SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Model-Based Mission Assurance”

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 37 records · Page 2

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2015

A Vehicle Management End-to-End Testing and Analysis Platform for Validation of Mission and Fault Management Algorithms to Reduce Risk for NASAs Space Launch System

The engineering development of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) new Space Launch System (SLS) requires cross discipline teams with extensive knowledge of launch vehicle subsystems, information theory, and autonomous algorithms dealing with all operations from pre-launch through on orbit operations. The nominal and off-nominal characteristics of SLS's elements and subsystems must be understood and matched with the autonomous algorithm monitoring and mitigation capabilities for accurate control and response to abnormal conditions throughout all vehicle mission flight phases, including precipitating safing actions and crew aborts. This presents a large and complex systems engineering challenge, which is being addressed in part by focusing on the specific subsystems involved in the handling of off-nominal mission and fault tolerance with response management. Using traditional model-based system and software engineering design principles from the Unified Modeling Language (UML) and Systems Modeling Language (SysML), the Mission and Fault Management (M&FM) algorithms for the vehicle are crafted and vetted in Integrated Development Teams (IDTs) composed of multiple development disciplines such as Systems Engineering (SE), Flight Software (FSW), Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) and the major subsystems and vehicle elements such as Main Propulsion Systems (MPS), boosters, avionics, Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC), Thrust Vector Control (TVC), and liquid engines. These model-based algorithms and their development lifecycle from inception through FSW certification are an important focus of SLS's development effort to further ensure reliable detection and response to off-nominal vehicle states during all phases of vehicle operation from pre-launch through end of flight. To test and validate these M&FM algorithms a dedicated test-bed was developed for full Vehicle Management End-to-End Testing (VMET). For addressing fault management (FM) early in the development lifecycle for the SLS program, NASA formed the M&FM team as part of the Integrated Systems Health Management and Automation Branch under the Spacecraft Vehicle Systems Department at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). To support the development of the FM algorithms, the VMET developed by the M&FM team provides the ability to integrate the algorithms, perform test cases, and integrate vendor-supplied physics-based launch vehicle (LV) subsystem models. Additionally, the team has developed processes for implementing and validating the M&FM algorithms for concept validation and risk reduction. The flexibility of the VMET capabilities enables thorough testing of the M&FM algorithms by providing configurable suites of both nominal and off-nominal test cases to validate the developed algorithms utilizing actual subsystem models such as MPS, GNC, and others. One of the principal functions of VMET is to validate the M&FM algorithms and substantiate them with performance baselines for each of the target vehicle subsystems in an independent platform exterior to the flight software test and validation processes. In any software development process there is inherent risk in the interpretation and implementation of concepts from requirements and test cases into flight software compounded with potential human errors throughout the development and regression testing lifecycle. Risk reduction is addressed by the M&FM group but in particular by the Analysis Team working with other organizations such as S&MA, Structures and Environments, GNC, Orion, Crew Office, Flight Operations, and Ground Operations by assessing performance of the M&FM algorithms in terms of their ability to reduce Loss of Mission (LOM) and Loss of Crew (LOC) probabilities. In addition, through state machine and diagnostic modeling, analysis efforts investigate a broader suite of failure effects and associated detection and responses to be tested in VMET to ensure reliable failure detection, and confirm responses do not create additional risks or cause undesired states through interactive dynamic effects with other algorithms and systems. VMET further contributes to risk reduction by prototyping and exercising the M&FM algorithms early in their implementation and without any inherent hindrances such as meeting FSW processor scheduling constraints due to their target platform - the ARINC 6535-partitioned Operating System, resource limitations, and other factors related to integration with other subsystems not directly involved with M&FM such as telemetry packing and processing. The baseline plan for use of VMET encompasses testing the original M&FM algorithms coded in the same C++ language and state machine architectural concepts as that used by FSW. This enables the development of performance standards and test cases to characterize the M&FM algorithms and sets a benchmark from which to measure their effectiveness and performance in the exterior FSW development and test processes. This paper is outlined in a systematic fashion analogous to a lifecycle process flow for engineering development of algorithms into software and testing. Section I describes the NASA SLS M&FM context, presenting the current infrastructure, leading principles, methods, and participants. Section II defines the testing philosophy of the M&FM algorithms as related to VMET followed by section III, which presents the modeling methods of the algorithms to be tested and validated in VMET. Its details are then further presented in section IV followed by Section V presenting integration, test status, and state analysis. Finally, section VI addresses the summary and forward directions followed by the appendices presenting relevant information on terminology and documentation.

