/Watt controllers, batteries, and predictive optimal controllers. Additionally, a unique software package was developed, called SimulatorToFMU, which is capable of exporting any Python-driven simulator or Python script as an FMU. This is an important contribution towards establishing FMI as one of the main co-simulation standards, because more and more third-party programs for sub-system modeling and simulation are delivered with Python APIs. The CyDER platform was used to perform PV hosting capacity analyses in real utility feeders with and without smart inverter controls, battery storage, and EV charging. Smart inverter controls include conventional Volt/Var/Watt controls for reactive power support and active power curtailment, but also predictive controls that optimize the charging and discharging profile of the battery connected on the DC side in order to minimize the customer’s economic benefit. Finally, an important result of this project is delivering an experimental setup that consists of residential-scale PV inverters with battery storage, a real-time grid simulator with an ideal voltage source as grid emulator, and micro Phasor Measurement Units (PMUs). All these components and additional software modules are coupled to one another using the FMI standard and can be co-simulated with the CyDER platform.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
NASA NTRS1997

Aviation Simulators for the Desktop: Panel and Demonstrations

Panel Members are: Christine M. Mitchell (Georgia Tech), Michael T. Palmer (NASA Langley), Greg Pisani (NASA Ames), and Amy R. Pritchett (MIT). The Panel members are affiliated with aviation human factors groups from NASA Ames, NASA Langley, MITCHELL Department of Aerospace and Aeronautical Engineering, and Georgia Technics Center for Human-Machine Systems Research. Panelists will describe the simulator(s) used in their respective institutions including a description of the FMS aircraft models, software, hardware, and displays. Panelists will summarize previous, on-going, and planned empirical studies conducted with the simulators. Greg Pisanich will describe two NASA Ames simulation systems: the Stone Soup Simulator (SSS), and the Airspace Operations Human Factors Simulation Laboratory. The the Stone Soup Simulator is a desktop-based, research flight simulator that includes mode control, flight management, and datalink functionality. It has been developed as a non-proprietary simulator that can be easily distributed to academic and industry researchers who are collaborating on NASA research projects. It will be used and extended by research groups represented by at least two panelists (Mitchell and Palmer). The Airspace Operations Simulator supports the study of air traffic control in conjunction with the flight deck. This simulator will be used provide an environment in which many AATT and free flight concepts can be demonstrated and evaluated. Mike Palmer will describe two NASA Langley efforts: The Langley Simulator and MD-11 extensions to the NASA Amesbury simulator. The first simulator is publicly available and combines a B-737 model with a high fidelity flight management system. The second simulator enhances the S3 simulator with MD-11 electronic flight displays together with modifications to the flight and FMS models to emulate MD-11 dynamics and operations. Chris Mitchell will describe GT-EFIRT (Georgia Tech-Electronic Flight Instrument Research Tool) and B-757 enhancements to the NASA Ames S3. GT-EFIRT is a medium fidelity simulator used to conduct preliminary studies of the CATS (crew activity tracking system). Like the Langley efforts with S3, the Georgia Tech enhancements will allow it to emulate the dynamics and operations of a widely used glass cockpit. Amy Pritchett will describe the MIT simulator(s) that have been used in a range of research investigating cockpit displays, warning devices, and flight deck-ATC interaction.

