Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “test”

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 1,675 records · Page 93
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2001

Development and Implementation of NASA's Lead Center for Rocket Propulsion Testing

With the new millennium, NASA's John C. Stennis Space Center (SSC) continues to develop and refine its role as rocket test service provider for NASA and the Nation. As Lead Center for Rocket Propulsion Testing (LCRPT), significant progress has been made under SSC's leadership to consolidate and streamline NASA's rocket test infrastructure and make this vital capability truly world class. NASA's Rocket Propulsion Test (RPT) capability consists of 32 test positions with a replacement value in excess of $2B. It is dispersed at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), Johnson Space Center (JSC)-White Sands Test Facility (WSTF), Glenn Research Center (GRC)-Plum Brook (PB), and SSC and is sized appropriately to minimize duplication and infrastructure costs. The LCRPT also provides a single integrated point of entry into NASA's rocket test services. The RPT capability is managed through the Rocket Propulsion Test Management Board (RPTMB), chaired by SSC with representatives from each center identified above. The Board is highly active, meeting weekly, and is key to providing responsive test services for ongoing operational and developmental NASA and commercial programs including Shuttle, Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, and 2nd and 3rd Generation Reusable Launch Vehicles. The relationship between SSC, the test provider, and the hardware developers, like MSFC, is critical to the implementation of the LCRPT. Much effort has been expended to develop and refine these relationships with SSC customers. These efforts have met with success and will continue to be a high priority to SSC for the future. To data in the exercise of its role, the LCRPT has made 22 test assignments and saved or avoided approximately $51M. The LCRPT directly manages approximately $30M annually in test infrastructure costs including facility maintenance and upgrades, direct test support, and test technology development. This annual budges supports rocket propulsion test programs which have an annual budget in excess of $150M. As the LCRPT continues to develop, customer responsiveness and lower cost test services will be major themes. In that light, SSC is embarking on major test technology development activities ensuring long range goals of safer, more responsive, and more cost effective test services are realized. The LCRPT is also focusing on the testing requirements for advanced propulsion systems. This future planning is key to defining and fielding the ability to test these new technologies in support of the hardware developers.

Dawson, Michael C.↗
NASA NTRS2005

A High-power Electric Propulsion Test Platform in Space

This paper will describe the results of the preliminary phase of a NASA design study for a facility to test high-power electric propulsion systems in space. The results of this design study are intended to provide a firm foundation for subsequent detailed design and development activities leading to the deployment of a valuable space facility. The NASA Exploration Systems Mission Directorate is sponsoring this design project. A team from the NASA Johnson Space Center, Glenn Research Center, the Marshall Space Flight Center and the International Space Station Program Office is conducting the project. The test facility is intended for a broad range of users including government, industry and universities. International participation is encouraged. The objectives for human and robotic exploration of space can be accomplished affordably, safely and effectively with high-power electric propulsion systems. But, as thruster power levels rise to the hundreds of kilowatts and up to megawatts, their testing will pose stringent and expensive demands on existing Earth-based vacuum facilities. These considerations and the human access to near-Earth space provided by the International Space Station (ISS) have led to a renewed interest in space testing. The ISS could provide an excellent platform for a space-based test facility with the continuous vacuum conditions of the natural space environment and no chamber walls to modify the open boundary conditions of the propulsion system exhaust. The test platform could take advantage of the continuous vacuum conditions of the natural space environment. Space testing would provide open boundary conditions without walls, micro-gravity and a realistic thermal environment. Testing on the ISS would allow for direct observation of the test unit, exhaust plume and space-plasma interactions. When necessary, intervention by on-board personnel and post-test inspection would be possible. The ISS can provide electrical power, a location for diagnostic instruments, data handling and thermal control. The platform will be designed to accommodate the side-by-side testing of multiple types of electric thrusters. It is intended to be a permanent facility in which different thrusters can be tested over time. ISS crews can provide maintenance for the platform and change out thruster test units as needed. The primary objective of this platform is to provide a test facility for electric propulsion devices of interest for future exploration missions. These thrusters are expected to operate in the range of hundreds of kilowatts and above. However, a platform with this capability could also accommodate testing of thrusters that require much lower power levels. Testing at the higher power levels would be accomplished by using power fiom storage devices on the platform, which would be gradually recharged by the ISS power generation system. This paper will summarize the results of the preliminary phase of the study with an explanation of the user requirements and the initial conceptual design. The concept for test operations will also be described. The NASA project team is defining the requirements but they will also reflect the inputs of the broader electric propulsion community including those at universities, commercial enterprises and other government laboratories. As a facility on the International Space Station, the design requirements are also intended to encompass the needs of international users. Testing of electric propulsion systems on the space station will help advance the development of systems needed for exploration and could also serve the needs of other customers. Propulsion systems being developed for commercial and military applications could be tested and certification testing of mature thrusters could be accomplished in the space environment.