Trevino, Luis↗

NASA NTRS2023

An MBSE Approach for Developing an Autonomous Rover Platform

The proliferation of increasingly autonomous systems calls for new ways to address how safety is assured. As these systems become more advanced and complex, it becomes more important to model and prototype autonomous functions at the systems level and the functions that assure they are operating safely and as expected. To that effect, researchers at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 's Robust Software Engineering (RSE) group are working on prototyping a Research Autonomous Vehicle, commonly referred to as R-RAV. The R-RAV is an autonomous rover platform designed to act as a case study for assured autonomy research. Moreover, an overarching goal is for the R-RAV to serve as a training ground for other mission projects. In this paper, we will detail how we have used a Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) approach to model a prototype of the R-RAV and test and verify its different functionalities.

MBSE↗

NASA NTRS2016

Modeling in the State Flow Environment to Support Launch Vehicle Verification Testing for Mission and Fault Management Algorithms in the NASA Space Launch System

Analysis methods and testing processes are essential activities in the engineering development and verification of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) new Space Launch System (SLS). Central to mission success is reliable verification of the Mission and Fault Management (M&FM) algorithms for the SLS launch vehicle (LV) flight software. This is particularly difficult because M&FM algorithms integrate and operate LV subsystems, which consist of diverse forms of hardware and software themselves, with equally diverse integration from the engineering disciplines of LV subsystems. M&FM operation of SLS requires a changing mix of LV automation. During pre-launch the LV is primarily operated by the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Ground Systems Development and Operations (GSDO) organization with some LV automation of time-critical functions, and much more autonomous LV operations during ascent that have crucial interactions with the Orion crew capsule, its astronauts, and with mission controllers at the Johnson Space Center. M&FM algorithms must perform all nominal mission commanding via the flight computer to control LV states from pre-launch through disposal and also address failure conditions by initiating autonomous or commanded aborts (crew capsule escape from the failing LV), redundancy management of failing subsystems and components, and safing actions to reduce or prevent threats to ground systems and crew. To address the criticality of the verification testing of these algorithms, the NASA M&FM team has utilized the State Flow environment6 (SFE) with its existing Vehicle Management End-to-End Testbed (VMET) platform which also hosts vendor-supplied physics-based LV subsystem models. The human-derived M&FM algorithms are designed and vetted in Integrated Development Teams composed of design and development disciplines such as Systems Engineering, Flight Software (FSW), Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) and major subsystems and vehicle elements such as Main Propulsion Systems (MPS), boosters, avionics, Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GN&C), Thrust Vector Control (TVC), liquid engines, and the astronaut crew office. Since the algorithms are realized using model-based engineering (MBE) methods from a hybrid of the Unified Modeling Language (UML) and Systems Modeling Language (SysML), SFE methods are a natural fit to provide an in depth analysis of the interactive behavior of these algorithms with the SLS LV subsystem models. For this, the M&FM algorithms and the SLS LV subsystem models are modeled using constructs provided by Matlab which also enables modeling of the accompanying interfaces providing greater flexibility for integrated testing and analysis, which helps forecast expected behavior in forward VMET integrated testing activities. In VMET, the M&FM algorithms are prototyped and implemented using the same C++ programming language and similar state machine architectural concepts used by the FSW group. Due to the interactive complexity of the algorithms, VMET testing thus far has verified all the individual M&FM subsystem algorithms with select subsystem vendor models but is steadily progressing to assessing the interactive behavior of these algorithms with LV subsystems, as represented by subsystem models. The novel SFE applications has proven to be useful for quick look analysis into early integrated system behavior and assessment of the M&FM algorithms with the modeled LV subsystems. This early MBE analysis generates vital insight into the integrated system behaviors, algorithm sensitivities, design issues, and has aided in the debugging of the M&FM algorithms well before full testing can begin in more expensive, higher fidelity but more arduous environments such as VMET, FSW testing, and the Systems Integration Lab7 (SIL). SFE has exhibited both expected and unexpected behaviors in nominal and off nominal test cases prior to full VMET testing. In many findings, these behavioral characteristics were used to correct the M&FM algorithms, enable better test coverage, and develop more effective test cases for each of the LV subsystems. This has improved the fidelity of testing and planning for the next generation of M&FM algorithms as the SLS program evolves from non-crewed to crewed flight, impacting subsystem configurations and the M&FM algorithms that control them. SFE analysis has improved robustness and reliability of the M&FM algorithms by revealing implementation errors and documentation inconsistencies. It is also improving planning efficiency for future VMET testing of the M&FM algorithms hosted in the LV flight computers, further reducing risk for the SLS launch infrastructure, the SLS LV, and most importantly the crew.

