SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “tests”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 1,729 records · Page 96

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2004

A Method for Calculating the Probability of Successfully Completing a Rocket Propulsion Ground Test

Propulsion ground test facilities face the daily challenges of scheduling multiple customers into limited facility space and successfully completing their propulsion test projects. Due to budgetary and schedule constraints, NASA and industry customers are pushing to test more components, for less money, in a shorter period of time. As these new rocket engine component test programs are undertaken, the lack of technology maturity in the test articles, combined with pushing the test facilities capabilities to their limits, tends to lead to an increase in facility breakdowns and unsuccessful tests. Over the last five years Stennis Space Center's propulsion test facilities have performed hundreds of tests, collected thousands of seconds of test data, and broken numerous test facility and test article parts. While various initiatives have been implemented to provide better propulsion test techniques and improve the quality, reliability, and maintainability of goods and parts used in the propulsion test facilities, unexpected failures during testing still occur quite regularly due to the harsh environment in which the propulsion test facilities operate. Previous attempts at modeling the lifecycle of a propulsion component test project have met with little success. Each of the attempts suffered form incomplete or inconsistent data on which to base the models. By focusing on the actual test phase of the tests project rather than the formulation, design or construction phases of the test project, the quality and quantity of available data increases dramatically. A logistic regression model has been developed form the data collected over the last five years, allowing the probability of successfully completing a rocket propulsion component test to be calculated. A logistic regression model is a mathematical modeling approach that can be used to describe the relationship of several independent predictor variables X(sub 1), X(sub 2),..,X(sub k) to a binary or dichotomous dependent variable Y, where Y can only be one of two possible outcomes, in this case Success or Failure. Logistic regression has primarily been used in the fields of epidemiology and biomedical research, but lends itself to many other applications. As indicated the use of logistic regression is not new, however, modeling propulsion ground test facilities using logistic regression is both a new and unique application of the statistical technique. Results from the models provide project managers with insight and confidence into the affectivity of rocket engine component ground test projects. The initial success in modeling rocket propulsion ground test projects clears the way for more complex models to be developed in this area.

Messer, Bradley P.↗

NASA NTRS2005

Chapter 9 - Pre-Flight Tests

Pre-flight testing is critical to the success of any flight test program. Pre-flight tests are performed to measure and evaluate the characteristics of an aircraft in a non-flying environment and to verify that these characteristics are as desired. Since aircraft systems are becoming more and more complex, conducting proper pre-flight testing to help identify system characteristics and deficiencies prior to flight is more important now than ever before. Much flight test time has been lost fixing problems that should have been found and corrected prior to flight. Accidents have occurred because pre-flight tests and verification procedures were not conducted thoroughly enough to identify the aircraft's characteristics properly or to find system discrepancies. Proper pre-flight testing helps ensure that the aircraft is ready to fly and contributes toward an efficient, productive, and safe flight test program. The reader should be aware that this Section is dedicated to the testing that should take place prior to the first flight. There are other "pre-flight" tests that take place prior to each individual flight. These latter tests are not discussed in this Section. The following paragraphs of this Section describe significant tests that are usually accomplished prior to flying a new or highly modified aircraft. Test objectives, descriptions, products, and requirements are provided in the following subsections: 9.1 Wind tunnel tests 9.2 Simulation tests 9.3 Propulsion tests 9.4 Weight and balance tests 9.5 Ground vibration tests 9.6 Structural loads tests 9.7 Gain margin tests 9.8 Verification and calibration tests 9.9 Taxi tests The specific examples given and the test facilities mentioned in this Section will illustrate the approach taken and the techniques used by the US Air Force; however, they are typical of those used by other test organizations.

Paul W Kirsten↗

NASA NTRS2007

Test Analysis Guidelines

Development of analysis guidelines for Exploration Life Support (ELS) technology tests was completed. The guidelines were developed based on analysis experiences gained from supporting Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) technology development in air revitalization systems and water recovery systems. Analyses are vital during all three phases of the ELS technology test: pre-test, during test and post test. Pre-test analyses of a test system help define hardware components, predict system and component performances, required test duration, sampling frequencies of operation parameters, etc. Analyses conducted during tests could verify the consistency of all the measurements and the performance of the test system. Post test analyses are an essential part of the test task. Results of post test analyses are an important factor in judging whether the technology development is a successful one. In addition, development of a rigorous model for a test system is an important objective of any new technology development. Test data analyses, especially post test data analyses, serve to verify the model. Test analyses have supported development of many ECLSS technologies. Some test analysis tasks in ECLSS technology development are listed in the Appendix. To have effective analysis support for ECLSS technology tests, analysis guidelines would be a useful tool. These test guidelines were developed based on experiences gained through previous analysis support of various ECLSS technology tests. A comment on analysis from an experienced NASA ECLSS manager (1) follows: "Bad analysis was one that bent the test to prove that the analysis was right to begin with. Good analysis was one that directed where the testing should go and also bridged the gap between the reality of the test facility and what was expected on orbit."

Jeng, Frank F.↗

NASA NTRS2017

Pressure-Fed LOX/LCH4 Reaction Control System for Spacecraft: Transient Modeling and Thermal Vacuum Hotfire Test Results