Pisanich, Greg↗
NASA NTRS2024

Flight Mechanics Modeling and Simulation of the Earth Entry System

Introduction: The Mars Sample Return (MSR) Campaign being planned by NASA and ESA has the ambitious goal to return Mars samples back to Earth. This international collaboration had developed a concept of operations that included a ESA-designed Earth Return Orbiter (ERO) and NASA-designed Capture, Containment, and Return System (CCRS). The Earth Entry System (EES), consisting of a protective aeroshell that houses the samples as well as sample containment vessels, would conduct entry, descent, and landing (EDL) on a direct Earth trajectory. The EES would enter on a spin-stabilized ballistic trajectory with the goal to passively achieve aerodynamic stability throughout all regions of flight. The EDL sequence would end with the EES impacting the soft playa soil of the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR). As of the submission of this abstract, the MSR campaign is undergoing a re-architecture leading to a pause in EES development. However, the novel approaches developed in flight mechanics modeling and simulation can significantly benefit the greater IPPW community in the development of Earth return vehicles. This paper will present the latest state of EES flight mechanics modeling and simulation. The paper will highlight the simulation architecture developed and key lessons learned from understanding of EDL trajectory sensitivities. Modeling and Simulation: Figure 1 provides a high-level concept of operations for the approach, entry, descent, and landing (AEDL) phase of the CCRS-portion of MSR. The objective of EES flight mechanics is to model and simulate the EES trajectory from ERO separation to ground impact at UTTR. A variety of flight mechanics simulation models were utilized to model both exo-atmopsheric and atmospheric portions of flight. 42, a 6-DOF simulation developed at Goddard Space Flight Center, is utilized for propagating the attitude of EES during exo-atmospheric flight. 42 allows for a variety of spin eject mechanism scenarios to be simulated for analysis. 10 minutes prior to entry, the 42 states are handed off to the EDL sims. The prime EDL sim utilized by EES is the Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories II (POST2), a 6-DOF sim developed at Langley Research Center, and the independent verification and validation EDL sim utilized is DSENDS, a 6-DOF sim developed at Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Figure 2 provides a visualization of the flight mechanics simulation model flow through various points in the AEDL phase. Due to the existence of a variety of sim models, the EES flight mechanics team developed processes for data hand-off. These processes included the development of a centralized coordinate frame document, utilization of a single, centralized simulation input document for all sims to reference, and hand-off files containing both the technical data to be ingested by other flight mechanics sims as well as annotations of modeling assumptions utilized to generate the data. Figure~\ref{fig:post2simarchitecture} provides an overview of the POST2 sim architecture wherein POST2 ingests numerous subsystem models and input files. The dispersed state file generated by MONTE provides the position/velocity state of the trajectory while the 42 Handoff file provides the attitude. The aerodynamics database, delivered by the EES aeroscience team, is utilized to simulate the aerodynamic forces and moments experienced during EDL. A custom atmosphere model, developed by EES atmosphere team, is utilized to simulate the anticipated atmosphere environment around the region of Earth through which the EES trajectory flys. These inputs and subsystem models can be varied depending on the AEDL flight mechanics scenario being simulated. Monte Carlo simulations are utilized to generate statistical AEDL performance metrics in the form of scorecards and violin plots. Furthermore, outputs from the POST2 simulation are utilized for follow-on analyses including aerothermal and landing performance. \section{Flight Mechanics Lessons Learned} Though the EES flight mechanics team uncovered a variety of lessons learned through the analysis conducted to support CCRS through preliminary design review, this paper will highlight the most important lessons. A key AEDL performance goal is to ensure the landing footprint of EES remains on the UTTR south range. A common modeling strategy used in EDL analysis is One-Variable-At-a-Time (OVAT). OVAT analysis provides insight into the key drivers that affect AEDL performance metrics. Figure 3 shows the landing ellipses for single dispersion sources as compared to the baseline aggregate of all dispersions. The figure shows that atmosphere winds alone dominate the size of the footprint ellipse (note: EES does not use a parachute unlike previous Earth-return missions and is in wind-driven free fall for ~5min). The significance of the wind led the EES flight mechanics team to pursue the development of a Custom Atmosphere Model [4], in lieu of EarthGRAM [1], built on actual radiosonde wind measurements around the UTTR-region. This decision was driven by the realism in the generated footprint ellipses and lessons-learned from Stardust [5]. These findings will be invaluable for future Earth-return missions in providing an early understanding of the key drivers affecting footprint size and modeling considerations for which to account. Another lesson learned is tied to the AEDL performance goal of achieving passive stability throughout all regions of flight. It is well understood that blunt-body aeroshells are less stable as they transition from supersonic to subsonic. Eliminating a backshell does help improvestability; however, other phenomena such as roll-induced instability during terminal descent can still arise. The EES flight mechanics team developed stability metrics as tools to better understand the causes of and better predict the onset of dynamic instability. These tools were built upon analytical models developed by Jaffe [3] and Murphy [2]. The tools were shown to both be very accurate in correlation with actual unstable cases and useful in developing stability margin policies based on the vehicle design and simulation considerations (e.g. sphere-cone angle change, mass change, wind turbulence). These tools allowed for the current EES design to demonstrate the ability to achieve passive stability and can be an invaluable tool for consideration in the design of parachute-less Earth-return vehicles.