Trevino, Luis↗

NASA NTRS2016

Technical Reference Suite Addressing Challenges of Providing Assurance for Fault Management Architectural Design

Research into complexities of software systems Fault Management (FM) and how architectural design decisions affect safety, preservation of assets, and maintenance of desired system functionality has coalesced into a technical reference (TR) suite that advances the provision of safety and mission assurance. The NASA Independent Verification and Validation (IVV) Program, with Software Assurance Research Program support, extracted FM architectures across the IVV portfolio to evaluate robustness, assess visibility for validation and test, and define software assurance methods applied to the architectures and designs. This investigation spanned IVV projects with seven different primary developers, a wide range of sizes and complexities, and encompassed Deep Space Robotic, Human Spaceflight, and Earth Orbiter mission FM architectures. The initiative continues with an expansion of the TR suite to include Launch Vehicles, adding the benefit of investigating differences intrinsic to model-based FM architectures and insight into complexities of FM within an Agile software development environment, in order to improve awareness of how nontraditional processes affect FM architectural design and system health management.

Fitz, Rhonda↗

NASA NTRS2019

Benefits and Challenges of Model-based Software Engineering: Lessons Learned based on Qualitative and Quantitative Findings

Even though Model-based Software Engineering (MBSwE) techniques and Autogenerated Code (AGC) have been increasingly used to produce complex software systems, there is only anecdotal knowledge about the state-of-thepractice. Furthermore, there is a lack of empirical studies that explore the potential quality improvements due to the use of these techniques. This paper presents in-depth qualitative findings about development and Software Assurance (SWA) practices and detailed quantitative analysis of software bug reports of a NASA mission that used MBSwE and AGC. The mission’s flight software is a combination of handwritten code and AGC developed by two different approaches: one based on state chart models (AGC-M) and another on specification dictionaries (AGC-D). The empirical analysis of fault proneness is based on 380 closed bug reports created by software developers. Our main findings include: (1) MBSwE and AGC provide some benefits, but also impose challenges. (2) SWA done only at a model level is not sufficient. AGC code should also be tested and the models and AGC should always be kept in-sync. AGC must not be changed manually. (3) Fixes made to address an individual bug report were spread both across multiple modules and across multiple files. On average, for each bug report 1.4 modules, that is, 3.4 files were fixed. (4) Most bug reports led to changes in more than one type of file. The majority of changes to auto-generated source code files were made in conjunction to changes in either file with state chart models or XML files derived from dictionaries. (5) For newly developed files, AGC-M and handwritten code were of similar quality, while AGC-D files were the least fault prone.

Goseva-Popstojanova, Katerina↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA’s Safety, Reliability, and Mission Assurance Digital Future

The evolution from “document-centric” to “data-centric” and “model-centric” information leveraging structured data and model-based approaches is at the heart of digital engineering transformational efforts underway across industry and government. It is these approaches that pave the way for data lakes, Authoritative Sources of Truth (ASOTs), and systems- of-systems interoperability and the corresponding transformational benefits thereof. Such benefits include increased data availability, data access equity, data traceability, real-time analytics, batch analytics, and (most importantly) acceleration of the time-to-value and time-to-insights associated with engineering products and analyses. The longer-term benefits of reusability, customization and traceability are even more promising. For Safety and Mission Assurance (SMA), and Mission Success (SMS) activities; realization of such benefits is essential to provide engineers and analysts alike vital information when needed to support critical decision making throughout the entire life cycle. The SMA community often operate in parallel with engineering activities, for which information exchange with relevant context is paramount. Far too often, such information lags key decision points and/or is absent of the robust, integrated, knowledge needed, given inherent barriers associated with traditional document-centric means to data sharing, analysis, and reporting. This paper provides an overview of how NASA’s Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) is evolving its policies, standards, guidance, and training to transform to eliminate such barriers, thus realizing the benefits emerging in this new digital era. A roadmap for achieving this digital future is presented along with key building blocks involving use and implementation of concepts such as: Objectives-Hierarchies, Objective-Driven Requirements, Accepted Standards, Safety and Assurance Cases, data digitization (i.e., ontologies, structured data, and model-centric data), FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, & Reusable) and/or FAIRUST (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable, Understandable, Secure, and Trusted) principles [1]. This paper also describes how OSMA, leveraging the Agency’s overall commitment to Digital Transformation (DT), is using the power of Policy, “Digital” Domain representation, Product Evolution, and Community Outreach and Engagement as part of a strategic vision and roadmap to evolve and transform its SMA organizations to become better able to serve its stakeholders and customers. Future publications will elaborate on these building blocks and deeper concepts.