An integrated cryogenic liquid oxygen, liquid methane (LOX/LCH4) reaction control system (RCS) was tested at NASA Glenn Research Center's Plum Brook Station in the Spacecraft Propulsion Research Facility (B-2) under vacuum and thermal vacuum conditions. The RCS is a subsystem of the Integrated Cryogenic Propulsion Test Article (ICPTA), a pressure-fed LOX/LCH4 propulsion system composed of a single 2,800 lbf main engine, two 28 lbf RCS engines, and two 7 lbf RCS engines. Propellants are stored in four 48 inch diameter 5083 aluminum tanks that feed both the main engine and RCS engines in parallel. Helium stored cryogenically in a composite overwrapped pressure vessel (COPV) flows through a heat exchanger on the main engine before being used to pressurize the propellant tanks to a design operating pressure of 325 psi. The ICPTA is capable of simultaneous main engine and RCS operation. The RCS engines utilize a coil-on-plug (COP) ignition system designed for operation in a vacuum environment, eliminating corona discharge issues associated with a high voltage lead. There are two RCS pods on the ICPTA, with two engines on each pod. One of these two engines is a heritage flight engine from Project Morpheus. Its sea level nozzle was removed and replaced by an 85:1 nozzle machined using Inconel 718, resulting in a maximum thrust of 28 lbf under altitude conditions. The other engine is a scaled down version of the 28 lbf engine, designed to match the core and overall mixture ratios as well as other injector characteristics. This engine can produce a maximum thrust of 7 lbf with an 85:1 nozzle that was additively manufactured using Inconel 718. Both engines are film-cooled and capable of limited duration gas-gas and gas-liquid operation, as well as steady-state liquid-liquid operation. Each pod contains one of each version, such that two engines of the same thrust level can be fired as a couple on opposite pods. The RCS feed system is composed of symmetrical 3/8 inch lines that tap off of the main propellant manifold to send LOX and LCH4 outboard to the RCS pods. A Thermodynamic Vent System (TVS) is used to condition propellants at each pod by venting through an orifice and then routing the cold expansion products back through tubing that is welded along a large portion of the main RCS feed lines. Prior to final installation on the ICPTA, the RCS engines were tested in a small vacuum chamber at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) Energy Systems Test Area (ESTA) to verify functionality of the new COP ignition system and check out operation of the vacuum nozzles. After engine-level testing, the RCS engines were installed on the vehicle and a series of integrated hot-fire tests were performed at JSC consisting of various pulsing and steady-state firings as well as integrated main engine/RCS operation. The ICPTA was then integrated into the Plum Brook B-2 facility for vacuum and thermal/vacuum testing. Testing in the B-2 facility was composed of multiple thermal and pressure environments. The first set of tests were performed under ambient temperature and altitude pressure conditions. These tests consisted of a range of minimum impulse bit (MIB) pulsing sequences with low duty cycle, analogous to a coast phase in which the RCS is primarily used for station keeping. The primary goal of this sequence is to understand how propellant conditions were effected without an active TVS. In this scenario, consistent gas-gas operation is desirable since it results in a smaller MIB and more efficient propellant consumption. Multiple skin thermocouples are mounted on the feedlines, in addition to a submerged thermocouple on each commodity, in order to gather thermal data on the system. Higher duty cycle pulsing tests were then performed, analogous to an ascent or landing mission phase. The primary goal of this sequence was to examine how well the engines self-conditioned without active TVS when starting from a quiescent state. The TVS was then activated during some tests to demonstrate the capability to quickly condition the engines for higher pulsing demand scenarios. A thermocouple at the TVS outlet allows for the calculation of energy absorbed by the vented propellant. Lastly, tests with longer pulses and multiple engines firing either in sequence or simultaneously were run in order to gather transient system response data on waterhammer. Six total high-speed pressure transducers are installed on the RCS system, one sensor at the end of each propellant manifold line on the pods, and one at the tap-off location for each commodity. This will allow for the accurate characterization of waterhammer in the system under various propellant conditions and firing sequences. Other instrumentation for this test series includes nozzle throat thermocouples, chamber pressure measurement, heat soakback measurement, and tank wall plume impingement temperature measurement. The next set of tests were performed to demonstrate simultaneous main engine and RCS operation. Data from this test will be used to examine if there is any change to nominal operation of the RCS as a result of feed system interaction or other phenomenon. Some of these tests began under high vacuum conditions (target ambient pressure less than 1x10(exp -3) torr) and others began at altitude conditions. The last set of tests were performed with the B-2 cold wall active. Under these tests, many of the same low duty cycle MIB tests were repeated in order to characterize how propellant conditions changed with the lower heat leak. In this scenario the RCS manifold experiences much less heat leak, resulting in a change to how well the engines self-condition. As a result, an increase in maximum waterhammer pressures and a change in natural frequency of the system was expected due to higher density propellants. The lower heat leak should also result in a change to the MIB pulse profile, and data will be examined to understand how MIB repeatability is affected in the different operating environments. Parallel to the test efforts, a set of transient model development efforts were made to predict RCS performance. The primary effort was aimed at producing a SINDA/FLUINT model to predict propellant conditioning up to the engine inlet as a function of different environmental and operating parameters, with the goal of predicting chamber pressure, TVS performance, and propellant consumption over time. Preliminary results for this effort will be presented in comparison with test data. Additional modeling efforts were made using SINDA/FLUINT to predict waterhammer in the system since the software is capable of handling multiphase transient fluid dynamics. These results will be compared with the high-speed pressure transducer test data for validation purposes.

Atwell, Matthew J.↗

NASA NTRS2014

System Testing of Ground Cooling System Components

This internship focused primarily upon software unit testing of Ground Cooling System (GCS) components, one of the three types of tests (unit, integrated, and COTS/regression) utilized in software verification. Unit tests are used to test the software of necessary components before it is implemented into the hardware. A unit test determines that the control data, usage procedures, and operating procedures of a particular component are tested to determine if the program is fit for use. Three different files are used to make and complete an efficient unit test. These files include the following: Model Test file (.mdl), Simulink SystemTest (.test), and autotest (.m). The Model Test file includes the component that is being tested with the appropriate Discrete Physical Interface (DPI) for testing. The Simulink SystemTest is a program used to test all of the requirements of the component. The autotest tests that the component passes Model Advisor and System Testing, and puts the results into proper files. Once unit testing is completed on the GCS components they can then be implemented into the GCS Schematic and the software of the GCS model as a whole can be tested using integrated testing. Unit testing is a critical part of software verification; it allows for the testing of more basic components before a model of higher fidelity is tested, making the process of testing flow in an orderly manner.