Petro, Andrew J.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Testing to Transition the J-2X from Paper to Hardware

The J-2X Upper Stage Engine (USE) will be the first new human-rated upper stage engine since the Apollo program of the 1960s. It is designed to carry the Ares I and Ares V into orbit and send the Ares V to the Moon as part of NASA's Constellation Program. This paper will provide an overview of progress on the design, testing, and manufacturing of this new engine in 2009 and 2010. The J-2X embodies the program goals of basing the design on proven technology and experience and seeking commonality between the Ares vehicles as a way to minimize risk, shorten development times, and live within current budget constraints. It is based on the proven J-2 engine used on the Saturn IB and Saturn V launch vehicles. The prime contractor for the J-2X is Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR), which is under a design, development, test, and engineering (DDT&E) contract covering the period from June 2006 through September 2014. For Ares I, the J-2X will provide engine start at approximately 190,000 feet, operate roughly 500 seconds, and shut down. For Ares V, the J-2X will start at roughly 190,000 feet to place the Earth departure stage (EDS) in orbit, shut down and loiter for up to five days, re-start on command and operate for roughly 300 seconds at its secondary power level to perform trans lunar injection (TLI), followed by final engine shutdown. The J-2X development effort focuses on four key areas: early risk mitigation, design risk mitigation, component and subassembly testing, and engine system testing. Following that plan, the J-2X successfully completed its critical design review (CDR) in 2008, and it has made significant progress in 2009 and 2010 in moving from the drawing board to the machine shop and test stand. Post-CDR manufacturing is well under way, including PWR in-house and vendor hardware. In addition, a wide range of component and sub-component tests have been completed, and more component tests are planned. Testing includes heritage powerpack, turbopump inducer water flow, turbine air flow, turbopump seal testing, main injector and gas generator, injector testing, augmented spark igniter testing, nozzle side loads cold flow testing, nozzle extension film cooling flow testing, control system testing with hardware in the loop, and nozzle extension emissivity coating tests. In parallel with hardware manufacturing, work is progressing on the new A-3 test stand to support full duration altitude testing. The Stennis A-2 test stand is scheduled to be turned over to the Constellation Program in September 2010 to be modified for J-2X testing also. As the structural steel was rising on the A-3 stand, work was under way in the nearby E complex on the chemical steam generator and subscale diffuser concepts to be used to evacuate the A-3 test cell and simulate altitude conditions.

Byrd, Tom↗
NASA NTRS2016

Additive Manufacturing, Design, Testing, and Fabrication: A Full Engineering Experience at JSC

I worked on several projects this term. While most projects involved additive manufacturing, I was also involved with two design projects, two testing projects, and a fabrication project. The primary mentor for these was Richard Hagen. Secondary mentors were Hai Nguyen, Khadijah Shariff, and fabrication training from James Brown. Overall, my experience at JSC has been successful and what I have learned will continue to help me in my engineering education and profession long after I leave. My 3D printing projects ranged from less than a 1 cubic centimeter to about 1 cubic foot and involved several printers using different printing technologies. It was exciting to become familiar with printing technologies such as industrial grade FDM (Fused Deposition Modeling), the relatively new SLA (Stereolithography), and PolyJet. My primary duty with the FDM printers was to model parts that came in from various sources to print effectively and efficiently. Using methods my mentor taught me and the Stratasys Insight software, I was able to minimize imperfections, hasten build time, improve strength for specific forces (tensile, shear, etc...), and reduce likelihood of a print-failure. Also using FDM, I learned how to repair a part after it was printed. This is done by using a special kind of glue that chemically melts the two faces of plastic parts together to form a fused interface. My first goal with SLA technology was to bring the printer back to operational readiness. In becoming familiar with the Pegasus SLA printer, I researched the leveling, laser settings, and different vats to hold liquid material. With this research, I was successfully able to bring the Pegasus back online and have successfully printed multiple sample parts as well as functional parts. My experience with PolyJet technology has been focused on an understanding of the abilities/limits, costs, and the maintenance for daily use. Still upcoming will be experience with using a composite printer that uses FDM technology to print plastic while laying an internal filament of Kevlar or carbon-fiber inside the printed material. It has been incredible being exposed to this range of technologies and I feel very fortunate to be ready for virtually any kind of printing technology I come across in the future. Design work played a part in my internship this term as well. Working with Hai Nguyen, I was able to design a set of testing tips and a test frame for use with an Arcjet. The testing tips will be made of several different materials that will possibly be used in the heat shield of the Orion space craft. These designs included technical drawings that were presented to the fabrication shop. The frame design was created from 80/20 (a popular brand of frame construction equipment) and included an order form with pricing for fabrication. An independent design was also done for the virtual reality lab. This design was to create a hand-controller based on a previous design. This final design was sent directly to a 3D printer without technical drawings. Overall, my design work has given me experience with using 80/20, helped improve my CAD (Computer Aided Design) proficiency, and increased my knowledge of how to set up technical drawings for fabrication. The final role I have played in this internship has been to assist with testing of the inflatable technology materials working Khadijah Shariff. I began the internship assisting with permeability testing with the initial plan to continue the testing independently after training. Unfortunately, the testing apparatus suffered a technical failure and had funding pulled which cancelled that portion of the project. Further testing with inflatable technology continued with tensile testing of various stitching methods. This testing took place over a two-days and concluded successfully. Final testing was to be more tensile testing but of straps used to connect various inflatable sections. Unfortunately, the needed grips for the tensile tests could not be located and put the testing on hold. It is possible this round of testing will still take place by the end of the internship if the grips can be found. Overall, this portion of the internship has helped me become familiar with one kind of permeability test as well as a popular tensile/compression testing machine. Finally, I also had the chance to be trained using a metal lathe for making very small tips for a soldering iron. These tips will be used to melt threaded brass inserts into 3D printed plastic. Working with James Brown, I was able to successfully machine a brass rod down to as little as 0.064 inches plus or minus 0.001 inches. It was very rewarding to learn how to best use the machine and become familiar with a skill that will undoubtedly be used again in the future. I have been told by several professional engineers that learning to use a lathe and mill will be invaluable skills in the field. This knocks 50 percent of that goal off and I look forward to learning the mill at some point in the future. As is apparent with this list of projects, my internship was not focused on a single over-arching goal. Instead, I was able to gain experience in a myriad of very different areas. I feel like my time here was spent bouncing from one project to the next. Though sometimes difficult to switch gears, it was very rewarding to be a part of so much in so little time. My career and education will be positively impacted by what I have learned at JSC. My experience with 3D printing has improved my ability to handle many issues that may come up in the future with multiple different technologies. The design work I took part in, especially creating technical drawings, will help me better present designs to any engineer or shop I will encounter. My testing experience has helped me become familiar with a popular kind of tensile test machine that will likely be similar to the kinds I will encounter in the future. Finally, my experience with fabrication has given me a rare opportunity, as an engineer, to take part in the fabrication of a part. This experience will help me better tailor my future designs for the manufacturing process and has given me an appreciation for detailed/delicate machining work. My experience at JSC has been successful and will continue to assist me for a long time within the engineering field.