Rohan Deshmukh↗
DOE OSTI2020

Revised Kimberlina Groundwater Simulations

Kimberlina Groundwater Qaulity Simulations (Version 3: 2015 October) by Lawrence Livermore National Labratory. Submitted to the EDX team at the National Energy Technology Laboratory for research use. This dataset contains 562 updated groundwater quality simulations based on the Kimberlina site. It is a six-layer model including the aquifers and aquitards inbetween the ground surface and the reservoir. The input files and associated leakage information for these simulations are included in the zip file "nrap_kim_well31_fluxes and inputs.tar.gz". These 562 simulations are the successful results out of 1000 monte carlo simulations, with time length greater than 5 years. Each simulation consists 6 output files, therefore, there are 3372 files (6*562) in total. One single example simulation of full time length (200 year) is also provided in the zip file "single_simulation_200yr_sim0012.tar.gz". These 6 groundwater quality parameters are: - pH (use absolute value) - TDS (mg/kg) - Pressure (Pa) - CO2 Liquid Saturation (fraction range 0.0-1.0) - CO2 Gas Concentration (mol/L) - CO2 Liquid Concentration (mol/kg) Their correponding file names, take the first simulation for example, are: ph0001.ntab (for pH) , tds0001.ntab (for TDS), usnt0001.p.ntab (for pressure), usnt0001.s_liquid.ntab (for liquid saturation), usnt0001.c_co2_gas.ntab (for CO2 gas concentration) and usnt0001.c_co2_liquid.ntab (for CO2 liquid concentration). Each output file contains at least 19 columns (variables). The total number of columns depends on the simulation time length. The column data include the information of numerical records, geologic location and sizes and the simulated parameter values over time. The first 13 variables are about numerical records and relative geologic information for a simulation grid: 1. index: simulation index 2. i: the ith grid of x-axis 3. j: the jth grid of y-axis 4. k: the kth grid of z-axis 5. element_ref: element type reference 6. nuft_ind: nuft index 7. x: grid location in the x axis direction 8. y: grid location in the y axis direction 9. z: grid location in the z axis direction 10. dx: grid length in the x axis direction 11. dy: grid length in the y axis direction 12. dz: grid length in the z axis direction 13. volume: volume of the simulation grid The rest (14, 15, 16...) variables are the simulated parameter values over time, take pH as an example, are: 14. ph000y: initial pH value. 15. ph001y: simulated pH value at the end of the 1st year. 16. ph002y: simulated pH value at the end of the 2nd year. ... (and so on)... The zip input files have the input fluxes of brine and CO2 (in kg/s) allocated to model layers 1,2,3 and 5 (layers 4 and 6 are assumed to be no-flow aquitards) through the following nodes: (src1 WELL 7 7 25 25 10 32) #Etchegoin (src2 WELL 7 7 25 25 33 72) #Macoma Chanac (src3 WELL 7 7 25 25 73 83) #Santa Margarita Mclure (src4 WELL 7 7 25 25 84 89) #Fruitvale Round Mountain (aquitard) (src5 WELL 7 7 25 25 90 96) #Olcese Sand (thief zone) (src6 WELL 7 7 25 25 97 99) #tremblor Freeman (aquitard) ex: brn1 is assigned to src 1 from i=(7,7), j=(25,25), k=(10,32) Edited by Ya-Mei Yang at National Energy Technology Laboratory

brine leakage↗
DOE OSTI2024

Spatially Local Surrogate Modeling of Subgrid-Scale Effects in Idealized Atmospheric Flows: A Deep Learned Approach Using High-Resolution Simulation Data

