Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “hydraulic”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Comparison of Real-Time Pressure Rail Selection Algorithms for the Hybrid Hydraulic Electric Architecture: Case Study on a Track Loader

Abstract The hybrid hydraulic electric architecture (HHEA) seeks to combine the high power/torque/force density of hydraulics with the efficiency of electric machines. A set of common pressure rails is used to provide a majority of the power and this power is modulated by small electric machines to provide precise control for the operator. The HHEA has been studied in previous work using off-line dynamic programming optimization to determine energy efficient pressure rail selections, but this approach requires drive cycle information apriori. A Lagrange multiplier method has also been investigated where a set of gains (Lagrange multipliers) are optimized off-line with the idea the these gains, once determined, could be used for real-time operation. In this work, three new real-time pressure rail selection algorithms that do not require future drive cycle information are investigated; greedy, torque minimizing, and thresholding. The greedy control is found to only use 1% more energy than the globally optimal dynamic programming solution; but a model of energy loss is required.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2025

MURR LEU structural and thermal hydraulics analyses: Part II – Impacts of irradiation thermo-mechanical behavior on thermal hydraulics safety analyses

A series of structural analyses have been performed to support the conversion of the University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR) from the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU; ≥20 wt% U-235) to low-enriched uranium (LEU; <20 wt% U-235) fuel. The irradiation thermo-mechanical analysis evaluated the effects of fuel swelling, irradiation creep, thermal expansion, as well as thermal resistance from the oxide layer growth for the MURR LEU element in prototypic thermal and irradiation conditions as presented in Part I of this article. Overall, this irradiation thermo-mechanical analysis predicts smaller gap thickness reductions in previously limiting regions, and larger reductions in the middle of the outermost end channels where power density is not typically a maximum. Due to substantial differences between the channel gap reductions assumed for the previous safety analyses and those predicted by the irradiation thermo-mechanical analysis, a need to evaluate their impact on the thermal hydraulics safety analyses arose. This article presents the results from the steady-state safety analysis for normal operation as well as the two most limiting accident scenarios. The calculation models were revised in order to account for the spatial and temporal variation of the channel gap thicknesses. The results show that sufficient safety margins are still maintained for normal operation as well as during the postulated accident transients. This work provides a methodology of incorporating the irradiation thermo-mechanical behavior of plate-type fuel into the thermal hydraulics safety analyses.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Trail Creek. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors at Snodgrass Mountain. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format SG-X-Y, where SG refers to Snodgrass Mountain, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, SG-EHS is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and SG-ERTn (upslope n=1) are points along the Snodgrass electrical resistivity tomography transect not associated with the existing site names in the directory. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
NASA NTRS2004

Space Shuttle Upgrades Advanced Hydraulic Power System

Three Auxiliary Power Units (APU) on the Space Shuttle Orbiter each provide 145 hp shaft power to a hydraulic pump which outputs 3000 psi hydraulic fluid to 41 hydraulic actuators. A hydrazine fuel powered APU utilized throughout the Shuttle program has undergone many improvements, but concerns remain with flight safety, operational cost, critical failure modes, and hydrazine related hazards. The advanced hydraulic power system (AHPS), also known as the electric APU, is being evaluated as an upgrade to replace the hydrazine APU. The AHPS replaces the high-speed turbine and hydrazine fuel supply system with a battery power supply and electric motor/pump that converts 300 volt electrical power to 3000 psi hydraulic power. AHPS upgrade benefits include elimination of toxic hydrazine propellant to improve flight safety, reduction in hazardous ground processing operations, and improved reliability. Development of this upgrade provides many interesting challenges and includes development of four hardware elements that comprise the AHPS system: Battery - The battery provides a high voltage supply of power using lithium ion cells. This is a large battery that must provide 28 kilowatt hours of energy over 99 minutes of operation at 300 volts with a peak power of 130 kilowatts for three seconds. High Voltage Power Distribution and Control (PD&C) - The PD&C distributes electric power from the battery to the EHDU. This 300 volt system includes wiring and components necessary to distribute power and provide fault current protection. Electro-Hydraulic Drive Unit (EHDU) - The EHDU converts electric input power to hydraulic output power. The EHDU must provide over 90 kilowatts of stable, output hydraulic power at 3000 psi with high efficiency and rapid response time. Cooling System - The cooling system provides thermal control of the Orbiter hydraulic fluid and EHDU electronic components. Symposium presentation will provide an overview of the AHPS upgrade, descriptions of the four hardware elements, and a summary of development results to date.