Zusack, Steven↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Evaluation of Extended Reality Technologies for Use in Verification Testing at NASA 2024 HRP IWS Abstract

BACKGROUND At NASA, verification testing is the formal process of ensuring that a product conforms to requirements set by a project or program. Some verification methods, such as Demonstrations and Test, require either the end product or a mockup of the product with sufficient fidelity to stand-in for the product during the test. Traditionally, these mockups have been physical (e.g., foam-core and wood) but there is growing interest in exploring new methods for testing with these mockups. These methods include virtual reality (VR), mixed reality, and augmented reality which are collectively referred to as eXtended Reality (XR) technologies. VR has already been adopted and used by many in the aerospace industry as a tool for use in early design phases (e.g., developmental testing) and may have the most potential for use in verification tests. Benefits of using VR mockups offer cost effectiveness, ease of iteration, simulation of hazardous conditions (e.g., an egress through a hatch with smoke obscuring vision), and the ability to simulate microgravity conditions, which are challenging to do with physical mockups. However, the validity of test results obtained from VR mockup demonstrations or testing, compared to the current gold standard of physical mockups, remains uncertain. It is unlikely that there is one clean answer as there are many different types of verification outcomes and each XR technology must be evaluated on its own merits. This is not an issue during developmental testing as the design is still in flux and the total success of the design is not dependent upon the results of a developmental test. Verification tests, however, only happen once, assuming no change to the design, and the results are used to certify the product. Therefore, establishing the validity of XR mockup-based verification outcomes is essential before considering them for any use in verification tests. OBJECTIVE AND METHOD To address this concern, the Human Research Program has funded a project to explore and qualify how XR technologies might be used in verification demonstration and testing at NASA. Currently, we are conducting a review of the literature on the utilization of XR mockups for design activities, prototyping, and user testing. We are employing the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis method to identify the pros, cons, and barriers to adoption of XR technologies for verification testing at NASA. Additionally, we are developing a framework to guide the deployment of XR mockups for verification tests. Building upon available evidence from the literature and subject-matter expert feedback, our goal for the framework is to provide guidelines for which forms of XR mockups are suitable for a given verification test, when only physical mockups should be employed and to highlight areas for which more evidence is needed. To further refine our framework and to contribute to the body of evidence, we are planning a lab-based experiment comparing a VR mockup to a physical twin for a set of select verification outcomes. ANTICIPATED RESULTS In this presentation, we will present the work we conducted to evaluate XR technologies for use in verification tests at NASA. We will summarize and report our findings from the SWOT analysis and our lab-based study, and we will present the current state of the XR Technologies for Verification Testing framework. We will conclude by summarizing remaining work and future directions for the project. Technologies for Verification Testing framework. We will conclude by summarizing remaining work and future directions for the project.

Extended Reality↗
DOE OSTI2016

Clemson University Wind Turbine Drivetrain Test Facility

In November of 2009, Clemson University was awarded a competitive grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to design, build and operate a facility for full-scale, highly accelerated mechanical testing of next-generation wind turbine drivetrain technologies. The primary goal of the project was to design, construct, commission, and operate a state-of-the-art sustainable facility that permits full-scale highly accelerated testing of advanced drivetrain systems for large wind turbines. The secondary goal was to meet the objectives of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, especially in job creation, and provide a positive impact on economically distressed areas in the United States, and preservation and economic recovery in an expeditious manner. The project was executed according to a managed cooperative agreement with the Department of Energy and was an extraordinary success. The resultant new facility is located in North Charleston, SC, providing easy transportation access by rail, road or ship and operates on an open access model such that it is available to the U.S. Wind Industry for research, analysis, and evaluation activities. The 72 m by 97 m facility features two mechanical dynamometer test bays for evaluating the torque and blade dynamic forces experienced by the rotors of wind turbine drivetrains. The dynamometers are rated at 7.5 MW and 15 MW of low speed shaft power and are configured as independent test areas capable of simultaneous operation. All six degrees of freedom, three linear and three rotational, for blade and rotor dynamics are replicated through the combination of a drive motor, speed reduction gearbox and a controllable hydraulic load application unit (LAU). This new LAU setup readily supports accelerated lifetime mechanical testing and load analysis for the entire drivetrain system of the nacelle and easily simulates a wide variety of realistic operating scenarios in a controlled laboratory environment. The development of these two dynamometer test rigs is the first significant achievement for the project. These test rigs embody a new manner of test due to the system configuration and completely new design with a free floating loading hub in the LAU. This project provided the catalyst for the advancement to this new test rig configuration that has been adopted by every significant wind turbine test rig constructed since the inception of this project. There are currently two different vendors supplying these new systems. Catalyzing this new design is the second major success of the project. With the increased market penetration of wind energy over the past decade, many regions and countries have developed specific electrical grid specifications and performance codes for large wind farms to ensure operational reliability and stability. These grid codes provide requirements for interconnection with the grid during low or high voltage phenomena, typically encountered during and after system fault events. Given the installed infrastructure of the Wind Turbine Drivetrain Testing Facility (WTDTF), a natural expansion of facility capability was to include the necessary equipment for performing fault ride-through evaluations of wind turbines to the Low Voltage Ride Through (LVRT) codes. Once the decision was made to expand the scope of the original grant into fault ride-through testing, it was clear that there are several markets, not just wind, which could benefit from this type of test and that simple fault ride-through testing could be extended into a broader scope of electrical testing capabilities. It was at this point that Clemson University was awarded a second grant to build a 15 MW Hardware-In-the-Loop (HIL) Grid Simulator in order to establish world class electrical testing capabilities to compliment the mechanical testing at the WTDTF. This third significant achievement resulted in the 15 MW HIL Grid Simulator as the corner stone of the Duke Energy eGRID Center and is collocated with the WTDTF in the SCE&G Energy Innovation Center at the new Facility in North Charleston, SC, USA. Before the eGRID was completed, it was recognized that the ability to test solar farm equipment was but a small step away thru the addition of enhanced equipment to provide for DC testing. In yet another expansion/success, a 2.5 MW rectifier system was designed and implemented by Clemson staff to enhance the Center’s capabilities. The program required over 250,000 man-hours of on-site construction labor reworking the brownfield facility on the former Navy Base, clearly satisfying one of the major goals of the Reinvestment Act. This was done while winning numerous awards for design and construction of the facility, including the Top US Project for 2014 from the Trade Journal Engineering News Record. The project was a major collaborative developmental activity managed by Clemson University staff that involved the DOE and many partners and organizations.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Test and Simulation of a Fokker F28 Crash Landing