Abstract We introduce a machine learned surrogate model from high-resolution simulation data to capture the subgrid-scale effects in dry, stratified atmospheric flows. We use deep neural networks (NNs) to model the spatially local state differences between a coarse-resolution simulation and a high-resolution simulation. The setup enables the capture of both dissipative and antidissipative effects in the state differences. The NN model is able to accurately capture the state differences in offline tests outside the training regime. In online tests intended for production use, the NN-coupled coarse simulation has higher accuracy over a significant period of time compared to the coarse-resolution simulation without any correction. We provide evidence of the capability of the NN model to accurately capture high-gradient regions in the flow field. With the accumulation of the errors, the NN-coupled simulation becomes computationally unstable after approximately 90 coarse simulation time steps. Insights gained from these surrogate models further pave the way for formulating stable, complex, physics-based spatially local NN models which are driven by traditional subgrid-scale turbulence closure models. Significance Statement Flows in the atmosphere are highly chaotic and turbulent, comprising flow structures of broad scales. For effective computational modeling of atmospheric flows, the effects of the small- and large-scale structures need to be captured by the simulations. Capturing the small-scale structures requires fine-resolution simulations. Even with the current state-of-the-art supercomputers, it can be prohibitively expensive to simulate these flows when computed for the entire earth over climate time scales. Thus, it is necessary to focus on the larger-scale structures using a coarse-resolution simulation while capturing the effects of the smaller-scale structures using some parameterization (approximation) scheme and incorporating it into the coarse-resolution simulation. We use machine learning to model the effects of the small-scale structures (subgrid-scale effects) in atmospheric flows. Data from a fine-resolution simulation is used to compute the missing subgrid-scale effects in coarse-resolution simulations. We then use machine learning models to approximate these differences between the coarse- and fine-resolution simulations. We see improved accuracy for the coarse-resolution simulations when corrected using these machine learned models.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2019

Nalu-Wind and OpenFAST: A high-fidelity modeling and simulation environment for wind energy. Milestone ECP-Q2-FY19

The goal of the ExaWind project is to enable predictive simulations of wind farms comprised of many megawatt-scale turbines situated in complex terrain. Predictive simulations will require computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations for which the mesh resolves the geometry of the turbines and captures the rotation and large deflections of blades. Whereas such simulations for a single turbine are arguably petascale class, multi-turbine wind farm simulations will require exascale-class resources. The primary physics codes in the ExaWind project are Nalu-Wind, which is an unstructured-grid solver for the acoustically incompressible Navier-Stokes equations, and OpenFAST, which is a whole-turbine simulation code. The Nalu-Wind model consists of the mass-continuity Poisson-type equation for pressure and a momentum equation for the velocity. For such modeling approaches, simulation times are dominated by linear-system setup and solution for the continuity and momentum systems. For the ExaWind challenge problem, the moving meshes greatly affect overall solver costs as reinitialization of matrices and recomputation of preconditioners is required at every time step. This milestone represents the culmination of several parallel development activities towards the goal of establishing a full-physics simulation capability for modeling wind turbines operating in turbulent atmospheric inflow conditions. The demonstration simulation performed in this milestone is the first step towards the "ground truth" simulation and includes the following components: neutral atmospheric boundary layer inflow conditions generated using a precursor simulation, a hybrid RANS/LES simulation of the wall-resolved turbine geometry, hybridization of the turbulence equations using a blending function approach to transition from the atmospheric scales to the blade boundary layer scales near the turbine, fluid-structure interaction (FSI) that accounts for the complete set of blade deformations (bending, twisting and pitch motion, yaw and tower displacements) by coupling to a comprehensive turbine dynamics code (OpenFAST). The use of overset mesh methodology for the simulations in this milestone presents a significant deviation from the previous efforts where a sliding mesh approach was employed to model the rotation of the turbine blades. The choice of overset meshes was motivated by the need to handle arbitrarily large deformations of the blade and to allow for blade pitching in the presence of a controller and the ease of mesh generation compared to the sliding mesh approach. FSI and the new timestep algorithm used in the simulations were developed in partnership with the A2e High-Fidelity Modeling project. The individual physics components were verified and validated (V%V) through extensive code-to-code comparisons and with experiments where possible. The detailed V&V efforts provide confidence in the final simulation where these physics models were combined together even though no detailed experimental data is available to perform validation of the final configuration. Taken together, this milestone successfully demonstrated the most advanced simulation to date that has been performed with Nalu-Wind.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
NASA NTRS1984