Source record↗
DOE OSTI2026

Computational Analysis of Hydraulic Efficiency of Michigan DOT Covers J and K

Drainage structures are used in urban street and highway systems to capture stormwater runoff. These structures typically consist of catch basins fitted with grates, inlets, or combination grate/inlet configurations that collect runoff and convey it through buried drainage systems. They are strategically placed within curb-and-gutter systems to enhance public safety by efficiently removing water from roadways and thereby reducing the risk of hydroplaning. The performance of drainage structures is commonly evaluated in terms of hydraulic efficiency, defined as the percentage of flow captured by the basin relative to the total flow reaching the structure. Understanding the hydraulic performance of these structures allows designers to properly space inlets, resulting in cost-effective designs that also help ensure the safety of the traveling public. MDOT uses a variety of drainage structures for runoff capture, as documented in Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) Drainage Manual. Many of these structures incorporate sinusoidal-type grates that are not addressed in HEC-22. Because physical modeling of these structures has been limited, further analysis is needed to verify their capture efficiency. Under current MDOT practice, the capture efficiency of these grates is estimated by assuming performance similar to that of a comparably sized reticuline grate described in HEC22. The first phase of this effort, titled Computational Analysis of Hydraulic Efficiency of Michigan DOT Cover C, focused on evaluating the hydraulic performance of MDOT’s Cover C grate. Cover C was selected as the initial test candidate because its sinusoidal pattern is representative of other MDOT grates, while it is typically used in high-volume, higher-speed applications. A similar version, Cover CX, is used on interstate highways but does not include transverse bars for bicycle safety. The current second phase of the study expands this work to evaluate MDOT’s Covers J and K. These grates were selected for additional analysis to further assess the hydraulic performance of MDOT drainage structures that are not directly represented by grate configurations in HEC-22. The results of this phase will build on the findings from the Cover C analysis and support improved understanding of the capture efficiency of MDOT’s standard drainage grates. This report is intended to serve as a companion document to the earlier study, Computational Analysis of Hydraulic Efficiency of Michigan DOT Cover C [3]. The present work applies the same overall CFD-based evaluation approach to MDOT Covers J and K and compares the resulting performance trends with those previously identified for Cover C. In particular, both studies assess on-grade interception efficiency, sag-location hydraulic capacity, and the effects of partial obstruction relative to HEC-22-based design estimates.

42 ENGINEERING↗
NASA NTRS1982

Gas-to-hydraulic power converter

A gas piston driven hydraulic piston pump is described in which the gas cycle is of high efficiency by injecting the gas in slugs at the beginning of each power stroke. The hydraulic piston is disposed to operate inside the as piston, and the two pistons, both slidably but nonrotatably mounted, are coupled together with a rotating but non-sliding motion transfer ring extending into antifriction grooves in the sidewalls of the two pistons. To make the hydraulic piston move at a constant speed during constant hydraulic horsepower demand and thus exert a constant pressure on the hydraulic fluid, these grooves are machined with variable pitches and one is the opposite of the other, i.e., the gas piston groove increases in pitch during its power stroke while the hydraulic piston groove decreases. Any number of piston assembly sets may be used to obtain desired hydraulic horsepower.

