scholarly journals Propellant Slosh Force and Mass Measurement

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Hunt ◽  
Richard Foster-Turner ◽  
Ross Drury

We have used electrical capacitance tomography (ECT) to instrument a demonstration tank containing kerosene and have successfully demonstrated that ECT can, in real time, (i) measure propellant mass to better than 1% of total in a range of gravity fields, (ii) image propellant distribution, and (iii) accurately track propellant centre of mass (CoM). We have shown that the ability to track CoM enables the determination of slosh forces, and we argue that this will result in disruptive changes in a propellant tank design and use in a spacecraft. Ground testing together with real-time slosh force data will allow an improved tank design to minimize and mitigate slosh forces, while at the same time keeping the tank mass to a minimum. Fully instrumented Smart Tanks will be able to provide force vector inputs to a spacecraft inertial navigation system; this in turn will (i) eliminate or reduce navigational errors, (ii) reduce wait time for uncertain slosh settling, since actual slosh forces will be known, and (iii) simplify slosh control hardware, hence reducing overall mass. ECT may be well suited to space borne liquid measurement applications. Measurements are independent of and unaffected by orientation or levels of g. The electronics and sensor arrays can be low in mass, and critically, the technique does not dissipate heat into the propellant, which makes it intrinsically safe and suitable for cryogenic liquids. Because of the limitations of operating in earth-bound gravity, it has not been possible to check the exact numerical accuracy of the slosh force acting on the vessel. We are therefore in the process of undertaking a further project to (i) build a prototype integrated “Smart Tank for Space”, (ii) undertake slosh tests in zero or microgravity, (iii) develop the system for commercial ground testing, and (iv) qualify ECT for use in space.

1992 ◽  
Author(s):  
JAMES BENDER ◽  
JEFF PERLEY ◽  
DAVE NEURAUTER ◽  
L. GRAHAM
Keyword(s):  

2011 ◽  
Vol 45 (8) ◽  
pp. 839-848 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kari Edison Watkins ◽  
Brian Ferris ◽  
Alan Borning ◽  
G. Scott Rutherford ◽  
David Layton

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. e000708 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuzeng Shen ◽  
Lin Hui Lee

Triaging of patients at the emergency department (ED) is one of the key steps prior to initiation of doctor consult. To improve the overall wait time to consultation, we have identified the need to reduce the wait time to triage for ED patients. We seek to determine if the implementation of a series of plan, do, study, act (PDSA) cycles would improve the wait time to triage within 1 year. The interventions related to the PDSA cycles include the refining of triage criteria, ‘eyeball’ triage by senior nurses to facilitate direct bedding of patients, formation of a triage nurse clinician role, and a needs analysis of required nursing manpower. The baseline period for this study was from January 2017 to April 2017, with the results following implementation of the respective PDSA cycles sequentially tracked from May 2017 to March 2019. There was an improvement in the wait time to triage from a baseline duration of 18 min to the postimplementation period duration of 13 min, with a 25% decrease in variance from 16 to 12 min. The improvements were sustained. Strategies to further reduce wait time to triage at the ED are discussed. We also highlight the importance of adequate triage manpower, data-driven decision making and continued engagement of stakeholders in enabling positive outcomes from this quality improvement effort.


2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (18) ◽  
pp. 7551-7559 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shijie Sun ◽  
Wenbiao Zhang ◽  
jiangtao sun ◽  
Zhang Cao ◽  
Lijun Xu ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (34_suppl) ◽  
pp. 82-82
Author(s):  
James J. Sauerbaum ◽  
Gina DeMaio ◽  
Bradley Geiger ◽  
Regina Cunningham ◽  
Marianna Holmes ◽  
...  

82 Background: Members of the scheduling teams at the Abramson Cancer Center observed prolonged delays between chemotherapy and radiation therapy treatments scheduled by staff from 2 independent departments leading to inconvenience for patients receiving concurrent chemo- and radiation therapy (CRpts). Methods: An analysis of baseline data over 6 weeks revealed that for 157 unique consecutive patients undergoing daily chemotherapy and radiation (a total of 353 encounters), the mean time between scheduled treatments was 122 minutes. For 39% of encounters the wait time was greater than 120 minutes. To improve the adjacency of chemotherapy and radiation appointments and to consistently reduce wait time between treatments to less than 120 minutes, we formed a Chemotherapy/Radiation Scheduling Task Force consisting of patient service representatives, practice managers, and physician and nurse advisors. We determined that CRpts should be scheduled using a “huddle” strategy whereby prospectively identified CRpts are simultaneously scheduled for both treatments in a coordinated manner. Identifying CRpts for coordinated scheduling was facilitated by the creation of a chemo-radiation scheduling inbox to which clinicians and support staff e-mail names of new CRpts in order to alert the scheduling team. Our two lead schedulers meet 2-3 times per week to coordinate patient schedules. A weekly scorecard of the wait times for CRpts patients is distributed via e-mail to the clinicians and support staff. Results: Over the past 6 months, we have used the huddle method for 80% of 986 consecutive CRpt encounters. Our average wait time for huddle-scheduled encounters has been reduced to 62.5 minutes with only 9% of encounters having wait times over 120 minutes. For non-huddle-scheduled encounters, the average wait time is 129 minutes with 57% having wait times over 120 minutes. Conclusions: Utilization of a huddle scheduling method has successfully reduced wait time for CRpts. Use of the huddle method continues to grow with staff training and awareness of the new process.


2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (7) ◽  
pp. 076003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anton S. Bychkov ◽  
Elena B. Cherepetskaya ◽  
Alexander A. Karabutov ◽  
Vladimir A. Makarov

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document