Unit Test↗

DOE OSTI2015

August 5, 1963-President Kennedy's Nuclear Test Ban Treaty signed in Moscow, Russia

On August 5, 1963, after more than eight years of negotiations, the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union signed the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by atomic bombs marked the end of World War II and the beginning of the nuclear age. As tensions between East and West settled into a Cold War, scientists in the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union conducted tests and developed more powerful nuclear weapons. In 1959, radioactive deposits were found in wheat and milk in the northern United States. As scientists and the public gradually became aware of the dangers of radioactive fallout, they began to raise their voices against nuclear testing. Leaders and diplomats of several countries sought to address the issue. In May 1955, the United Nations Disarmament Commission brought together the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, and the Soviet Union to begin negotiations on ending nuclear weapons testing. Conflict soon arose over inspections to verify underground testing. The Soviet Union feared that on-site inspections could lead to spying that might expose the Soviets' vastly exaggerated claims of the number of deliverable nuclear weapons. As negotiators struggled over differences, the Soviet Union and the United States suspended nuclear tests—a moratorium that lasted from November 1958 to September 1961. John F. Kennedy had supported ban on nuclear weapons testing since 1956. He believed a ban would prevent other countries from obtaining nuclear weapons, and took a strong stand on the issue in the 1960 presidential campaign. Once elected, President Kennedy pledged not to resume testing in the air and promised to pursue all diplomatic efforts for a test ban treaty before resuming underground testing. He envisioned the test ban as a first step to nuclear disarmament. President Kennedy met with Soviet Premier Khrushchev in Vienna in June 1961, just five weeks after the humiliating defeat of the US-sponsored invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs. Khrushchev took a hard line at the summit. He announced his intention to cut off Western access to Berlin and threatened war if the United States or its allies tried to stop him. Many US diplomats felt that Kennedy had not stood up to the Soviet premier at the summit and left Khrushchev with the impression that he was a weak leader. President Kennedy's political and military advisers feared that the Soviet Union had continued secret underground testing and made gains in nuclear technology. They pressured Kennedy to resume testing. And, according to a Gallup poll in July 1961, the public approved of testing by a margin of two-to-one. In August 1961, the Soviet Union announced its intention to resume atmospheric testing, and over the next three months it conducted 31 nuclear tests. It exploded the largest nuclear bomb in history—58 megatons—4,000 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. In his commencement address at American University on June 10, 1963, Kennedy announced a new round of high-level arms negotiations with the Russians. He boldly called for an end to the Cold War. "If we cannot end our differences," he said, "at least we can help make the world a safe place for diversity." The Soviet government broadcast a translation of the entire speech, and allowed it to be reprinted in the controlled Soviet press. The Limited Nuclear Test Ban treaty was signed in Moscow on August 5, 1963, by US Secretary Dean Rusk, Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko, and British Foreign Secretary Lord Home—one day short of the 18th anniversary of the dropping of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Over the next two months, President Kennedy convinced a fearful public and a divided Senate to support the treaty. The Senate approved the treaty on September 23, 1963, by an 80-19 margin. Kennedy signed the ratified treaty on October 7, 1963. The treaty: prohibited nuclear weapons tests or other nuclear explosions under water, in the atmosphere, or in outer space allowed underground nuclear tests as long as no radioactive debris falls outside the boundaries of the nation conducting the test pledged signatories to work towards complete disarmament, an end to the armaments race, and an end to the contamination of the environment by radioactive substances. Thirty-three years later, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Signed by 71 nations, including those possessing nuclear weapons, the treaty prohibited all nuclear test explosions including those conducted underground. Though it was signed by President Bill Clinton, the Senate rejected the treaty by a vote of 51 to 48.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗

DOE OSTI2017

Neutronics Analysis of TREAT Multi-SERTTA Calibration Test Vehicle (Multi-SERTTA CAL)

Transient testing is a necessary step in the performance evaluation of Accident Tolerant Fuels (ATF) developed as part of the Fuel Cycle Research and Development Advanced Fuels Campaign initiated and supported by the United States Department of Energy (DOE-NE). These advanced fuels are expected to be used in future reactors or replace the current fuel design used in existing power reactors for enhanced performance and safety. Upon completion of a process proscribed by the National Environmental Policy Act, the Transient Reactor Test (TREAT) facility, located at Idaho National Laboratory (INL), was chosen by DOE-NE to provide the desired specialized testing. TREAT has successfully operated from start-up in 1959 to 1994 when it was placed on operational stand-by. Careful preparations are being made for operational readiness and TREAT is projected to resume testing no later than 2018. Past TREAT testing primarily focused on sodium-cooled reactor fuels (SRF). Test vehicle designs varied to accommodate testing needs ranging from separate effects tests to integral tests approaching simulation of actual reactor environment conditions including forced convection cooling. The current focus on light water reactor (LWR) ATF requires design of new experiment vehicles to accommodate the water/steam environment and associated complexities regarding desired energy deposition into the specimen and proper containment. The first set of experiments in TREAT restart is expected to be conducted with the Multi-SERTTA (Static Environment Rodlet Transient Test Apparatuses). Difficult to quantify and calculate integral and time dependent effects inherent in transient testing limit predictive modeling capability; therefore, calibration testing in TREAT prior to the actual experiment is necessary to empirically determine the effectiveness of core-to-specimen power coupling in order to achieve the desired energy deposition into the test specimen during a nuclear power transient. This has been done in the past, in part, by evaluating the difference in energy deposition into dosimeter wires subjected to various TREAT time dependent power conditions. These calibration tests were typically conducted in a test vehicle neutronically similar to the actual test vehicle, but more simplistic in design in order to quickly retrieve and analyze dosimeter wires and minimize containment structure costs due to several trials. Prior calibration testing for SRF experiments could be conducted without coolant as sodium has no notable neutronic effect on the core-to-specimen power coupling factor (PCF). Such is not the case with LWR fuel where water serves as both moderator and coolant. This presents a design challenge as the calibration test vehicle must retain heated, high-pressure water to preserve neutronic equivalence representative of near prototypic reactor conditions while allowing for quick retrieval of dosimeters. The solution to this challenge comes in the form of a thin walled dry well positioned through the center of the basic Multi-SERTTA design. Test vehicle reactivity worth and PCF are two important factors with respect to ascertainment of neutronic equivalence. Similarity in test vehicle reactivity worth is desired to avoid the need to change operational core rod positions in TREAT which could significantly alter neutron flux distribution and consequently power distribution throughout the core and into the test specimen. The geometry and composition of various materials within the experiment containment structure can also significantly alter the quality of neutron signal delivery from the core to the test specimen. Introduction of an Inconel tube, albeit very thin, is expected to impact PCF. Simple modifications to the CAL design may compensate for the anticipated change. Evaluation of these factors and proposed modifications through neutronics analysis serves to inform experiment design and is a valuable tool towards achieving the optimal CAL design.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