Galloway, C. W.↗
DOE OSTI2024

Refining water and carbon fluxes modeling in terrestrial ecosystems via plant hydraulics integration

Plant hydraulics substantially affects terrestrial water and carbon cycles by modulating water transport and carbon assimilation. Despite improved drought simulations in certain ecosystems through their integration into land surface models (LSMs), the broader application of plant hydraulics in diverse ecosystems and hydroclimates is still underexplored. Here, in this study, we implemented the recently developed Noah-Multiparameterization Land Surface Model (Noah-MP LSM) equipped with a plant hydraulics scheme (Noah-MP-PHS) across 40 FLUXNET sites globally. Employing the Shuffled Complex Evolution-University of Arizona (SCE-UA) auto-calibration algorithm, we optimized key plant hydraulics parameters for these sites spanning eight vegetation types in both arid and humid climates. Noah-MP-PHS significantly improves the simulation of evapotranspiration (ET) and gross primary production (GPP) by better representing atmospheric and soil water stress compared to traditional soil hydraulic schemes (SHSs, such as Noah and CLM). The augmented Noah-MP-PHS models reduce surface flux overestimation and underestimation, exhibiting an average increase of 0.14 and 0.15 in Kling-Gupta Efficiency (KGE) compared to Noah and CLM, respectively. The explicit consideration of plant capacitance in PHS reveals substantial deep-layer and nocturnal root water uptake especially under dry conditions. We employed eXplainable Machine learning (XML) to quantify the model’s relative sensitivity to newly introduced leaf-, stem and root-related parameters in PHS. The sensitivity analysis reveals a rise in root parameter importance and a decline in leaf and stem parameters as conditions shift from humid to arid. These findings indicate that as aridity states vary, the most influential parameters affecting surface fluxes variation may change in parameter calibration for PHS applications. Our findings underscore the importance of incorporating plant hydraulics into LSMs to enhance simulations of terrestrial water and carbon dynamics. These findings are crucial for understanding ecosystem responses to global climate changes and guide the broader application of PHS at larger scales.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS1986

Hydraulic mechanism to limit torsional loads between the IUS and space transportation system orbiter

The Inertial Upper Stage (IUS) is a two-stage booster used by NASA and the Defense Department to insert payloads into geosynchronous orbit from low-Earth orbit. The hydraulic mechanism discussed here was designed to perform a specific dynamic and static interface function within the Space Transportation System's Orbiter. Requirements, configuration, and application of the hydraulic mechanism with emphasis on performance and methods of achieving zero external hydraulic leakage are discussed. The hydraulic load-leveler mechanism meets the established design requirements for operation in a low-Earth orbit. Considerable testing was conducted to demonstrate system performance and verification that external leakage had been reduced to zero. Following each flight use of an ASE, all hydraulic mechanism components are carefully inspected for leakage. The ASE, including the hydraulic mechanism, has performed without any anomalies during all IUS flights.

Farmer, James R.↗
NASA NTRS1987

RE-1000 free-piston Stirling engine hydraulic output system description

The NASA Lewis Research Center was involved in free-piston Stirling engine research since 1976. Most of the work performed in-house was related to characterization of the RE-1000 engine. The data collected from the RE-1000 tests were intended to provide a data base for the validation of Stirling cycle simulations. The RE-1000 was originally build with a dashpot load system which did not convert the output of the engine into useful power, but was merely used as a load for the engine to work against during testing. As part of the interagency program between NASA Lewis and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, (ORNL), the RE-1000 was converted into a configuration that produces useable hydraulic power. A goal of the hydraulic output conversion effort was to retain the same thermodynamic cycle that existed with the dashpot loaded engine. It was required that the design must provide a hermetic seal between the hydraulic fluid and the working gas of the engine. The design was completed and the hardware was fabricated. The RE-1000 was modified in 1985 to the hydraulic output configuration. The early part of the RE-1000 hydraulic output program consisted of modifying hardware and software to allow the engine to run at steady-state conditions. A complete description of the engine is presented in sufficient detail so that the device can be simulated on a computer. Tables are presented showing the masses of the oscillating components and key dimensions needed for modeling purposes. Graphs are used to indicate the spring rate of the diaphragms used to separate the helium of the working and bounce space from the hydraulic fluid.