The Shuttle Mission Simulator computer generated imagery

Equipment available in the primary training facility for the Space Transportation System (STS) flight crews includes the Fixed Base Simulator, the Motion Base Simulator, the Spacelab Simulator, and the Guidance and Navigation Simulator. The Shuttle Mission Simulator (SMS) consists of the Fixed Base Simulator and the Motion Base Simulator. The SMS utilizes four visual Computer Generated Image (CGI) systems. The Motion Base Simulator has a forward crew station with six-degrees of freedom motion simulation. Operation of the Spacelab Simulator is planned for the spring of 1983. The Guidance and Navigation Simulator went into operation in 1982. Aspects of orbital visual simulation are discussed, taking into account the earth scene, payload simulation, the generation and display of 1079 stars, the simulation of sun glare, and Reaction Control System jet firing plumes. Attention is also given to landing site visual simulation, and night launch and landing simulation.

Henderson, T. H.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Development of Monte Carlo Capability for Orion Parachute Simulations

Parachute test programs employ Monte Carlo simulation techniques to plan testing and make critical decisions related to parachute loads, rate-of-descent, or other parameters. This paper describes the development and use of a MATLAB-based Monte Carlo tool for three parachute drop test simulations currently used by NASA. The Decelerator System Simulation (DSS) is a legacy 6 Degree-of-Freedom (DOF) simulation used to predict parachute loads and descent trajectories. The Decelerator System Simulation Application (DSSA) is a 6-DOF simulation that is well suited for modeling aircraft extraction and descent of pallet-like test vehicles. The Drop Test Vehicle Simulation (DTVSim) is a 2-DOF trajectory simulation that is convenient for quick turn-around analysis tasks. These three tools have significantly different software architectures and do not share common input files or output data structures. Separate Monte Carlo tools were initially developed for each simulation. A recently-developed simulation output structure enables the use of the more sophisticated DSSA Monte Carlo tool with any of the core-simulations. The task of configuring the inputs for the nominal simulation is left to the existing tools. Once the nominal simulation is configured, the Monte Carlo tool perturbs the input set according to dispersion rules created by the analyst. These rules define the statistical distribution and parameters to be applied to each simulation input. Individual dispersed parameters are combined to create a dispersed set of simulation inputs. The Monte Carlo tool repeatedly executes the core-simulation with the dispersed inputs and stores the results for analysis. The analyst may define conditions on one or more output parameters at which to collect data slices. The tool provides a versatile interface for reviewing output of large Monte Carlo data sets while preserving the capability for detailed examination of individual dispersed trajectories. The Monte Carlo tool described in this paper has proven useful in planning several Crew Exploration Vehicle parachute tests.

Moore, James W.↗
DOE OSTI2022

How Can Construction Process Simulation Modeling Aid the Integration of Lean Principles in the Factory-Built Housing Industry?