NASA NTRS2010

Planning for Plume Diagnostics for Ground Testing of J-2X Engines at the SSC

John C. Stennis Space Center (SSC) is the premier test facility for liquid rocket engine development and certification for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Therefore, it is no surprise that the SSC will play the most prominent role in the engine development testing and certification for the J-2X engine. The Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne J-2X engine has been selected by the Constellation Program to power the Ares I Upper Stage Element and the Ares V Earth Departure Stage in NASA s strategy of risk mitigation for hardware development by building on the Apollo program and other lessons learned to deliver a human-rated engine that is on an aggressive development schedule, with first demonstration flight in 2010 and human test flights in 2012. Accordingly, J-2X engine design, development, test, and evaluation is to build upon heritage hardware and apply valuable experience gained from past development and testing efforts. In order to leverage SSC s successful and innovative expertise in the plume diagnostics for the space shuttle main engine (SSME) health monitoring,1-10 this paper will present a blueprint for plume diagnostics for various proposed ground testing activities for J-2X at SSC. Complete description of the SSC s test facilities, supporting infrastructure, and test facilities is available in Ref. 11. The A-1 Test Stand is currently being prepared for testing the J-2X engine at sea level conditions. The A-2 Test Stand is currently being used for testing the SSME and may also be used for testing the J-2X engine at sea level conditions in the future. Very recently, ground-breaking ceremony for the new A-3 rocket engine test stand took place at SSC on August 23, 2007. A-3 is the first large - scale test stand to be built at the SSC since the A and B stands were constructed in the 1960s. The A-3 Test Stand will be used for testing J-2X engines under vacuum conditions simulating high altitude operation at approximately 30,480 m (100,000 ft). To achieve the simulated altitude environment, chemical steam generators using isopropyl alcohol, LOX, and RELEASED - Printed documents may be obsolete; validate prior to use. water would run for the duration of the test and would generate approximately 2096 Kg/s of steam to reduce pressure in the test cell and downstream of the engine. The testing at the A-3 Test Stand is projected to begin in late 2010, meanwhile the J-2X component testing on A-1 is scheduled to begin later this year.

SaintCyr, William W.↗

NASA NTRS2007

Joint Test Report For Validation of Alternatives to Aliphatic Isocyanate Polyurethanes

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) have similar missions and therefore similar facilities and structures in similar environments. The standard practice for protecting metallic substrates in atmospheric environments is the application of an applied coating system. The most common topcoats used in coating systems are polyurethanes that contain isocyanates. Isocyanates are classified as potential human carcinogens and are known to cause cancer in animals. The primary objective of this effort was to demonstrate and validate alternatives to aliphatic isocyanate polyurethanes resulting in one or more isocyanate-free coatings qualified for use at AFSPC and NASA installations participating in this project. This joint Test Report (JTR) documents the results of the laboratory and field testing as well as any test modifications made during the execution of the testing. The technical stakeholders agreed upon test procedure modifications documented in this document. This JTR is made available as a reference for future pollution prevention endeavors by other NASA centers, the Department of Defense and commercial users to minimize duplication of effort. All coating system candidates were tested using approved NASA and AFSPC standard coating systems as experimental controls. This study looked at eight alternative coating systems and two control coating systems and was divided into Phase I Screening Tests, Phase II Tests, and Field Testing. The Phase I Screening Tests were preliminary tests performed on all the selected candidate coating systems. Candidate coating systems that did not meet the acceptance criteria of the screening tests were eliminated from further testing. Phase I Screening Tests included: Ease of Application, Surface Appearance, Dry-To-Touch (Sanding), Accelerated Storage Stability, Pot Life (Viscosity), Cure Time (Solvent Rubs), Cleanability, Knife Test, Tensile (pull-off) Adhesion, and X-Cut Adhesion by Wet Tape After a review of the Phase I test results, four of the alternative coating systems showed substandard performance in relation to the Control Systems and were eliminated from the Phase II testing. Due to the interest of stakeholders and time constraints, however, all eight alternatives were subjected to the following Phase II tests, along with field testing at Stennis Space Center (SSC), Mississippi: Hypergol Compatibility, Liquid Oxygen Compatibility, 18-Month Marine Exposure (Gloss Retention, Color Retention, Blistering, Visual Corrosion, Creepage from Scribe, Heat Adhesion), and Field Exposure (6- and 12-month Evaluation for Coating Condition, Color Retention, Gloss Retention). The remaining four alternative coating systems determined to be the best viable alternatives were carried on to Phase II testing that included: Removability, Repairability, Abrasion Resistance, Gravelometer, Fungus Resistance, Accelerated Weathering, Mandrel Bend Flexibility, and Cyclic Corrosion Resistance. Of the systems that continued to Phase II, three (3) alternative coating systems meet the performance requirements as identified by stakeholders. Two (2) other systems, that were not included in Phase II testing, performed well enough on the 18-Month Marine Exposure, the primary requirement for NASA technical standard NASA-STD-5008, Protective Coating of Carbon Steel, Stainless Steel, and Aluminum on Launch Structures, Facilities, and Ground Support Equipment, that they were also considered to be successful candidates. In total, five (5) alternative coating systems were approved for inclusion in the NASA-STD- 5008 Qualified Products List (QPL). The standard is intended to provide a common framework for consistent practices across NASA and is often used by other entities. The standard's QPL does not connote endorsement of the products by NASA, but lists those products that have been tested and meet the requirements as specified.