Schreiber, Jeffrey G.↗
NASA NTRS1996

Osteoblast hydraulic conductivity is regulated by calcitonin and parathyroid hormone

It is our hypothesis that osteoblasts play a major role in regulating bone (re)modeling by regulating interstitial fluid (ISF) flow through individual bone compartments. We hypothesize that osteoblasts of the blood-bone membrane lining the bone surfaces are capable of regulating transosseous fluid flow. This regulatory function of the osteoblasts was tested in vitro by culturing a layer of rat calvarial osteoblasts on porous membranes. Such a layer of osteoblasts subjected to 7.3 mm Hg of hydrostatic pressure posed a significant resistance to fluid flow across the cell layer similar in magnitude to the resistance posed by endothelial monolayers in vitro. The hydraulic conductivity, the volumetric fluid flux per unit pressure drop, of the osteoblast layer was altered in response to certain hormones. Hydraulic conductivity decreased approximately 40% in response to 33 nM parathyroid hormone, while it exhibited biphasic behavior in response to calcitonin: increased 40% in response to 100 nM calcitonin and decreased 40% in response to 1000 nM calcitonin. Further, activation of adenylate cyclase by forskolin dramatically increased the hydraulic conductivity, while elevation of intracellular calcium, [Ca2+]i, by the calcium ionophore A23187 initially decreased the hydraulic conductivity at 5 minutes before increasing conductivity by 30 minutes. These results suggest that cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) and [Ca2+]i may mediate changes in the osteoblast hydraulic conductivity. The increase in hydraulic conductivity in response to 100 nM calcitonin and the decrease in response to PTH suggest that the stimulatory and inhibitory effects on bone formation of calcitonin and parathyroid hormone, respectively, may be due in part to alterations in bone fluid flow.

Non-NASA Center↗
DOE OSTI2025

Geochemical Impact of Acid Spearhead and Slickwater Stimulation on Wolfcamp Shale from the Hydraulic Fracturing Test Site

The Hydraulic Fracturing Test Site 1 (HFTS-1) was a field study performed in the Wolfcamp Formation in the West Texas Permian (Midland) Basin, USA, with a focus on improving the efficiency of hydraulic fracturing. Investigating site-specific rock-fluid geochemical interactions during hydraulic fracturing is an important step to understanding the impact on formation shale porosity, permeability, and long-term shale gas production. During field operations in this region, hydraulic fracturing fluid (HFF) injection usually starts with a concentrated acid spearhead for rapid rock dissolution, followed by the injection of near-neutral pH slickwater containing chemicals and proppants. A multistep sequential injection approach was used to investigate different stages of rock-fluid interactions. The carbonate content in the host rock is important when acid spearhead is considered, as carbonate mineral dissolution is rapid and can result in porosity and permeability changes in the shale matrix. Here, in this study, we designed flow-through experiments using fractured carbonate-rich and clay-rich Wolfcamp shale cores with (1) a short-time acid soaking step and (2) a long-term slickwater flow-through step to simulate the injection method used at HFTS-1. The fluid chemistry was analyzed. A thorough mineralogical progression [e.g., Calcium (Ca) dissolution and iron (Fe) redox progression] in the cores during HFF injection was also characterized and imaged by synchrotron microprobe. Reactive transport modeling was performed based on the experimental setup. The results showed that the acid spearhead is a crucial step in creating a reaction front by mineral dissolution, especially in carbonate-rich shales. A slight layer of ferrihydrite precipitated during the slickwater flow-through period. This study provides insights into potential geochemical impact due to hydraulic fracturing operations in the Permian Basin.

clastic rock↗
NASA NTRS1980

Free-piston regenerative hot gas hydraulic engine

A displacer piston which is driven pneumatically by a high-pressure or low-pressure gas is included in a free-piston regenerative hydraulic engine. Actuation of the displacer piston circulates the working fluid through a heater, a regenerator and a cooler. The present invention includes an inertial mass such as a piston or a hydraulic fluid column to effectively store and supply energy during portions of the cycle. Power is transmitted from the working fluid to a hydraulic fluid across a diaphragm or lightweight piston to achieve a hydraulic power out-put. The displacer piston of the present invention may be driven pneumatically, hydraulically or electromagnetically. In addition, the displacer piston and the inertial mass of the present invention may be positioned on the same side of the diaphragm member or may be separated by the diaphragm member.