New and existing factories that produce and deliver factory-built housing can benefit from construction process simulation modeling to explore the integration of Lean principles in their operations. Construction process simulation modeling provides digital or virtual recreations of the real-world factory environments to visualize, quantify, analyze, and optimize their underlying behavior, including factory productivity, material flow, labor dynamics, bottlenecks, and work scope. One of the key benefits of process simulation modeling is the ability to create and compare "what-if" scenarios, including integrating Lean principles such as reducing waste (for example, transportation, waiting), line balancing, and just-in-time concepts. In general, three process simulation methods are widely used: discrete event simulation (DES), agentbased modeling (ABM), and system dynamics (SD). Myriad process simulation software also is available, but depending on the industry, complexity of the system, and purposes of the simulation, some software might be more appropriate. Similar to how computer-aided design (CAD) software such as AutoCAD and Rhinoceros enable building design of modular or factory-built housing, process simulation modeling software such as jStrobe, ProModel, and AnyLogic can enable factory design of new and existing factories to deliver modular affordable housing at scale, as opposed to traditional site-built construction. Software with DES capabilities can help generate a process model that is a logical representation of resources and activities in a factory. Software with CAD-DES integration can leverage product-process data integration to help spatially visualize a DES model of the factory in the CAD environment. Software with multimethod simulation capabilities, widely used in the manufacturing industry, brings together DES, ABM, and SD in a single platform that allows visualization, quantification, analyses, and optimization at varying data fidelities. Near-real-time data from an existing factory can be directly plugged into multimethod simulation software so that the construction process simulation model is a near-accurate representation of the real-world factory conditions. This report provides insights into the use of simulation as an aid to integrate Lean concepts in factories, including guidelines for selecting the appropriate process simulation modeling method and software. These insights have been developed as part of ongoing process simulation modeling research, development, and demonstration projects at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory focused on how process simulation models can enable better integration of resilience, energy efficiency, and low-carbon design strategies.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2020

LLNL Kimberlina 1.2 NUFT Simulations June 2018 (v2)

