Engineering Papers⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Breckenridge, Jonathan T.

Publications and source records attributed to Breckenridge, Jonathan T..

9 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2014

Application of Fault Management Theory to the Quantitative Selection of a Launch Vehicle Abort Trigger Suite

The theory of System Health Management (SHM) and of its operational subset Fault Management (FM) states that FM is implemented as a "meta" control loop, known as an FM Control Loop (FMCL). The FMCL detects that all or part of a system is now failed, or in the future will fail (that is, cannot be controlled within acceptable limits to achieve its objectives), and takes a control action (a response) to return the system to a controllable state. In terms of control theory, the effectiveness of each FMCL is estimated based on its ability to correctly estimate the system state, and on the speed of its response to the current or impending failure effects. This paper describes how this theory has been successfully applied on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Space Launch System (SLS) Program to quantitatively estimate the effectiveness of proposed abort triggers so as to select the most effective suite to protect the astronauts from catastrophic failure of the SLS. The premise behind this process is to be able to quantitatively provide the value versus risk trade‐off for any given abort trigger, allowing decision makers to make more informed decisions. All current and planned crewed launch vehicles have some form of vehicle health management system integrated with an emergency launch abort system to ensure crew safety. While the design can vary, the underlying principle is the same: detect imminent catastrophic vehicle failure, initiate launch abort, and extract the crew to safety. Abort triggers are the detection mechanisms that identify that a catastrophic launch vehicle failure is occurring or is imminent and cause the initiation of a notification to the crew vehicle that the escape system must be activated. While ensuring that the abort triggers provide this function, designers must also ensure that the abort triggers do not signal that a catastrophic failure is imminent when in fact the launch vehicle can successfully achieve orbit. That is, the abort triggers must have low false negative rates to be sure that real crew‐threatening failures are detected, and also low false positive rates to ensure that the crew does not abort from non‐crew‐threatening launch vehicle behaviors. The analysis process described in this paper is a compilation of over six years of lessons learned and refinements from experiences developing abort triggers for NASA's Constellation Program (Ares I Project) and the SLS Program, as well as the simultaneous development of SHM/FM theory. The paper will describe the abort analysis concepts and process, developed in conjunction with SLS Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) to define a common set of mission phase, failure scenario, and Loss of Mission Environment (LOME) combinations upon which the SLS Loss of Mission (LOM) Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) models are built. This abort analysis also requires strong coordination with the Multi‐Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) and SLS Structures and Environments (STE) to formulate a series of abortability tables that encapsulate explosion dynamics over the ascent mission phase. The design and assessment of abort conditions and triggers to estimate their Loss of Crew (LOC) Benefits also requires in‐depth integration with other groups, including Avionics, Guidance, Navigation and Control(GN&C), the Crew Office, Mission Operations, and Ground Systems. The outputs of this analysis are a critical input to SLS S&MA's LOC PRA models. The process described here may well be the first full quantitative application of SHM/FM theory to the selection of a sensor suite for any aerospace system.

Lo, Yunnhon↗
NASA NTRS2014

Application of Fault Management Theory to the Quantitative Selection of a Launch Vehicle Abort Trigger Suite

This paper describes the quantitative application of the theory of System Health Management and its operational subset, Fault Management, to the selection of abort triggers for a human-rated launch vehicle, the United States' National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Space Launch System (SLS). The results demonstrate the efficacy of the theory to assess the effectiveness of candidate failure detection and response mechanisms to protect humans from time-critical and severe hazards. The quantitative method was successfully used on the SLS to aid selection of its suite of abort triggers.

Lo, Yunnhon↗
NASA NTRS2014

Application of Fault Management Theory to the Quantitative Selection of a Launch Vehicle Abort Trigger Suite

This paper describes the quantitative application of the theory of System Health Management and its operational subset, Fault Management, to the selection of Abort Triggers for a human-rated launch vehicle, the United States' National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Space Launch System (SLS). The results demonstrate the efficacy of the theory to assess the effectiveness of candidate failure detection and response mechanisms to protect humans from time-critical and severe hazards. The quantitative method was successfully used on the SLS to aid selection of its suite of Abort Triggers.

Lo, Yunnhon↗
NASA NTRS2014

Application of Fault Management Theory to the Quantitive Selection of a Launch Vehicle Abort Trigger Suite

SHM/FM theory has been successfully applied to the selection of the baseline set Abort Triggers for the NASA SLS center dot Quantitative assessment played a useful role in the decision process  M&FM, which is new within NASA MSFC, required the most "new" work, as this quantitative analysis had never been done before center dot Required development of the methodology and tool to mechanize the process center dot Established new relationships to the other groups  The process is now an accepted part of the SLS design process, and will likely be applied to similar programs in the future at NASA MSFC  Future improvements center dot Improve technical accuracy ‒Differentiate crew survivability due to an abort, vs. survivability even no immediate abort occurs (small explosion with little debris) ‒Account for contingent dependence of secondary triggers on primary triggers ‒Allocate "Δ LOC Benefit" of each trigger when added to the previously selected triggers. center dot Reduce future costs through the development of a specialized tool  Methodology can be applied to any manned/unmanned vehicle, in space or terrestrial

Lo, Yunnhon↗
NASA NTRS2013

Implementation of a Goal-Based Systems Engineering Process Using the Systems Modeling Language (SysML)