Test and Simulation of a Fokker F28 Crash Landing – Jacob B. Putnam 1, Justin D. Littell 1, Karen E. Jackson 2; 1 NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, 2 National Institute of Aerospace, Hampton, VA. In June of 2019, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Langley Research Center (LaRC) conducted a full-scale crash test of a Fokker F28 MK1000 aircraft. Aircraft crash-worthiness is typically evaluated through component level tests (i.e. vertical drops of fuselage subsections or isolated seat tests). Finite Element Models (FEMs) are also used to bridge the gap between component testing and full-scale crash prediction. The full-scale crash test performed in conjunction with previous subsection testing of a Fokker F28 fuselage provided the opportunity to evaluate differences in crash-worthiness predictions between full- and sub-scale testing and to quantify the predictive capability of FEMs in the aerospace crash environment. In this study vehicle crash-worthiness was quantified through anthropometric test devices (ATDs) included in both the full-scale crash test as well as fuselage section drop tests previously performed at NASA LaRC. A FEM of the Fokker F28 aircraft was developed and simulated within the tested environment. Vehicle and ATD response predictions were compared between test and simulation. The International Organization for Standardization ISO/TR 16250 curve comparison methodology was used to provide a quantitative assessment of predictive accuracy for both the vehicle and ATD FEMs. Determination of aircraft crash-worthiness made between the three evaluations methodologies (full-vehicle crash test, component test, and FEM simulation) were then compared. Structural differences as well as the more complex loading environment achieved within the full-vehicle test resulted in increased injury risk compared to that predicted within the component level tests. The FEM simulations were found to produce a more realistic prediction of injury risk within the full-vehicle crash environment than the component level testing. Limitations of both component testing and FEM simulation within aerospace crash environment were identified.

impact testing↗
DOE OSTI2017

DCIS integration tests for Lungmen nuclear power plant - 370

The factory acceptance tests (FAT) for distributed control and information systems (DCIS) of Lungmen nuclear power plant (LMNPP) Units 1 and 2 were separately performed by individual suppliers for their supplied scopes. The FAT also included overlap interface tests between the separately supplied scopes, but did not include an overall integration test. There were concerned by the regulator and the public over the lack of an integration test, which was believed to be indispensable to verify the correctness and completeness of a digital system of such large scale ever applied by Taiwan Power Company (Taipower). To address these concerns and enhance confidence in the DCIS, the DCIS integration tests, including reactor water level integration test, reactor pressure integration test, integration test for turbine generator and reactor protection system, integration test for proper plant response to safety and non-safety network equipment failures, and DCIS dynamic integration test, were performed at site during Unit 1| site tests. It is to be noted that these tests were beyond the post construction tests, the pre-operational tests, and the start-up tests, which are the normal industry practice and formally required by the regulator. A common goal for these integration tests is to verify the capability of the DCIS to transmit signal/data properly across various suppliers' equipment to actuate the final equipment. The methods and principle, the test purpose/test items/acceptance criteria and the test results for these tests are described. (authors)

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2014

A Cultural Resources Inventory and Historical Evaluation of the Smoky Atmospheric Nuclear Test, Areas 8, 9, and 10, Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada

This report presents the results of a National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 cultural resources inventory and historical evaluation of the 1957 Smoky atmospheric test location on the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS). The Desert Research Institute (DRI) was tasked to conduct a cultural resources study of the Smoky test area as a result of a proposed undertaking by the Department of Energy Environmental Management. This undertaking involves investigating Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 550 for potential contaminants of concern as delineated in a Corrective Action Investigation Plan. CAU 550 is an area that spatially overlaps portions of the Smoky test location. Smoky, T-2c, was a 44 kt atmospheric nuclear test detonated at 5:30 am on August 31, 1957, on top of a 213.4 m (700 ft) 200 ton tower (T-2c) in Area 8 of the NNSS. Smoky was a weapons related test of the Plumbbob series (number 19) and part of the Department of Defense Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII. The cultural resources effort involved the development of a historic context based on archival documents and engineering records, the inventory of the cultural resources in the Smoky test area and an associated military trench location in Areas 9 and 10, and an evaluation of the National Register eligibility of the cultural resources. The inventory of the Smoky test area resulted in the identification of structures, features, and artifacts related to the physical development of the test location and the post-test remains. The Smoky test area was designated historic district D104 and coincides with a historic archaeological site recorded as 26NY14794 and the military trenches designed for troop observation, site 26NY14795. Sites 26NY14794 and 26NY14795 are spatially discrete with the trenches located 4.3 km (2.7 mi) southeast of the Smoky ground zero. As a result, historic district D104 is discontiguous and in total it covers 151.4 hectares (374 acres). The Smoky test location, recorded as historic district D104 and historic sites 26NY14794 and 26NY14795, is the best preserved post-shot atmospheric nuclear tower test at the NNSS and possibly in the world. It is of local, national, and international importance due to nuclear testing’s pivotal role in the Cold War between the United States and the former Soviet Union. The district and sites are linked to the historic theme of atmospheric nuclear testing. D104 retains aspects of the engineering plan and design for the Smoky tower, instrument stations used to measure test effects, German and French personnel shelters, and military trenches. A total of 33 structures contribute to the significance of D104. Artifacts and features provide significant post-test information. Historic district D104 (discontiguous) and historic site 26NY14794 (the Smoky test area) are eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criteria A, B, C, and D. The historic site 26NY14795 (the Smoky military trenches) is eligible for listing under Criteria A, C, and D. Several items have been identified for removal by the CAU 550 investigation. However, none of them is associated with the Smoky atmospheric test, but with later activities in the area. The military trenches are not part of CAU 550 and no actions are planned there. A proposed closure of the Smoky test area with restrictions will limit access and contribute to the preservation of the cultural resources. It is recommended that the Smoky historic district and sites be included in the NNSS cultural resources monitoring program.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2018

Material Model Testing in the DYNA3D Code: Material Models 1 through 5

This report is the first volume in an effort to study the material model implementations in DYNA3D, using the latest developmental version of the code. Input files were derived from a template supplied by Jerry Lin to perform an equation-of-state study. Most of the simulations use 10 cubes, each 1 cm on a side with a density of 8.03 (steel). Each of the cubes tests a different aspect of the material model. The first three cubes are testing normal stresses and normal strains (uniaxial stresses and strains) placed on the cube parallel to the x-axis, y-axis and z-axis, respectively. The x (or y or z) = 1 face of the cube is moved along the x-axis (or y-axis or z-axis) to test the model, while the opposite side remains in the x (or y or z) = 0 plane. For some of the tests, the nodes are free to move perpendicular to the applied strain to allow the cross-sectional area of the cube to change in response to being placed under pressure or tension (to test Poisson’s Ratio), while in others the nodes are frozen to eliminate dynamic effects resulting from the code. The cube is placed in tension along the axis being tested and then released, followed by a cycle of compression and release. This tension/compression cycle is repeated 3 more times. The additional cycles allow for the model to be tested under different loads. For these calculations, the amount by which the cube is stretched and compressed is varied from cycle to cycle to allow testing of model features. Cubes number 4 and 5 are intended to test xy shear stresses/strains. This is done by sliding one face of the cube in its plane parallel to the axis of interest. For example, for cube 4, the upper face of the cube is slid in the y=1 plane in a direction parallel to the x-axis (so there are no changes in the y and z coordinates of the points in the plane) and then returned to its starting position. This preserves the volume of the cube, so there is no change in density or pressure. The cycle is repeated 8 times. For cube 5, the plane of the cube satisfying x=1 is slid in this plane in a direction parallel to the y-axis and then returned to its starting position. This preserves the volume of the cube, so there is no change in density or pressure. The cycle is repeated 8 times. Cubes number 6 through 9 repeat these tests for yz shear stresses/strains (Cubes 6 and 7) and zx shear stresses and strains (Cubes 8 and 9). For reasons discussed in the next paragraph, it is unclear if these tests represent a state of pure shear stress and shear strain in the code. Application of shear stresses and strains should not, in general, result in the appearance of normal stresses and strains in Cubes 4 - 9. In the infinitesimal limit, this result might be obtained. However, DYNA3D is a finite deformation code and in the real deformations used in the code, this result is not achieved and the individual components of the normal stresses and strains are non-zero during the cycling. However, the sums of the normal strains are zero in these tests and, except in the case of thermally dependent models, so are the sums of the normal stresses. Cube 10 tests the response of the material model to a hydrostatic loading of the cube. The load curve used for the first three tests is used again and applied to each of the 8 nodes in a manner causing the cube to be either compressed or expanded. This compression/tension cycle is repeated 4 times. The additional cycles allow for the model to be tested under different loads. The amount by which the cube is stretched and compressed is varied from cycle to cycle to allow testing of model features. This document will discuss the testing of Material Models 1 through 5. Relevant results from the test cubes will be discussed. A discussion of the results from all 10 test cubes will be presented only if necessary.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2022

Flow Sensor Test Article (F-STAr) (Design and Fabrication Status Report)