Beremand, D. G.↗
NASA NTRS1983

Design of hydraulic output Stirling engine

A hydraulic output system for the RE-1000 free piston stirling engine (FPSE) was designed. The hydraulic output system can be readily integrated with the existing hot section of RE-1000 FPSE. The system has two simply supported diaphragms which separate the engine gas from the hydraulic fluid, a dynamic balance mechanism, and a novel, null center band hydraulic pump. The diaphragms are designed to endure more than 10 billion cycles, and to withstand the differential pressure load as high as 14 MPa. The projected thermodynamic performance of the hydraulic output version of RE-1000 FPSE is 1.87 kW at 29/7 percent brake efficiency.

Toscano, W. M.↗
NASA NTRS1988

The 25 kWe solar thermal Stirling hydraulic engine system: Conceptual design

The conceptual design and analysis of a solar thermal free-piston Stirling hydraulic engine system designed to deliver 25 kWe when coupled to a 11 meter test bed concentrator is documented. A manufacturing cost assessment for 10,000 units per year was made. The design meets all program objectives including a 60,000 hr design life, dynamic balancing, fully automated control, more than 33.3 percent overall system efficiency, properly conditioned power, maximum utilization of annualized insolation, and projected production costs. The system incorporates a simple, rugged, reliable pool boiler reflux heat pipe to transfer heat from the solar receiver to the Stirling engine. The free-piston engine produces high pressure hydraulic flow which powers a commercial hydraulic motor that, in turn, drives a commercial rotary induction generator. The Stirling hydraulic engine uses hermetic bellows seals to separate helium working gas from hydraulic fluid which provides hydrodynamic lubrication to all moving parts. Maximum utilization of highly refined, field proven commercial components for electric power generation minimizes development cost and risk.

White, Maurice↗
NASA NTRS2004

Hydraulic Apparatus for Mechanical Testing of Nuts

The figure depicts an apparatus for mechanical testing of nuts. In the original application for which the apparatus was developed, the nuts are of a frangible type designed for use with pyrotechnic devices in spacecraft applications in which there are requirements for rapid, one-time separations of structures that are bolted together. The apparatus can also be used to test nonfrangible nuts engaged without pyrotechnic devices. This apparatus was developed to replace prior testing systems that were extremely heavy and immobile and characterized by long setup times (of the order of an hour for each nut to be tested). This apparatus is mobile, and the setup for each test can now be completed in about five minutes. The apparatus can load a nut under test with a static axial force of as much as 6.8 x 10(exp 5) lb (3.0 MN) and a static moment of as much as 8.5 x 10(exp 4) lb in. (9.6 x 10(exp 3) N(raised dot)m) for a predetermined amount of time. In the case of a test of a frangible nut, the pyrotechnic devices can be exploded to break the nut while the load is applied, in which case the breakage of the nut relieves the load. The apparatus can be operated remotely for safety during an explosive test. The load-generating portion of the apparatus is driven by low-pressure compressed air; the remainder of the apparatus is driven by 110-Vac electricity. From its source, the compressed air is fed to the apparatus through a regulator and a manually operated valve. The regulated compressed air is fed to a pneumatically driven hydraulic pump, which pressurizes oil in a hydraulic cylinder, thereby causing a load to be applied via a hydraulic nut (not to be confused with the nut under test). During operation, the hydraulic pressure is correlated with the applied axial load, which is verified by use of a load cell. Prior to operation, one end of a test stud (which could be an ordinary threaded rod or bolt) is installed in the hydraulic nut. The other end of the test stud passes through a bearing plate; a load cell is slid onto that end, and then the nut to be tested is threaded onto that end and tightened until the nut and load cell press gently against the bearing plate.

Hinkel, Todd J.↗