Authoritative Source of Truth (ASOT),↗

NASA NTRS2018

NASA Electronic Parts and Packaging (NEPP) Program: Resources for SmallSats on EEE Parts

From the outside looking in, the NEPP program supports NASA's traditional approach to providing electrical, electronic, and electromechanical (EEE) assurance for space missions. Standards (military and commercial) for EEE parts are based on risk averse methodologies, drive higher costs and schedules, and, in general, provide devices that significantly lag behind commercial devices in performance aspects (speed, power efficiency, etc...). This is NOT the model most small missions realistically can use. However, when you look behind the curtain, NEPP has been considering the risk trade space for small missions for over five years and has consistently provided resources that the small mission regime would find useful. In this paper, we provide a brief overview of these resources as well as NEPP's current research/development efforts that are relevant. While we'll primarily discuss radiation assurance related issues such as data availability and usage, assurances processes for not only the radiation effects side, but also the EEE parts reliability will be touched upon.

Electrical↗

NASA NTRS2020

Architecture and Information Requirements to Assess and Predict Flight Safety Risks During Highly Autonomous Urban Flight Operations

As aviation adopts new and increasingly complex operational paradigms, vehicle types, and technologies to broaden airspace capability and efficiency, maintaining a safe system will require recognition and timely mitigation of new safety issues as they emerge and before significant consequences occur. A shift toward a more predictive risk mitigation capability becomes critical to meet this challenge. In-time safety assurance comprises monitoring, assessment, and mitigation functions that proactively reduce risk in complex operational environments where the interplay of hazards may not be known (and therefore not accounted for) during design. These functions can also help to understand and predict emergent effects caused by the increased use of automation or autonomous functions that may exhibit unexpected non-deterministic behaviors. The envisioned monitoring and assessment functions can look for precursors, anomalies, and trends (PATs) by applying model-based and data-driven methods. Outputs would then drive downstream mitigation(s) if needed to reduce risk. These mitigations may be accomplished using traditional design revision processes or via operational (and sometimes automated) mechanisms. The latter refers to the ‘in-time’ aspect of the system concept. This report comprises architecture and information requirements and considerations toward enabling such a capability within the domain of low altitude highly autonomous urban flight operations. This domain may span, for example, public-use surveillance missions flown by small unmanned aircraft (e.g., infrastructure inspection, facility management, emergency response, law enforcement, and/or security) to transportation missions flown by larger aircraft that may carry passengers or deliver products. Caveat: Any stated requirements in this report should be considered initial requirements that are intended to drive research and development (R&D). These initial requirements are likely to evolve based on R&D findings, refinement of operational concepts, industry advances, and new industry or regulatory policies or standards related to safety assurance.