Lewis, Pattie↗

NASA NTRS2016

Forward Skirt Structural Testing on the Space Launch System (SLS) Program

Structural testing was performed to evaluate heritage forward skirts from the Space Shuttle program for use on the Space Launch System (SLS) program. One forward skirt is located in each solid rocket booster. Heritage forward skirts are aluminum 2219 welded structures. Loads are applied at the forward skirt thrust post and ball assembly. Testing was needed because SLS ascent loads are roughly 40% higher than Space Shuttle loads. Testing objectives were to determine margins of safety, demonstrate reliability, and validate analytical models. Two forward skirts were structurally tested using the test configuration. The test stand applied loads to the thrust post. Four hydraulic actuators were used to apply axial load and two hydraulic actuators were used to apply radial and tangential loads. The first test was referred to as FSTA-1 (Forward Skirt Structural Test Article) and was performed in April/May 2014. The purpose of FSTA-1 was to verify the ultimate capability of the forward skirt subjected to ascent ultimate loads. Testing consisted of two liftoff load cases taken to 100% limit load followed by an ascent load case taken to 110% limit load. The forward skirt was unloaded to no load after each test case. Lastly, the forward skirt was tested to 140% limit and then to failure using the ascent loads. The second test was referred to as FSTA-2 and performed in July/August of 2014. The purpose of FSTA-2 was to verify the ultimate capability of the forward skirt subjected to liftoff ultimate loads. Testing consisted of six liftoff load cases taken to 100% limit load followed by the six liftoff cases taken to 140% limit load. Two ascent load cases were then tested to 100% limit load. The forward skirt was unloaded to no load after each test case. Lastly, the forward skirt was tested to 140% limit and then to failure using the ascent loads. The forward skirts on FSTA-1 and FSTA-2 successfully carried all applied liftoff and ascent load cases. Both FSTA-1 and FSTA-2 were tested to failure by increasing the ascent loads. Failure occurred in the forward skirt thrust post radius. The forward skirts on FSTA-1 and FSTA-2 had nearly identical failure modes. FSTA-1 failed at 1.72 times limit load and FSTA-2 failed at 1.62 times limit load. This difference is primarily attributed to variation in material properties in the thrust post region. Test data were obtained from strain gages, deflection gages, ARAMIS digital strain measurement, acoustic emissions, and high-speed video. Strain gage data and ARAMIS strain were compared to finite element (FE) analysis predictions. Both the forward skirt and tooling were modeled. This allows the analysis to simulate the loading as close as possible to actual test configuration. FSTA-1 and FSTA-2 were instrumented with over 200 strain gages to ensure all possible failure modes could be captured. However, it turned out that three gages provided critical strain data. One was located in the post bore and two on the post radius. More gages were not specified due to space limitations and the desire to not interfere with the use of the ARAMIS system on the post radius. Measured strains were compared to analysis results for the load cycle to failure. Note that FSTA-1 gages were lost before failure was reached. FSTA-2 gages made it to the failure load but one of the radius gages was lost before testing began. This gage was not replaced because of the time and cost associated with disassembly of the test structure. Correlation to analysis was excellent for FSTA-1. FSTA-2 was not quite as good because there was more residual strain from previous load cycles. FSTA-2 was loaded and unloaded with 12 liftoff cases and two ascent cases before taking the skirt to failure. FSTA-1 only had two liftoff cases and one ascent case before taking the skirt to failure. The ARAMIS system was used to determine strain at the post radius by processing digital images of a speckled paint pattern. Digital cameras recorded images of the speckled paint pattern. ARAMIS strain results for FSTA-2 just prior to failure. Note a high strain location develops near the left side. This high strain compares well to analysis prediction for both FSTA-1 and FSTA-2. The strain at this location was also plotted versus limit load. Both FSTA-1 and FSTA-2 had excellent correlation between ARAMIS and analysis strains. Acoustic emission (AE) sensors were used to monitor for damage formation that may occur during testing (e.g., crack formation and growth or propagation). AE was very important because after disassembly of FSTA-1, a crack was observed in the ball fitting radius. The ball fitting did not crack on FSTA-2. AE data was used to reconstruct when the crack occurred. The AE energy versus time plot for FSTA. The energy increased considerably at 850 seconds (152% limit load), indicating a crack could have formed at this point. The only visual evidence found that could have corresponded to this was the crack that initiated in the ball fitting. The cracks in the forward skirt aluminum structures would likely have been lower energy due to a lower modulus and all that were found after failure correlated to occurring after the initial crack in the post radius. This was verified by high-speed cameras used to record the failure.

