Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Normalization”

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 1,639 records · Page 91
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

CFD Modeling of Cryogenic Chilldown in a Complex Channel under Normal and Low Gravity Conditions

Future NASA architectures have baselined cryogenic propulsion systems as well as cryogenic fluid management to support lunar missions and ultimately to support future missions to Mars. These missions will require chilling hardware down prior to engine restart as well as chilling lines and tanks prior to transferring and refueling these propulsion elements in orbit. In lieu of expensive tests conducted on-orbit, accurate predictive computational models of these chilldown processes can be used to reduce system and propellant mass as well as mission risk.

CFD↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Mapping Ocean-Reflected Radio Frequency Interference for the GPM Microwave Imager Using Normalized Retrieval Cost Function

By adapting an approach originally developed for WindSat, we identify regions where GMI is affected by radio frequency interference from ocean-reflected geostationary satellite emissions. Around North America, K-band emissions from geostationary satellites affect the GMI 18.7-GHz brightness temperatures, resulting in increases in the retrieval cost function. The method does not detect any 10.7-GHz RFI reflected of the ocean surrounding Europe. This study, which depends on the physically-based forward model for non-raining ocean retrievals, confirms results from a previous study that employed an empirical methodology.

Ian S. Adams↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling Autogenous Pressurization and Draining of a Cryogenic Storage Tank in Normal Gravity

A two-phase CFD model for autogenous pressurization and draining of a cryogenic storage tank is presented using both the Sharp Interface and Volume-Of-Fluid (VOF) approaches for capturing the front and the associated interfacial heat, mass and momentum transfer between the liquid and vapor regions. Both models are validated against data provided by the Cryogenic Propellant Storage and Transfer (CPST) Engineering Development Unit (EDU) experiment. The results of the autogenous pressurization are presented first, focusing on the phase change and turbulence effects on the tank pressure and temperature predictions. Both the Sharp Interface (SI-CFD) and VOF (VOF-CFD) multiphase models predict tank pressure during pressurization within 3% of the measured values. The sensitivity of key physical and numerical parameters of the problem are tested using the Sharp Interface model. Effects of the accommodation coefficient (AC), and the computational grid structure are studied. The second part of this paper is devoted to validating the SI-VOF model, with an enhanced capability of moving the liquid-vapor interface, against the draining segment of the EDU experiment. The VOF-CFD model was also used to simulate tank draining and its results were compared with the results of the Sharp Interface model with the moving interface. Both models predict tank pressure during draining within 3.5% of the measured values. Pressure decrease rate is underpredicted by both models during the first 100 seconds of draining but matches the experimental rate for the rest of the simulation.

Computational Fluid Dynamics↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling Autogenous Pressurization and Draining of a Cryogenic Storage Tank in Normal Gravity

A two-phase CFD model for autogenous pressurization and draining of a cryogenic storage tank is presented using both the Sharp Interface and Volume-Of-Fluid (VOF) approaches for capturing the front and the associated interfacial heat, mass and momentum transfer between the liquid and vapor regions. Both models are validated against data provided by the Cryogenic Propellant Storage and Transfer (CPST) Engineering Development Unit (EDU) experiment1. The results of the autogenous pressurization are presented first, focusing on the phase change and turbulence effects on the tank pressure and temperature predictions. Both the Sharp Interface (SI-CFD) and VOF (VOF-CFD) multiphase models predict tank pressure during pressurization within 3% of the measured values. The sensitivity of key physical and numerical parameters of the problem are tested using the Sharp Interface model. Effects of the accommodation coefficient (AC), and the computational grid structure are studied. The second part of this paper is devoted to validating the SI-VOF model, with an enhanced capability of moving the liquid-vapor interface, against the draining segment of the EDU experiment. The VOF-CFD model was also used to simulate tank draining and its results were compared with the results of the Sharp Interface model with the moving interface. Both models predict tank pressure during draining within 3.5% of the measured values. Pressure decrease rate is underpredicted by both models during the first 100 seconds of draining but matches the experimental rate for the rest of the simulation.

Computational Fluid Dynamics↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

CFD Model Development of a Cryogenic Storage Tank Self-Pressurization in Normal Gravity and Validation against SHIIVER Experiment

Two-phase flow and heat transfer simulations with interfacial phase change of the Structural Heat Intercept, Insulation, and Vibration Evaluation Rig (SHIIVER) self-pressurization experiment were conducted using storage tank CFD model in the framework of the ANSYS Fluent CFD code. The simulations were performed for the 70% fill level case with MLI on domes and no vapor cooling. All the phase change calculations in these simulations were generated by in-house Schrage-based evaporation-condensation model. The calculations were performed using both the Volume of Fluid (VOF) and Sharp Interface multiphase 2D axisymmetric models. A number of parametric and sensitivity studies were performed to check the various aspects of the CFD model. These studies helped to understand the effects of varying several parameters on the tank pressure and temperature during self-pressurization. Turbulence modeling; turbulence damping at the interface; and using constant vs. temperature dependent fluid properties were shown to have the most profound influence on predicted tank pressures and temperatures. Current study indicates that including phase change at the interface into the computational model is crucial for accurate prediction of the tank self-pressurization process. The effect of accommodation coefficient was also studied. Tank pressure values predicted by the VOF, and Sharp Interface models are within 4% of the experimental ones.

Computational Fluid Dynamics↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

CFD Model Development of a Cryogenic Storage Tank Self-Pressurization in Normal Gravity and Validation against SHIIVER Experiment

Two-Phase flow and heat transfer simulations with interfacial phase change of the Structural Heat Intercept, Insulation, and Vibration Evaluation Rig (SHIIVER) self-pressurization experiment were conducted using storage tank CFD model in the framework of the ANSYS Fluent CFD code. The simulations were performed for the 70% fill level case with MLI on domes and no vapor cooling. All the phase change calculations in these simulations were generated by in-house Schrage-based evaporation-condensation model. The calculations were performed using both the VOF and Sharp Interface multiphase 2Daxisymmetric models. A number of parametric and sensitivity studies were performed to check the various aspects of the CFD model. These studies helped to understand the effects of varying several parameters on the tank pressure and temperature during self-pressurization. These parameters include: the effect of turbulence modeling and turbulence damping at the interface; the effect of constant vs. temperature dependent fluid properties; the effect of accommodation coefficient; the effect of modeling phase change at the interface and the effect of the fill level.

Computational Fluid Dynamics↗