Young, Steven↗

NASA NTRS2020

Enabling Assurance in the MBSE Environment

A number of specific benefits that fit within the hallmarks of effective development are realized with implementation of model-based approaches to systems and assurance. Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) enabled by standardized modeling languages (e.g., SysML®) is at the core. These benefits in the context of spaceflight system challenges can include [1]: • Improved management of complex development • Reduced risk in the development process • Improved cost management • Improved design decisions With appropriate modeling techniques the assurance community also can improve early oversight and insight into project development. NASA has shown the basic constructs of SysML in an MBSE environment offer several key advantages, within a Model Based Mission Assurance (MBMA) initiative [2, 3]. These include the following: • Model viewpoints that promote rapid and systematic assessment of requirements coverage, hazard tagging and risk management • Embedded safety assessments for launch vehicles • Deployment of model assisted development of reliability products - Failure Modes and Effects Analyses (FMEAs) and Fault Trees • Test Planning • Validation and Verification of complex functions • Support of Assurance Case development for complex systems In addition, while there are benefits to be harvested, there is a realization that these do not come without effort and cost. Enabling model-based approaches requires structure, not only in an organizational context, but in a modeling context as well. There can be a steep learning curve and costs associated to train skilled modelers. But, on the other hand, not all of the assurance community need to be modelers. Models themselves must conform to ontologies that enable assurance. This places constraints upon the models and modelers. Optimums have yet to be developed where resources and constraints on modeling must be traded off in the organization and modeling efforts for projects. A number of barriers need to be overcome, as well, which pose challenges to the developers of the software that supports MBSE/MBMA. Information and data must be made to flow seamlessly through the life cycle. Because there is a wide variety of tools used in the community, to avoid the problems of the past of silos, delays, and diverging interests, information should flow among these tools to support the “single source of truth” paradigm of MBSE. This will greatly facilitate MBMA and advancement of assurance functions.

Evans, John W.↗

DOE OSTI2026

Model-based, in-situ, non-destructive qualification and certification of parts made by autonomous additive manufacturing

To address the significant productivity challenges associated with the qualification and certification (Q&C) tasks of additively manufactured (AM) parts, which have traditionally relied on rigorous post‐build inspection and testing, we propose an integrated framework that combines model‐based qualification and certification (MBQ&C) with autonomous additive manufacturing (AAM). MBQ&C employs high‐fidelity predictive models, developed within the Integrated Computational Materials Engineering (ICME) paradigm, to simulate process–structure–property–performance relationships for assessing a part’s fitness for use. Since predictive models are commonly machine learning (ML)-based or reduced-order surrogates of validated physics models, they run efficiently, enabling timely inference. In parallel, the self-driving AAM utilises ML-based adaptive, closed‐loop control strategies to avoid, mitigate, or repair defects and anomalies during fabrication, thereby increasing the likelihood of producing acceptable parts. A key feature of the combined AAM-MBQ&C framework is that predictive models explicitly incorporate defects or anomalies that persist after the build, using instance-specific data captured via in-situ sensing. This customisation enables a build‐specific assessment of fitness for use, rather than relying on nominal or generic parameters. Such individualised evaluation provides a robust basis for Q&C-related acceptance decisions relating to each build. Additionally, the rapid solution capabilities of ML or reduced-order models enable the determination of a part’s suitability for service shortly after build completion. As the framework matures, it has the potential to substantially reduce reliance on conventional point‐design approaches—such as time‐consuming post‐build computed tomography scanning and costly destructive testing. Thus, the AAM-MBQ&C framework represents a transformative, scalable strategy for quality assurance of AM components, as parts produced within a stable, validated, and certified envelope can be certified with reduced testing. Key benefits include: (1) significant gains in Q&C productivity through efficient, model-centric assessment; (2) performance-based classification of defects into critical and non-critical categories; (3) the ability to predict potential deviations in the performance of parts affected by real-time, adaptive process control interventions relative to those produced under a certified process, and (4) the enabling of virtual Q&C for service environments that are difficult, hazardous, or impractical to access or reproduce experimentally. Collectively, these capabilities strengthen the business case for AM, particularly for high‐consequence and mission‐critical applications. Finally, although this work focuses on powder-based AM, the proposed techniques could be extended to AM processes employing alternative feedstock forms.

Gunasegaram, Dayalan↗

NASA NTRS2005

A Review of Diagnostic Techniques for ISHM Applications

System diagnosis is an integral part of any Integrated System Health Management application. Diagnostic applications make use of system information from the design phase, such as safety and mission assurance analysis, failure modes and effects analysis, hazards analysis, functional models, fault propagation models, and testability analysis. In modern process control and equipment monitoring systems, topological and analytic , models of the nominal system, derived from design documents, are also employed for fault isolation and identification. Depending on the complexity of the monitored signals from the physical system, diagnostic applications may involve straightforward trending and feature extraction techniques to retrieve the parameters of importance from the sensor streams. They also may involve very complex analysis routines, such as signal processing, learning or classification methods to derive the parameters of importance to diagnosis. The process that is used to diagnose anomalous conditions from monitored system signals varies widely across the different approaches to system diagnosis. Rule-based expert systems, case-based reasoning systems, model-based reasoning systems, learning systems, and probabilistic reasoning systems are examples of the many diverse approaches ta diagnostic reasoning. Many engineering disciplines have specific approaches to modeling, monitoring and diagnosing anomalous conditions. Therefore, there is no "one-size-fits-all" approach to building diagnostic and health monitoring capabilities for a system. For instance, the conventional approaches to diagnosing failures in rotorcraft applications are very different from those used in communications systems. Further, online and offline automated diagnostic applications are integrated into an operations framework with flight crews, flight controllers and maintenance teams. While the emphasis of this paper is automation of health management functions, striking the correct balance between automated and human-performed tasks is a vital concern.