The Flow Sensor Test Article (F-STAr) is a test article currently under construction for the Mechanisms Engineering Test Loop (METL). F-STAr was designed to provide high sodium flowrate capabilities for sensor calibration, component testing, and fluid studies. Figure 1 shows two solid model views of the new test article. F-STAr includes a high-capacity pump that can provide a nominal flowrate of 120 GPM; a test section support structure that can accommodate a wide array of sub-test articles and their instrumentation; and finally, a heating and cooling system to aid in controlling the testing environment. Initially, F-STAr will be configured to test liquid metal flow sensors, specifically field shift sensors like the Eddy Current Flow Sensors (ECFS) based on the RDT C4-7T standard. To test these sensors, two test sections were designed that attempt to model Sodium Fast Reactor (SFR) outlet conditions. Figure 2 shows models of the “Full-Scaled Test Section” (FSTS) that represents a generic SFR fuel handling socket and a “Pseudo-Scaled Test Section” (PSTS) that represents a generic array of scaled fuel handling sockets. While F-STAr will be configured to test ECFS’s, it can also be outfitted to meet other experimental needs. For example, F-STAr could be setup with a test section that includes a fluidic diode or a component test investigating the performance of hydrodynamic bearings. Other test sections include studies of sodium thermal hydraulics like thermal striping. Overall, F-STAr is a flexible test article designed to accommodate many needs. This report will provide a status update on the design and construction of F-STAr. Manufacturing of all components has commenced, and several components have already been completed. These components include the pump and test section assembly stand. Other components, such as the heater, have been completed but were rejected due to the vendor not meeting the requirements of the purchase order. Lastly, the submersible flowmeter and main flange components are under construction, and their status will be reviewed in this report. Overall, most of the F-STAr components and parts will be completed by the end of September 2022.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2023

Radiometric Testing of Germicidal UV Products, Round 1: UV-C Towers and Whole-Room Luminaires (CALiPER Summary Report)

This summary report analyzes the independently tested performance of 13 germicidal ultraviolet (GUV) products purchased between February and July 2022. A companion full report provides additional information and discussion of the tested products, test methods, and results. The products were of three different types: • Seven portable, consumer-oriented GUV towers designed to be placed on the floor or a desk of an unoccupied room to disinfect air and surfaces. Five of these products used LED sources and two products used low-pressure mercury (LPM) sources. • One non-portable GUV whole-room luminaire designed to be installed on a ceiling to disinfect air when a room is occupied. This product used an LED source. • Five non-portable GUV troffer or high-bay style whole-room luminaires designed to be installed in or suspended from a ceiling to disinfect air and surfaces when a room is unoccupied. All five used LPM sources. Radiometric and electrical performance was evaluated for all 13 products. Photobiological safety was also assessed for two of the products because their documentation included testable claims. The test results were compared across products and to manufacturer or vendor claims. The testing identified many issues related to the accuracy of reported GUV product performance. Claims were often untestable, contradictory, ambiguous, or used incorrect units and/or terminology. And when claims were testable, they often did not match test results. For example, three products that claimed to emit UV-C emitted only UV-A. These product claim issues were more numerous with consumer-oriented tower products, but problems with accurate performance claims were found across all products. The UV-C radiant efficiency of the products varied widely, even among similar products using the same source technologies. For example, the UV-C radiant efficiency of LPM products varied by greater than a factor of three for the same product type, indicating a large potential energy savings opportunity for products that are better designed for efficiency. LED products had orders-of-magnitude lower UV-C radiant efficiency than LPM products. Several testing challenges and limitations were identified. Most significant among these is the capability to accurately test and report the performance of larger GUV products. Integrating spheres require a specialized and costly coating to test UV, and the testing laboratory for this round of products had only a 20-inch diameter hemisphere with this capability. Only 2 of the 10 UV-C emitting products could be tested in this sphere. Goniometer testing had a different size limitation in that mirrors typically used to increase goniometer test distance to the far field are not reflective of UV and therefore could not be used to increase test distance. As a result, 7 of 13 products could not be tested far field. The implication is that electronic files of UV-C intensity data typically imported into design software for designing GUV applications may not be reliable for predicting irradiance at arbitrary far-field distances. It is currently unclear if these are industry-wide testing laboratory limitations, and what solutions may exist to address them. Specifiers and buyers of GUV products will need accurate performance claims and data to safely and effectively deploy GUV technology to reduce the transmission of diseases in buildings. This CALiPER GUV Round 1 report demonstrates the significant education and training that is needed for manufacturers and vendors to accurately test and report the performance of their GUV products. Further standards and guidelines are needed to improve test methods, address testing limitations, and improve reporting of product performance. Additionally, the wide range in UV-C radiant efficiency of GUV products means there is a large energy-savings opportunity for more energy efficient GUV products.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
NASA NTRS1992

Utilization of the graded universal testing system to increase the efficiency for assessing aerobic and anaerobic capacity

The in-flight exercise test performed by cosmonauts as part of the Russian Exercise Countermeasure Program is limited to 5 minutes due to communication restrictions. During a recent graded exercise test on a U.S. Shuttle flight, the test was terminated early due to an upcoming loss of signal (LOS) with the ground. This exercise test was a traditional test where the subject's exercise capacity dictates the length of the test. For example, one crew member may take 15 minutes to complete the test, while another may take 18 minutes. The traditional exercise test limits the flight schedulers to large blocks of space flight time in order to provide medical and research personnel information on the fitness capacity (maximal oxygen uptake: VO2max) of crew members during flight. A graded exercise test that would take a finite amount of time and a set preparation and recovery time would ease this problem by allowing flight schedulers to plan exercise tests in advance of LOS. The Graded Universal Testing System (GUTS) was designed to meet this goal. Fitness testing of astronauts before and after flight provides pertinent data on many variables. The Detailed Supplemental Objective (DSO608) protocol (6) is one of the graded exercise tests (GXT) currently used in astronaut testing before and after flight. Test times for this protocol have lasted from 11 to 18 minutes. Anaerobic capacity is an important variable that is currently not being evaluated before and after flight. Recent reports (1,2,5) from the literature have suggested that the oxygen deficit at supramaximal exercise is a measure of anaerobic capacity. We postulated that the oxygen deficit at maximal exercise would be an indication of anaerobic capacity. If this postulate can be accepted, then the efficiency of acquiring data from a graded exercise test would increase at least twofold. To examine this hypothesis anaerobic capacity was measured using a modified treadmill test (3,4) designed to exhaust the anaerobic systems in approximately 45 to 75 seconds. Lactate concentration in the blood was analyzed after all tests, since lactate is the end-product of anaerobic energy production. Therefore, the peak lactate response is an additional indication of anaerobic capacity. A preliminary comparison of the GUTS and the DSO608 suggests that the GUTS protocol would increase the efficiency of VO2max testing of astronauts before and after flight. Results for anaerobic capacity have not been tabulated.