Lohrer, J. D.↗

DOE OSTI2014

Definition of Capabilities Needed for a Single Event Effects Test Facility

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is contemplating new regulations mandating testing of the vulnerability of flight-critical avionics to single event effects (SEE). A limited number of high-energy neutron test facilities currently serve the SEE industrial and institutional research community. The FAA recognizes that existing facilities have insufficient test capacity to meet new demand from such mandates; it desires more flexible irradiation capabilities to test complete, large systems and would like capabilities to address greater concerns for thermal neutrons. For this reason, the FAA funded this study by Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) staff with the ultimate aim of developing options for SEE test facilities using high-energy neutrons at the SNS complex. After an investigation of current SEE test practices and assessment of future testing requirements, three concepts were identified covering a range of test functionality, neutron flux levels, and fidelity to the atmospheric neutron spectrum. The costs and times required to complete each facility were also estimated. SEE testing is generally performed by accelerating the event rate to a point where the effects are still dominated by single events and double event causes of failures are negligible. In practice, acceleration factors of as high as 10 6 are applicable for component testing, whereas for systems testing acceleration factors of 10 4 seem to be the upper limit. It is strongly desirable that the irradiation facility be tunable over a large range of high-energy neutron fluxes of 10 2 - 10 4 n/cm²/s for systems testing and from 10 4 - 10 7 n/cm²/s for components testing. The most capable, most flexible, and highest-test-capacity option is a new stand-alone target station named the High-Energy neutron Test Station (HETS). It is also the most expensive option, with a cost to complete of approximately $100 million. Dual test enclosures would allow for simultaneous testing activity effectively doubling overall test capacity per HETS operating hour. Using about 1 kilowatt (kW) of proton power extracted from the accelerator before injection in the accumulator ring, its operation would be unnoticeable by neutron scattering users at the SNS target station. The H beam laser stripping technique would allow for control of beam power on the HETS target independent from power delivered to the SNS. Large systems with frontal areas of up to 1 x 2 m² could be accommodated with integral high-energy flux values (above 10 megaelectron-volt, or MeV) to at most 10 4 n/cm²/s; components could also be tested with flux levels to at most 10 7 n/cm²/s on beam sizes of up to 0.2 x 0.2 m². Selectable moderating material and neutron filters would allow tailoring of the neutron spectrum to user demands; charged particle deflectors could be switched to allow or deflect protons, pions, and muons. It is estimated that HETS would take 5 years to complete after award of contract, including engineering design and construction. Commissioning would take at least another 6 months. Interference with SNS principal operations was not considered in the construction time estimate; connection of the proton transport line and tunnel from the accelerator high energy beam transport (HEBT) and construction around existing site utilities would require careful planning and coordination with beam operations at the SNS. A high-energy (HE) neutron test facility using an available beam line on the SNS target station is a technically and financially attractive option. Inspired by the new ChipIR instrument on the ISIS TS 2 spallation source in the UK, a similar facility could be placed on an unused beam line in the SNS instrument hall [e.g., on beam line 8 (both A and B channels would be needed) or on beam line 10]. The performance would approach that of an HETS (~80%), but it would be operationally more limited, with only a single user at a time. Space is more limited, so the maximum system size would be about half of that in an HETS. Flexibility to tailor the spectrum would be somewhat more limited. While this concept was not as fully developed and characterized, preliminary work indicates very high HE flux levels should be possible, with ample thermal neutrons as well. Flux control would be more difficult than at HETS because proton power on target be whatever the SNS was operating at for neutron scattering. Neutron attenuation devices would have to be employed with as-yet undetermined control resolution. However, no new buildings would be needed, and the necessary utilities are already present in the SNS Experiment Hall. The estimated cost for a beam line option is around $15 million; the time to complete would be 3 years after award of contract, plus at least 6 months for commissioning. Interference of construction activities with SNS operations should be negligible. This option would require negotiation with the Department of Energy Basic Energy Sciences (BES) office -- the primary stakeholder of SNS -- for an application outside the usual scope of neutron scattering sciences. Furthermore, these presently open beam lines are highly desirable locations for proposed neutron scattering instruments and obtaining one of them for an SEE test facility will come only with persuasive and timely arguments to SNS leadership and the DOE BES. The third option is a tunnel extension/target cave facility providing the most basic system-level irradiation capability with minimal flexibility. Again not as well developed a concept as HETS, it would use a laser-stripping technique like an HETS, redirecting protons to a tunnel similar to the initial HETS proton transport tunnel. Indeed, this concept is intended to be upgradable to a full HETS facility. Only a small fraction of a watt of proton power would be used in this basic configuration, though. An uncooled target and primitive shielding arrangement would provide beam on modestly sized systems that must be placed in close proximity to the target. The neutron fluence would be less uniform over the system than with the HETS or the beam line option. A data acquisition room and support area would be located on the ground level; access to the target cave would be via elevator and/or stairway. As a result of the required excavation, new tunnel construction, shielding, data acquisition building, utilities, and other items, the estimated cost is $30 million. The time to complete is expected be more than 3 years; here again construction interference with SNS operations has not been accounted for, but it could have a significant impact.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗

DOE OSTI2012

Full-Scale Cask Testing and Public Acceptance of Spent Nuclear Fuel Shipments - 12254

Full-scale physical testing of spent fuel shipping casks has been proposed by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 2006 report on spent nuclear fuel transportation, and by the Presidential Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) on America's Nuclear Future 2011 draft report. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 2005 proposed full-scale testing of a rail cask, and considered 'regulatory limits' testing of both rail and truck casks (SRM SECY-05-0051). The recent U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) cancellation of the Yucca Mountain project, NRC evaluation of extended spent fuel storage (possibly beyond 60-120 years) before transportation, nuclear industry adoption of very large dual-purpose canisters for spent fuel storage and transport, and the deliberations of the BRC, will fundamentally change assumptions about the future spent fuel transportation system, and reopen the debate over shipping cask performance in severe accidents and acts of sabotage. This paper examines possible approaches to full-scale testing for enhancing public confidence in risk analyses, perception of risk, and acceptance of spent fuel shipments. The paper reviews the literature on public perception of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste transportation risks. We review and summarize opinion surveys sponsored by the State of Nevada over the past two decades, which show consistent patterns of concern among Nevada residents about health and safety impacts, and socioeconomic impacts such as reduced property values along likely transportation routes. We also review and summarize the large body of public opinion survey research on transportation concerns at regional and national levels. The paper reviews three past cask testing programs, the way in which these cask testing program results were portrayed in films and videos, and examines public and official responses to these three programs: the 1970's impact and fire testing of spent fuel truck casks at Sandia National Laboratories, the 1980's regulatory and demonstration testing of MAGNOX fuel flasks in the United Kingdom (the CEGB 'Operation Smash Hit' tests), and the 1980's regulatory drop and fire tests conducted on the TRUPACT II containers used for transuranic waste shipments to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico. The primary focus of the paper is a detailed evaluation of the cask testing programs proposed by the NRC in its decision implementing staff recommendations based on the Package Performance Study, and by the State of Nevada recommendations based on previous work by Audin, Resnikoff, Dilger, Halstead, and Greiner. The NRC approach is based on demonstration impact testing (locomotive strike) of a large rail cask, either the TAD cask proposed by DOE for spent fuel shipments to Yucca Mountain, or a similar currently licensed dual-purpose cask. The NRC program might also be expanded to include fire testing of a legal-weight truck cask. The Nevada approach calls for a minimum of two tests: regulatory testing (impact, fire, puncture, immersion) of a rail cask, and extra-regulatory fire testing of a legal-weight truck cask, based on the cask performance modeling work by Greiner. The paper concludes with a discussion of key procedural elements - test costs and funding sources, development of testing protocols, selection of testing facilities, and test peer review - and various methods of communicating the test results to a broad range of stakeholder audiences. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2018