This dataset contains the output 6,000, 3-dimensional reactive multi-phase flow and transport aquifer simulations of brine and CO2 leakage into a protective aquiver in California’s San Joaquin Valley and input data files detailing the geologic mesh, aquifer physical properties and CO2 and brine injection rates. This data set was generated as an ongoing effort with the US DOE National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) to evaluate the effectiveness of monitoring techniques to detect brine and CO2 leakage from legacy wells into underground sources of drinking water overlaying a CO2 storage reservoir. Each simulation contains a unique set of input parameters, generated stochastically. The outputs consist of these upper three geologic layers (from top): the Etchegoin, Macoma-Chanac, Santa Margarita-McLure formations. These simulations span the several distances (1, 3 and 6 km or wells W31-0.2, W31-0.5 and W31-1.0, respectively) from the CO2 injector, initiated from bottom hole pressure and saturation to calculate wellbore leakage from the storage reservoir, with low and high regional groundwater gradients and wellbore leakage into 5 leaky nodes. The dataset includes 1,000 unique simulations for each distance, which each contain a unique aquifer heterogeneity, aquifer and caprock permeability, and two model generations are included with a high permeability (prod07) and hybrid permeability (prod09). The range of permeability distributions is listed in Table 1. Each model generation consists of 3,000 simulations. Included in the dataset are the leakage rates determined from 2D wellbore models which utilize the pressure and CO2 saturation from LBL's reservoir simulations, NUFT mesh files with distributed lithology, NUFT rocktab files which describe the material properties for the geologic layers and the NUFT input files and post-processed output 'ntab' files. Each ntab file contains spatial (rows) and temporal (columns) model output tables for each model cell, the locations (x,y,z) and dimensions for each cells (dx, dy, dz). Table 1. Permeability distribution ranges for prod07 and prod09 model generations Geologic Layer: Permeability Range (log10 m^2) prod07 prod09 Etchegoin -12.92 to -10.92 -13.70 to -11.44 Macoma-Chanac -12.72 to -10.72 -13.50 to -11.24 Santa Margarita-McLure -12.70 to -10.70 -13.48 to -11.22 The input files used to generate the model include which are included in the dataset are: Time series of CO2 leakage input into the model (ex: Q_brn.W31-0.2.sim1000.layers123.tab) Time series of CO2 leakage input into the model (ex: Q_CO2.W31-0.2.sim1000.layers123.tab) Physical properties of the aquifer materials detailing the aquifer porosity, solid density, partitioning coefficients, permeabilities and van-Genuchten parameters detailed in a NUFT rocktab file: (ex: sim1000.usnt.rocktab) Numerical mesh and geologic data assigned to each model cell detailed in a NUFT genmsh format (ex: sim1000.mesh_k16.prod07.trans.genmsh) The primary output parameters are: pH (use absolute value) Change in TDS (mg/kg) Change in Pressure (Pa) Change CO2 gas saturation (fraction range 0.0-1.0) for example, the directory /p/lscratchh/mansoor1/nrap/kimberlina/prod09/mainfiles/sim1000/W31- 0.2 contains: sim1000.W31-0.2.trans.pH.red.ntab sim1000.W31-0.2.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab sim1000.W31-0.2.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab sim1000.W31-0.2.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab Each row in the NTAB files consist of model output per numerical grid cell. Each output file contains 33 columns (variables), including the information of numerical records, geologic location and sizes and the simulated parameter values over time. The first 13 variables are about numerical records and relative geologic information for a simulation grid: 1. index: simulation index 2. i: the ith grid of x-axis 3. j: the ith grid of y-axis 4. k: the ith grid of z-axis 5. element_ref: element reference 6. nuft_ind: nuft index 7. x: grid location in the x axis direction 8. y: grid location in the y axis direction 9. z: grid location in the z axis direction 10. dx: grid length in the x axis direction 11. dy: grid length in the y axis direction 12. dz: grid length in the z axis direction 13. volume: volume of the simulation grid The remainder (14, 15, 16...) variables are the simulated parameter values over time, take Pressure as an example, are: 14. 0.0y: initial pressure per cell. 15. 10.0y: simulated pressure at the end of the 10th year. 16. 20.0y: simulated pressure at the end of the 20th year. ... (repeated for every 10 years until 200 years)... The model extends 10,000 m, 5,000 m and 1,411 m in the x,y and z dimensions, respectively. The mesh consists of 164,832 cells with mesh dimensions of 101 x 51 x 32 (nx, ny, nz), with cell dimensions ranging from 100 m laterally (along x and y-axis) and model layers are as designated in the z-axis: Layer 1: atmosphere (1e-30 m thick) Layer 2: upper caprock (10 m thick) Layers 3-13: Etchegoin (536.23 m thck) Layers 14-27: Macoma-Chanac (679.04 m thick) Layers 28-32: Santa Margarita-McLure (185.94 m thick) The wellbore is placed along node i=51, j=26, and extends vertically along 5 nodes from the top to the bottom of the model. Special instructions when extracting files: Each Gzip archive (ex: prod07.sim1000-sim00099.tar.gz) contains 100 simulations. Gzip archives should be transferred into base directories (ie. In Linux: mkdir prod07; mv prod07.*.tar.gz prod07/.) before extracting, or files will be overwritten. Each sub-simulation tree should have the following file structure pattern (using the linux 'tree' command): |-- prod07 | |-- sim0001 | |-- W31-0.2 | | |-- Q_brn.W31-0.2.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- Q_co2.W31-0.2.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.trans.pH.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab | |-- W31-0.5 | | |-- Q_brn.W31-0.5.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- Q_co2.W31-0.5.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.trans.pH.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab | |-- W31-1.0 | | |-- Q_brn.W31-1.0.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- Q_co2.W31-1.0.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.trans.pH.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab | |-- sim0001.mesh_k16.prod07.trans.genmsh Disclaimer This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, nor any of their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is operated by Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. This report was reviewed and released as LLNL-MI-753464.

aquifer↗
DOE OSTI2020

The impact of mineral reactive surface area variation on simulated mineral reactions and reaction rates