Rodgers, Sandra L.↗
NASA NTRS1994

Test/score/report: Simulation techniques for automating the test process

A Test/Score/Report capability is currently being developed for the Transportable Payload Operations Control Center (TPOCC) Advanced Spacecraft Simulator (TASS) system which will automate testing of the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) Payload Operations Control Center (POCC) and Mission Operations Center (MOC) software in three areas: telemetry decommutation, spacecraft command processing, and spacecraft memory load and dump processing. Automated computer control of the acceptance test process is one of the primary goals of a test team. With the proper simulation tools and user interface, the task of acceptance testing, regression testing, and repeatability of specific test procedures of a ground data system can be a simpler task. Ideally, the goal for complete automation would be to plug the operational deliverable into the simulator, press the start button, execute the test procedure, accumulate and analyze the data, score the results, and report the results to the test team along with a go/no recommendation to the test team. In practice, this may not be possible because of inadequate test tools, pressures of schedules, limited resources, etc. Most tests are accomplished using a certain degree of automation and test procedures that are labor intensive. This paper discusses some simulation techniques that can improve the automation of the test process. The TASS system tests the POCC/MOC software and provides a score based on the test results. The TASS system displays statistics on the success of the POCC/MOC system processing in each of the three areas as well as event messages pertaining to the Test/Score/Report processing. The TASS system also provides formatted reports documenting each step performed during the tests and the results of each step. A prototype of the Test/Score/Report capability is available and currently being used to test some POCC/MOC software deliveries. When this capability is fully operational it should greatly reduce the time necessary to test a POCC/MOC software delivery, as well as improve the quality of the test process.

Hageman, Barbara H.↗
NASA NTRS2005

NASA GRC and MSFC Space-Plasma Arc Testing Procedures

Tests of arcing and current collection in simulated space plasma conditions have been performed at the NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) in Cleveland, Ohio, for over 30 years and at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama, for almost as long. During this period, proper test conditions for accurate and meaningful space simulation have been worked out, comparisons with actual space performance in spaceflight tests and with real operational satellites have been made, and NASA has achieved our own internal standards for test protocols. It is the purpose of this paper to communicate the test conditions, test procedures, and types of analysis used at NASA GRC and MSFC to the space environmental testing community at large, to help with international space-plasma arcing-testing standardization. To be discussed are: 1.Neutral pressures, neutral gases, and vacuum chamber sizes. 2. Electron and ion densities, plasma uniformity, sample sizes, and Debuy lengths. 3. Biasing samples versus self-generated voltages. Floating samples versus grounded. 4. Power supplies and current limits. Isolation of samples from power supplies during arcs. 5. Arc circuits. Capacitance during biased arc-threshold tests. Capacitance during sustained arcing and damage tests. Arc detection. Prevention sustained discharges during testing. 6. Real array or structure samples versus idealized samples. 7. Validity of LEO tests for GEO samples. 8. Extracting arc threshold information from arc rate versus voltage tests. 9. Snapover and current collection at positive sample bias. Glows at positive bias. Kapon (R) pyrolisis. 10. Trigger arc thresholds. Sustained arc thresholds. Paschen discharge during sustained arcing. 11. Testing for Paschen discharge threshold. Testing for dielectric breakdown thresholds. Testing for tether arcing. 12. Testing in very dense plasmas (ie thruster plumes). 13. Arc mitigation strategies. Charging mitigation strategies. Models. 14. Analysis of test results. Finally, the necessity of testing will be emphasized, not to the exclusion of modeling, but as part of a complete strategy for determining when and if arcs will occur, and preventing them from occurring in space.

Ferguson, Dale C.↗
NASA NTRS2005

NASA GRC and MSFC Space-Plasma Arc Testing Procedures

Tests of arcing and current collection in simulated space plasma conditions have been performed at the NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) in Cleveland, Ohio, for over 30 years and at the Marshall Space flight Center (MSFC) for almost as long. During this period, proper test conditions for accurate and meaningful space simulation have been worked out, comparisons with actual space performance in spaceflight tests and with real operational satellites have been made, and NASA has achieved our own internal standards for test protocols. It is the purpose of this paper to communicate the test conditions, test procedures, and types of analysis used at NASA GRC and MSFC to the space environmental testing community at large, to help with international space-plasma arcing testing standardization. To be discussed are: 1. Neutral pressures, neutral gases, and vacuum chamber sizes. 2. Electron and ion densities, plasma uniformity, sample sizes, and Debye lengths. 3. Biasing samples versus self-generated voltages. Floating samples versus grounded. 4. Power supplies and current limits. Isolation of samples from power supplies during arcs. Arc circuits. Capacitance during biased arc-threshold tests. Capacitance during sustained arcing and damage tests. Arc detection. Preventing sustained discharges during testing. 5. Real array or structure samples versus idealized samples. 6. Validity of LEO tests for GEO samples. 7. Extracting arc threshold information from arc rate versus voltage tests. 8 . Snapover and current collection at positive sample bias. Glows at positive bias. Kapton pyrolization. 9. Trigger arc thresholds. Sustained arc thresholds. Paschen discharge during sustained arcing. 10. Testing for Paschen discharge thresholds. Testing for dielectric breakdown thresholds. Testing for tether arcing. 11. Testing in very dense plasmas (ie thruster plumes). 12. Arc mitigation strategies. Charging mitigation strategies. Models. 13. Analysis of test results. Finally, the necessity of testing will be emphasized, not to the exclusion of modeling, but as part of a complete strategy for determining when and if arcs will occur, and preventing them from occurring in space.