Advanced Vehicle Testing and Evaluation Final Technical Report Encompassing Project Activities From October 1, 2011 to April 30, 2018

The Advanced Vehicle Testing and Evaluation (AVTE) project incorporated the conduct of advanced technology vehicle and infrastructure testing in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Advanced Vehicle Testing Activity (AVTA). It was the only activity tasked by DOE to conduct independent field evaluations of vehicle technologies that use advanced technology systems and subsystems in vehicles that reduce petroleum consumption. The results are available through reports published on the AVTA website at http://avt.inl.gov/. The AVTE project provided insight into advanced vehicle technology's long-term performance, durability, maintenance, and lifecycle costs that cannot be found elsewhere. The site is a resource for DOE stakeholders and the public to gain knowledge on advanced technology vehicle progress and innovation. Vehicles tested included light and heavy-duty vehicles with conventional, hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and all-electric propulsion systems. Vehicles were tested on closed tracks and chassis dynamometers, as well as operated on public roads, in fleet operations, and over prescribed routes. All testing was controlled by procedures developed specifically to support such testing. Testing and evaluations were conducted in the following phases: Development and refinement of test procedures, which established testing procedures; Baseline performance testing, which established a performance baseline; Accelerated reliability testing, which determined vehicle reliability; Fleet testing, used to evaluate vehicle economics in fleet operation, and End of test performance evaluation. Test results from all aspects of testing were posted by Idaho National Laboratory (INL) to their website. This final report documents work conducted for the entirety of contract DE-EE0005501 by Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. (Intertek). The contract was performed from October 1, 2011 through April 30, 2018, and includes 18 amendments to the original award with the most recent Amendment 18 dated March 28, 2018. The final budget for the AVTE project totaled 20,220,873 dollars. As a cooperative agreement, Intertek was obligated to provide cost share of 4,044,175 dollars, leaving 16,176,698 dollars as the Federal share of the agreement. Actual total expenditure for the AVTE project was 20,286,850 dollars. The full 16,176,698 dollars Federal share was expended and 4,110,152 dollars of cost share was provided by Intertek. This resulted in an over-share of 65,977 dollars. There were 106 light-duty on-road vehicles vehicles tested in both fleet and accelerated reliability testing. One additional vehicle was rented to obtain performance testing only. Three heavy-duty truck and trailer combinations were tested as part of the semi-autonomous driving with heavy-duty vehicles in a platoon. Overall project scope and direction was determined between Intertek, DOE, and technical teams from Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The project was administered by the DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

NASA NTRS1991

Lightning testing at the subsystem level

Testing at the subsystem or black box level for lightning hardness is required if system hardness is to be assured at the system level. The often applied philosophy of lighting testing only at the system level leads to extensive end of the line design changes which result in excessive costs and time delays. In order to perform testing at the subsystem level two important factors must be defined to make the testing simulation meaningful. The first factor is the definition of the test stimulus appropriate to the subsystem level. Application of system level stimulations to the subsystem level usually leads to significant overdesign of the subsystem which is not necessary and may impair normal subsystem performance. The second factor is the availability of test equipment needed to provide the subsystem level lightning stimulation. Equipment for testing at this level should be portable or at least movable to enable efficient testing in a design laboratory environment. Large fixed test installations for system level tests are not readily available for use by the design engineers at the subsystem level and usually require special operating skills. The two factors, stimulation level and test equipment availability, must be evaluated together in order to produce a practical, workable test standard. The neglect or subordination of either factor will guarantee failure in generating the standard. It is not unusual to hear that test standards or specifications are waived because a specified stimulation level cannot be accomplished by in-house or independent test facilities. Determination of subsystem lightning simulation level requires a knowledge and evaluation of field coupling modes, peak and median levels of voltages and currents, bandwidths, and repetition rates. Practical limitations on test systems may require tradeoffs in lightning stimulation parameters in order to build practical test equipment. Peak power levels that can be generated at specified bandwidths with standard electrical components must be considered in the design and costing of the test system. Stimulation tests equipment and test methods are closely related and must be considered a test system for lightning simulation. A non-perfect specification that can be reliably and repeatedly applied at the subsystem test level is more desirable than a perfect specification that cannot be applied at all.

Luteran, Frank↗

NASA NTRS1999

Vibration and Acoustic Testing for Mars Micromission Spacecraft

The objective of the Mars Micromission program being managed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) for NASA is to develop a common spacecraft that can carry telecommunications equipment and a variety of science payloads for exploration of Mars. The spacecraft will be capable of carrying robot landers and rovers, cameras, probes, balloons, gliders or aircraft, and telecommunications equipment to Mars at much lower cost than recent NASA Mars missions. The lightweight spacecraft (about 220 Kg mass) will be launched in a cooperative venture with CNES as a TWIN auxiliary payload on the Ariane 5 launch vehicle. Two or more Mars Micromission launches are planned for each Mars launch opportunity, which occur every 26 months. The Mars launch window for the first mission is November 1, 2002 through April 2003, which is planned to be a Mars airplane technology demonstration mission to coincide with the 100 year anniversary of the Kittyhawk flight. Several subsequent launches will create a telecommunications network orbiting Mars, which will provide for continuous communication with lenders and rovers on the Martian surface. Dedicated science payload flights to Mars are slated to start in 2005. This new cheaper and faster approach to Mars exploration calls for innovative approaches to the qualification of the Mars Micromission spacecraft for the Ariane 5 launch vibration and acoustic environments. JPL has in recent years implemented new approaches to spacecraft testing that may be effectively applied to the Mars Micromission. These include 1) force limited vibration testing, 2) combined loads, vibration and modal testing, and 3) direct acoustic testing. JPL has performed nearly 200 force limited vibration tests in the past 9 years; several of the tests were on spacecraft and large instruments, including the Cassini and Deep Space One spacecraft. Force limiting, which measures and limits the spacecraft base reaction force using triaxial force gages sandwiched between the spacecraft and the test fixture, alleviates the severe overtest at spacecraft resonances inherent in rigid fixture vibration tests. It has the distinct advantage over response limiting that the method is not dependent on the accuracy of a detailed dynamic model of the spacecraft. Combined loads, vibration, and modal testing were recently performed on the QuikSCAT spacecraft. The combined tests were performed in a single test setup per axis on a vibration shaker, reducing test time by a factor of two or three. Force gages were employed to measure the true c.g. acceleration of the spacecraft for structural loads verification using a sine burst test, to automatically notch random vibration test input accelerations at spacecraft resonances based on predetermined force limits, and to directly measure modal masses in a base drive modal test. In addition to these combined tests on the shaker, the QuikSCAT spacecraft was subjected to a direct field acoustic test by surrounding the spacecraft, still on the vibration shaker, with rock concert type acoustic speakers. Since the spacecraft contractor does not have a reverberant field acoustic test facility, performing a direct field acoustic test -saved the program nearly two weeks schedule time that would have been required for packing / unpacking and shipping of the spacecraft. This paper discusses the rationale behind and advantages of the above test approaches and provides examples of their actual implementation and comparisons to flight data. The applicability of the test approaches to Mars Micromission spacecraft qualification is discussed.