Reactive transport modeling is an essential tool to simulate complex geochemical reactions in porous media that can impact formation properties including porosity and permeability. However, simulating these reactions is challenging due to uncertainties in model parameters, particularly mineral surface areas. Imaging has emerged as a powerful means of estimating model parameters including porosity and mineral abundance, accessibility and accessible surface area. However, these parameters, particularly mineral accessible surface area, vary with image resolution. This work aims to enhance understanding of the impact of image resolution and other means of estimating mineral reactive surface area on simulated mineral reactions and reaction rates. Mineral surface areas calculated from images with resolutions of 0.34 μm and 5.71 μm were used to simulate mineral reactions in the context of geologic CO 2 sequestration in the Paluxy formation at the continuum scale. Additional simulations were carried out using BET surface areas collected from the literature and geometric surface areas. Simulations were run for 7300 days and mineral volume fractions and effluent ion concentrations tracked and compared. Variations in mineral surface areas measured from images are within 1 order of magnitude and yield similar simulation results, indicating the impact of image resolution on simulated reactions and reaction rates is minimum for the resolutions and sample considered. In comparison, surface areas obtained from BET and geometric approaches are 1–4 orders of magnitude higher than image-obtained surface areas and result in greater simulated reaction rates and extents. Minerals with high reaction rates (calcite and siderite) are most impacted by surface area values at short times where simulated mineral volume fractions at longer times agree relatively well, even for simulations with several orders of magnitude variation in surface area. Phases with lower reaction rates, such as K-feldspar and muscovite, are predominantly impacted over longer times where variations in surface areas impact reaction extents and porosity evolution. Overall, variations in surface areas due to image resolution are small and result in little variation in simulated reactions and reaction rates while there are significant variations in simulation results when other surface area estimates are used. These variations, however, depend on the reactivity of the mineral phase where surface areas of fast-reacting phases largely impact simulations at short (hours to days) timescales and surface areas of slower-reactive phases impact longer term simulations (years).

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Quasi-Steady Simulation of Glaze Ice Accretion and Heat Transfer in the Supercooled Large Droplet Regime in Atmospheric Turbulent Air Flow

Abstract To avoid the use of a computationally intensive full unsteady simulation while providing an accurate solution, a quasi-steady simulation has been performed to study glaze and mixed ice accretion in the supercooled large droplet (SLD) regime in turbulent flow of atmospheric air. We have attempted to find the minimum time-step necessary to adequately simulate the icing process on an airfoil surface. Based on node displacement, a mesh morphing scheme has been adopted in the computations to account for the moving boundaries that are caused by the continuous ice buildup. We have modeled ice accretion on an airfoil surface for a time period of 232 s using several time steps. At each time-step we solved the steady-state conservation equations for the air and droplet phases and then used the results as initial conditions for the next time position. The magnitude of the time-step ranged from a least accurate two-shot simulation (where the time-step is 116 s) to a most accurate 2320-shot simulation (where the time-step is 0.1 s). In-between these two extreme time steps, we have performed a three-shot simulation (where the time-step is 77.33 s), a four-shot simulation (where the time-step is 58 s), a six-shot simulation (where the time-step is 38.67 s), a 46-shot simulation (where the time-step is 5 s), and a 232-shot simulation (where the time-step is 1 s). We have done so to find out the degree of accuracy (or inaccuracy) of the multishot simulation approach and to find out the appropriate time-step needed for a successful and valid quasi-steady simulation. A valid quasi-steady simulation needs to use a time-step that is small enough to reproduce the full time-dependent solution within a very small error band. We have found that both the 1 s and the 0.1 s time steps produce virtually identical results. This is the primary litmus test that proves the validity of the quasi-steady-state assumption. The results adopted in this paper are thus all based on the more conservative 0.1 s time-step. In the process of performing the simulations, remeshing was required in order to maintain the grid density in zones of high curvature to be able to capture the full physics in those zones. After successfully modeling glaze ice accretion over the airfoil surface using the 0.1 s quasi-steady simulation approach, the effects of supercooled large droplets (SLDs) impacting the surface have been examined and presented in terms of the variation of the local collection efficiency, the water film thickness, and the heat transfer rate. Examination of the variation of the angle that the ice horn makes with the airfoil chord line demonstrated a 20% improvement in angle prediction when the time-step is reduced from 116 s to 0.1 s. The analysis also reveals a 12% or 8.5% increase in the maximum collection efficiency, βmax, depending on whether the value of the liquid water content (LWC) has been doubled from 0.5 g/m3 to 1 g/m3, or the value of the freestream velocity has been doubled from 75 m/s to 150 m/s, respectively. Because of the need to monitor the local collection efficiency and convective heat fluxes at each shot (regardless of the number of shots employed), the approach adopted here was found to be effective in successively and successfully reproducing the curvature of the glaze ice horn.

Engineering↗