Ferguson, Dale C.a↗
NASA NTRS2017

Board Level Proton Testing Book of Knowledge for NASA Electronic Parts and Packaging Program

This book of knowledge (BoK) provides a critical review of the benefits and difficulties associated with using proton irradiation as a means of exploring the radiation hardness of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) systems. This work was developed for the NASA Electronic Parts and Packaging (NEPP) Board Level Testing for the COTS task. The fundamental findings of this BoK are the following. The board-level test method can reduce the worst case estimate for a board's single-event effect (SEE) sensitivity compared to the case of no test data, but only by a factor of ten. The estimated worst case rate of failure for untested boards is about 0.1 SEE/board-day. By employing the use of protons with energies near or above 200 MeV, this rate can be safely reduced to 0.01 SEE/board-day, with only those SEEs with deep charge collection mechanisms rising this high. For general SEEs, such as static random-access memory (SRAM) upsets, single-event transients (SETs), single-event gate ruptures (SEGRs), and similar cases where the relevant charge collection depth is less than 10 μm, the worst case rate for SEE is below 0.001 SEE/board-day. Note that these bounds assume that no SEEs are observed during testing. When SEEs are observed during testing, the board-level test method can establish a reliable event rate in some orbits, though all established rates will be at or above 0.001 SEE/board-day. The board-level test approach we explore has picked up support as a radiation hardness assurance technique over the last twenty years. The approach originally was used to provide a very limited verification of the suitability of low cost assemblies to be used in the very benign environment of the International Space Station (ISS), in limited reliability applications. Recently the method has been gaining popularity as a way to establish a minimum level of SEE performance of systems that require somewhat higher reliability performance than previous applications. This sort of application of the method suggests a critical analysis of the method is in order. This is also of current consideration because the primary facility used for this type of work, the Indiana University Cyclotron Facility (IUCF) (also known as the Integrated Science and Technology (ISAT) hall), has closed permanently, and the future selection of alternate test facilities is critically important. This document reviews the main theoretical work on proton testing of assemblies over the last twenty years. It augments this with review of reported data generated from the method and other data that applies to the limitations of the proton board-level test approach. When protons are incident on a system for test they can produce spallation reactions. From these reactions, secondary particles with linear energy transfers (LETs) significantly higher than the incident protons can be produced. These secondary particles, together with the protons, can simulate a subset of the space environment for particles capable of inducing single event effects (SEEs). The proton board-level test approach has been used to bound SEE rates, establishing a maximum possible SEE rate that a test article may exhibit in space. This bound is not particularly useful in many cases because the bound is quite loose. We discuss the established limit that the proton board-level test approach leaves us with. The remaining possible SEE rates may be as high as one per ten years for most devices. The situation is actually more problematic for many SEE types with deep charge collection. In cases with these SEEs, the limits set by the proton board-level test can be on the order of one per 100 days. Because of the limited nature of the bounds established by proton testing alone, it is possible that tested devices will have actual SEE sensitivity that is very low (e.g., fewer than one event in 1 × 10(exp 4) years), but the test method will only be able to establish the limits indicated above. This BoK further examines other benefits of proton board-level testing besides hardness assurance. The primary alternate use is the injection of errors. Error injection, or fault injection, is something that is often done in a simulation environment. But the proton beam has the benefit of injecting the majority of actual SEEs without risk of something being missed, and without the risk of simulation artifacts misleading the SEE investigation.

Guertin, Steven M.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Dynamic Characterization of NASA Armstrong Test Facility Mechanical Vibration Facility

In preparation for Sierra Nevada Corporation’s (SNC) Dream Chaser spacecraft vibration test campaign at NASA Armstrong Test Facility (ATF) in Sandusky, Ohio, a dynamic characterization of the Mechanical Vibration Facility (MVF) is currently ongoing. The Mechanical Vibration Facility is comprised of an 18 ft diameter annulus table that is driven with sixteen hydraulic vertical actuator assemblies and four hydraulic horizontal actuator assemblies. During a test campaign this allows for single axis vibration testing in the vertical axis and in each of the two orthogonal horizontal axes without the need for reconfiguring the test article. The dynamic characterization of the facility was defined to follow a building-block approach requiring three vibration test configurations: (1) MVF bare table (2) MVF table and head expander (3) MVF table, head expander, and a dummy test article. Following the completion of the facility dynamic characterization, a facility finite element model (FEM) will be test-verified allowing for more accurate pretest analysis used for determining response limits and abort levels. To date two of the three test configurations have been completed. Test results have been used to verify the facility FEM that includes both the 18 ft diameter annulus table and the aluminum head expander that fills in the center opening of the annulus to provide a continuous flat mounting surface. Both the MVF table and the head expander models were previously correlated using test results from free-free boundary condition modal tests so model updates to the facility FEM focused on the uncorrelated vertical actuator assemblies and horizontal actuator assemblies. The accuracy of the test-verified facility FEM will be further determined based on comparison of analytical and test results from the vibration test of the dummy test article. Efforts will also be made to determine fixed base modes of the test article attached to the flexible vibration table using fixed base correction techniques. This paper will discuss test and analytical results from the MVF dynamic characterization test sequence and corresponding model updating effort.

Emma L Pierson↗