Kern, Dennis L.↗

DOE OSTI2013

RELAP5-3D Restart and Backup Verification Testing

Existing testing methodology for RELAP5-3D employs a set of test cases collected over two decades to test a variety of code features and run on a Linux or Windows platform. However, this set has numerous deficiencies in terms of code coverage, detail of comparison, running time, and testing fidelity of RELAP5-3D restart and backup capabilities. The test suite covers less than three quarters of the lines of code in the relap directory and just over half those in the environmental library. Even in terms of code features, many are not covered. Moreover, the test set runs many problems long past the point necessary to test the relevant features. It requires standard problems to run to completion. This is unnecessary for features can be tested in a short-running problem. For example, many trips and controls can be tested in the first few time steps, as can a number of fluid flow options. The testing system is also inaccurate. For the past decade, the diffem script has been the primary tool for checking that printouts from two different RELAP5-3D executables agree. This tool compares two output files to verify that all characters are the same except for those relating to date, time and a few other excluded items. The variable values printed on the output file are accurate to no more than eight decimal places. Therefore, calculations with errors in decimal places beyond those printed remain undetected. Finally, fidelity of restart is not tested except in the PVM sub-suite and backup is not specifically tested at all. When a restart is made from any midway point of the base-case transient, the restart must produce the same values. When a backup condition occurs, the code repeats advancements with the same time step. A perfect backup can be tested by forcing RELAP5 to perform a backup by falsely setting a backup condition flag at a user-specified-time. Comparison of the calculations of that run and those produced by the same input w/o the spurious condition should be identical. Backup testing is more difficult the other kinds of testing described above because it requires additional coding to implement. The testing system constructed and described in this document resolves all of these issues. A matrix of test features and short-running cases that exercise them is presented. A small information file that contains sufficient data to verify calculations to the last decimal place and bit is produced. This testing system is used to test base cases (called null testing) as well as restart and backup cases. The programming that implements these new capabilities is presented.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2021

Is the testing effect ready to be put to work? Evidence from the laboratory to the classroom.

The testing effect refers to the benefits to retention that result from structuring learning activities in the form of a test. As educators consider implementing test-enhanced learning paradigms in real classroom environments, we think it is critical to consider how an array of factors affecting test-enhanced learning in laboratory studies bear on test-enhanced learning in real-world classroom environments. As such, this review discusses the degree to which test feedback, test format (of formative tests), number of tests, level of the test questions, timing of tests (relative to initial learning), and retention duration have import for testing effects in ecologically valid contexts (e.g., classroom studies). Attention is also devoted to characteristics of much laboratory testing-effect research that may limit translation to classroom environments, such as the complexity of the material being learned, the value of the testing effect relative to other generative learning activities in classrooms, an educational orientation that favors criterial tests focused on transfer of learning, and online instructional modalities. We consider how student-centric variables present in the classroom (e.g., cognitive abilities, motivation) may have bearing on the effects of testing-effect techniques implemented in the classroom. We conclude that the testing effect is a robust phenomenon that benefits a wide variety of learners in a broad array of learning domains. Still, studies are needed to compare the benefit of testing to other learning strategies, to further characterize how individual differences relate to testing benefits, and to examine whether testing benefits learners at advanced levels.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2019

Component Testing Supporting SHINE Medical Technologies

SHINE is going to be implementing a tritium gas processing system to support their Mo-99 work. They have requested that the Hydrogen Process Group of SRNL does some required testing on the system components before startup. The lab plans on conducting both seismic and valve testing. Test Plan: - Testing 10 1C valves 750,000 cycles or until failure; - Testing intervals will be every couple thousand; - 1C valves will have metal stem tips instead of Polymer due to being in a tritium prone area; - Hope that the valves will still have enough force to create a sufficient seal with metal stem tips; - Goal is for a more cost and space efficient alternative to the 5C valves. Status: - Received half the parts, waiting on the other half due to long procurement times; - Waiting on the LabVIEW program which will perform the testing. Path Forward: - R and DE to change out the stem tips (July 2018); - Assemble Manifold (July 2018); - Perform Testing (August 2018); - Report (September 2018). Since SRNL does not own a shaker table, the test will be conducted at a facility like the NTS Facility in Huntsville, Alabama. Test Plans: - Leak Testing; - Use LabVIEW to monitor for leaks before, during and after seismic testing with an Electronic Pressure Transducer; - If leak is detected, sniff for location using Helium Leak Detector; - Connector Testing; - Use LabVIEW to test for electrical continuity before, during and after seismic testing; - If a connectors continuity is interrupted, further testing will be performed; - Each Pin in faulty connector will be testing to determine specific location of disruption. Path Forward: - Pick a Qualified Vender for testing (July 2018); - Procure the connector plugs (July 2018); - Send components and test plan to facility for testing (August 2018); - Perform Testing (August-September 2018); - Report Results (September 2018)

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