Building upon the purpose, theoretical approach, and use of a Goal-Function Tree (GFT) being presented by Dr. Stephen B. Johnson, described in a related Infotech 2013 ISHM abstract titled "Goal-Function Tree Modeling for Systems Engineering and Fault Management", this paper will describe the core framework used to implement the GFTbased systems engineering process using the Systems Modeling Language (SysML). These two papers are ideally accepted and presented together in the same Infotech session. Statement of problem: SysML, as a tool, is currently not capable of implementing the theoretical approach described within the "Goal-Function Tree Modeling for Systems Engineering and Fault Management" paper cited above. More generally, SysML's current capabilities to model functional decompositions in the rigorous manner required in the GFT approach are limited. The GFT is a new Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) approach to the development of goals and requirements, functions, and its linkage to design. As a growing standard for systems engineering, it is important to develop methods to implement GFT in SysML. Proposed Method of Solution: Many of the central concepts of the SysML language are needed to implement a GFT for large complex systems. In the implementation of those central concepts, the following will be described in detail: changes to the nominal SysML process, model view definitions and examples, diagram definitions and examples, and detailed SysML construct and stereotype definitions.

Patterson, Jonathan D.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Goal-Function Tree Modeling for Systems Engineering and Fault Management

The draft NASA Fault Management (FM) Handbook (2012) states that Fault Management (FM) is a "part of systems engineering", and that it "demands a system-level perspective" (NASAHDBK- 1002, 7). What, exactly, is the relationship between systems engineering and FM? To NASA, systems engineering (SE) is "the art and science of developing an operable system capable of meeting requirements within often opposed constraints" (NASA/SP-2007-6105, 3). Systems engineering starts with the elucidation and development of requirements, which set the goals that the system is to achieve. To achieve these goals, the systems engineer typically defines functions, and the functions in turn are the basis for design trades to determine the best means to perform the functions. System Health Management (SHM), by contrast, defines "the capabilities of a system that preserve the system's ability to function as intended" (Johnson et al., 2011, 3). Fault Management, in turn, is the operational subset of SHM, which detects current or future failures, and takes operational measures to prevent or respond to these failures. Failure, in turn, is the "unacceptable performance of intended function." (Johnson 2011, 605) Thus the relationship of SE to FM is that SE defines the functions and the design to perform those functions to meet system goals and requirements, while FM detects the inability to perform those functions and takes action. SHM and FM are in essence "the dark side" of SE. For every function to be performed (SE), there is the possibility that it is not successfully performed (SHM); FM defines the means to operationally detect and respond to this lack of success. We can also describe this in terms of goals: for every goal to be achieved, there is the possibility that it is not achieved; FM defines the means to operationally detect and respond to this inability to achieve the goal. This brief description of relationships between SE, SHM, and FM provide hints to a modeling approach to provide formal connectivity between the nominal (SE), and off-nominal (SHM and FM) aspects of functions and designs. This paper describes a formal modeling approach to the initial phases of the development process that integrates the nominal and off-nominal perspectives in a model that unites SE goals and functions of with the failure to achieve goals and functions (SHM/FM).

Johnson, Stephen B.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Goal-Function Tree Modeling for Systems Engineering and Fault Management

This paper describes a new representation that enables rigorous definition and decomposition of both nominal and off-nominal system goals and functions: the Goal-Function Tree (GFT). GFTs extend the concept and process of functional decomposition, utilizing state variables as a key mechanism to ensure physical and logical consistency and completeness of the decomposition of goals (requirements) and functions, and enabling full and complete traceabilitiy to the design. The GFT also provides for means to define and represent off-nominal goals and functions that are activated when the system's nominal goals are not met. The physical accuracy of the GFT, and its ability to represent both nominal and off-nominal goals enable the GFT to be used for various analyses of the system, including assessments of the completeness and traceability of system goals and functions, the coverage of fault management failure detections, and definition of system failure scenarios.

Johnson, Stephen B.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Implementation of a Goal-Based Systems Engineering Process Using the Systems Modeling Language (SysML)

This paper describes the core framework used to implement a Goal-Function Tree (GFT) based systems engineering process using the Systems Modeling Language. It defines a set of principles built upon by the theoretical approach described in the InfoTech 2013 ISHM paper titled "Goal-Function Tree Modeling for Systems Engineering and Fault Management" presented by Dr. Stephen B. Johnson. Using the SysML language, the principles in this paper describe the expansion of the SysML language as a baseline in order to: hierarchically describe a system, describe that system functionally within success space, and allocate detection mechanisms to success functions for system protection.

Breckenridge, Jonathan T.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Implementation of a Goal-Based Systems Engineering Process Using the Systems Modeling Language (SysML)

Building upon the purpose, theoretical approach, and use of a Goal-Function Tree (GFT) being presented by Dr. Stephen B. Johnson, described in a related Infotech 2013 ISHM abstract titled "Goal-Function Tree Modeling for Systems Engineering and Fault Management", this paper will describe the core framework used to implement the GFTbased systems engineering process using the Systems Modeling Language (SysML). These two papers are ideally accepted and presented together in the same Infotech session. Statement of problem: SysML, as a tool, is currently not capable of implementing the theoretical approach described within the "Goal-Function Tree Modeling for Systems Engineering and Fault Management" paper cited above. More generally, SysML's current capabilities to model functional decompositions in the rigorous manner required in the GFT approach are limited. The GFT is a new Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) approach to the development of goals and requirements, functions, and its linkage to design. As a growing standard for systems engineering, it is important to develop methods to implement GFT in SysML. Proposed Method of Solution: Many of the central concepts of the SysML language are needed to implement a GFT for large complex systems. In the implementation of those central concepts, the following will be described in detail: changes to the nominal SysML process, model view definitions and examples, diagram definitions and examples, and detailed SysML construct and stereotype definitions.

Breckenridge, Jonathan T.↗