SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Variational Calculus”

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.

185 records · Page 11

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS1991

A comparison of two closely-related approaches to aerodynamic design optimization

Two related methods for aerodynamic design optimization are compared. The methods, called the implicit gradient approach and the variational (or optimal control) approach, both attempt to obtain gradients necessary for numerical optimization at a cost significantly less than that of the usual black-box approach that employs finite difference gradients. While the two methods are seemingly quite different, they are shown to differ (essentially) in that the order of discretizing the continuous problem, and of applying calculus, is interchanged. Under certain circumstances, the two methods turn out to be identical. We explore the relationship between these methods by applying them to a model problem for duct flow that has many features in common with transonic flow over an airfoil. We find that the gradients computed by the variational method can sometimes be sufficiently inaccurate to cause the optimization to fail.

Shubin, G. R.↗

NASA NTRS1993

DUKSUP - A high thrust trajectory optimization code

Designing missions on expendable launch vehicles (ELV's) includes determining launch vehicle performance capabilities and trajectory characteristics over the range of mission requirements for suitable launch periods. This analysis depends on mathematically modeling both the launch vehicle and the mission requirements. Generally the result is a mathematical model that is described by an objective function to be optimized subject to an assortment of algebraic and dynamic constraints. About 30 years ago, engineers at Lewis Research Center (LeRC) undertook the task of creating a software code to solve 3D versions of such problems and based it on the Calculus of Variations/Optimal Control Theory. One of these codes, DUKSUP, has been in use at LeRC for nearly 25 years, during which time it has played an important role in a large number of studies and actual missions. Currently it is being used by about 12 analysts in the Center's Advanced Space Analysis Office (ASAO) to do mission design, feasibility studies, corroboration of contractor data and planning studies for the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI). Today, it is one of the few ELV mission analysis production codes based on variational methods. With future ELV missions in mind, ASAO is presently creating a new code to upgrade DUKSUP's capabilities.

Balkanyi, Leslie R.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Modeling the Impact of Space Suit Components and Anthropometry on the Center of Mass of a Seated Crewmember

The Crew Impact Attenuation System (CIAS) is the energy-absorbing strut concept that dampens Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) landing loads to levels sustainable by the crew. Significant COM variations across suited crew configurations would amplify the inertial effects of the pallet and potentially create unacceptable crew loading during launch and landing. The objective of this study was to obtain data needed for dynamic simulation models by quantifying the effects of posture, suit components, and the expected range of anthropometry on the COM of a seated individual. Several elements are required for the COM calculation of a suited human in a seated position: anthropometry, body segment mass, suit component mass, suit component location relative to the body, and joint angles defining the seated posture. Three-dimensional (3D) human body models, suit mass data, and vector calculus were utilized to compute the COM positions for 12 boundary manikins in two different seated postures. The analysis focused on two objectives: (1) quantify how much the wholebody COM varied from the smallest to largest subject and (2) quantify the effects of the suit components on the overall COM in each seat configuration. The location of the anterior-posterior COM varied across all boundary manikins by about 7 cm, and the vertical COM varied by approximately 9 to 10 cm. The mediolateral COM varied by 1.2 cm from the midline sagittal plane for both seat configurations. The suit components caused an anterior shift of the total COM by approximately 2 cm and a shift to the right along the mediolateral axis of 0.4 cm for both seat configurations. When the seat configuration was in the standard posture the suited vertical COM shifted inferiorly by as much as 1 cm, whereas in the CEV posture the vertical COM had no appreciable change. These general differences were due to the high proportion of suit mass located in the boots and lower legs and their corresponding distance from the body COM, as well as to the prevalence of suit components on the right side of the body.

Blackledge, Christopher↗

NASA NTRS1975

The geometric approach to sets of ordinary differential equations and Hamiltonian dynamics

The calculus of differential forms is used to discuss the local integration theory of a general set of autonomous first order ordinary differential equations. Geometrically, such a set is a vector field V in the space of dependent variables. Integration consists of seeking associated geometric structures invariant along V: scalar fields, forms, vectors, and integrals over subspaces. It is shown that to any field V can be associated a Hamiltonian structure of forms if, when dealing with an odd number of dependent variables, an arbitrary equation of constraint is also added. Families of integral invariants are an immediate consequence. Poisson brackets are isomorphic to Lie products of associated CT-generating vector fields. Hamilton's variational principle follows from the fact that the maximal regular integral manifolds of a closed set of forms must include the characteristics of the set.

Estabrook, F. B.↗

NASA NTRS1991

On the Power of Abstract Interpretation

Increasingly sophisticated applications of static analysis place increased burden on the reliability of the analysis techniques. Often, the failure of the analysis technique to detect some information my mean that the time or space complexity of the generated code would be altered. Thus, it is important to precisely characterize the power of static analysis techniques. We follow the approach of Selur et. al. who studied the power of strictness analysis techniques. Their result can be summarized by saying 'strictness analysis is perfect up to variations in constants.' In other words, strictness analysis is as good as it could be, short of actually distinguishing between concrete values. We use this approach to characterize a broad class of analysis techniques based on abstract interpretation including, but not limited to, strictness analysis. For the first-order case, we consider abstract interpretations where the abstract domain for data values is totally ordered. This condition is satisfied by Mycroft's strictness analysis that of Sekar et. al. and Wadler's analysis of list-strictness. For such abstract interpretations, we show that the analysis is complete in the sense that, short of actually distinguishing between concrete values with the same abstraction, it gives the best possible information. We further generalize these results to typed lambda calculus with pairs and higher-order functions. Note that products and function spaces over totally ordered domains are not totally ordered. In fact, the notion of completeness used in the first-order case fails if product domains or function spaces are added. We formulate a weaker notion of completeness based on observability of values. Two values (including pairs and functions) are considered indistinguishable if their observable components are indistinguishable. We show that abstract interpretation of typed lambda calculus programs is complete up to this notion of indistinguishability. We use denotationally-oriented arguments instead of the detailed operational arguments used by Selur et. al.. Hence, our proofs are much simpler. They should be useful for further future improvements.

Reddy, Uday S.↗