Patterson-Hine, Ann↗

NASA NTRS2008

Certifying Auto-Generated Flight Code

Model-based design and automated code generation are being used increasingly at NASA. Many NASA projects now use MathWorks Simulink and Real-Time Workshop for at least some of their modeling and code development. However, there are substantial obstacles to more widespread adoption of code generators in safety-critical domains. Since code generators are typically not qualified, there is no guarantee that their output is correct, and consequently the generated code still needs to be fully tested and certified. Moreover, the regeneration of code can require complete recertification, which offsets many of the advantages of using a generator. Indeed, manual review of autocode can be more challenging than for hand-written code. Since the direct V&V of code generators is too laborious and complicated due to their complex (and often proprietary) nature, we have developed a generator plug-in to support the certification of the auto-generated code. Specifically, the AutoCert tool supports certification by formally verifying that the generated code is free of different safety violations, by constructing an independently verifiable certificate, and by explaining its analysis in a textual form suitable for code reviews. The generated documentation also contains substantial tracing information, allowing users to trace between model, code, documentation, and V&V artifacts. This enables missions to obtain assurance about the safety and reliability of the code without excessive manual V&V effort and, as a consequence, eases the acceptance of code generators in safety-critical contexts. The generation of explicit certificates and textual reports is particularly well-suited to supporting independent V&V. The primary contribution of this approach is the combination of human-friendly documentation with formal analysis. The key technical idea is to exploit the idiomatic nature of auto-generated code in order to automatically infer logical annotations. The annotation inference algorithm itself is generic, and parametrized with respect to a library of coding patterns that depend on the safety policies and the code generator. The patterns characterize the notions of definitions and uses that are specific to the given safety property. For example, for initialization safety, definitions correspond to variable initializations while uses are statements which read a variable, whereas for array bounds safety, definitions are the array declarations, while uses are statements which access an array variable. The inferred annotations are thus highly dependent on the actual program and the properties being proven. The annotations, themselves, need not be trusted, but are crucial to obtain the automatic formal verification of the safety properties without requiring access to the internals of the code generator. The approach has been applied to both in-house and commercial code generators, but is independent of the particular generator used. It is currently being adapted to flight code generated using MathWorks Real-Time Workshop, an automatic code generator that translates from Simulink/Stateflow models into embedded C code.

Denney, Ewen↗

NASA NTRS2010

Monitoring System for Storm Readiness and Recovery of Test Facilities: Integrated System Health Management (ISHM) Approach

Severe weather events are likely occurrences on the Mississippi Gulf Coast. It is important to rapidly diagnose and mitigate the effects of storms on Stennis Space Center's rocket engine test complex to avoid delays to critical test article programs, reduce costs, and maintain safety. An Integrated Systems Health Management (ISHM) approach and technologies are employed to integrate environmental (weather) monitoring, structural modeling, and the suite of available facility instrumentation to provide information for readiness before storms, rapid initial damage assessment to guide mitigation planning, and then support on-going assurance as repairs are effected and finally support recertification. The system is denominated Katrina Storm Monitoring System (KStorMS). Integrated Systems Health Management (ISHM) describes a comprehensive set of capabilities that provide insight into the behavior the health of a system. Knowing the status of a system allows decision makers to effectively plan and execute their mission. For example, early insight into component degradation and impending failures provides more time to develop work around strategies and more effectively plan for maintenance. Failures of system elements generally occur over time. Information extracted from sensor data, combined with system-wide knowledge bases and methods for information extraction and fusion, inference, and decision making, can be used to detect incipient failures. If failures do occur, it is critical to detect and isolate them, and suggest an appropriate course of action. ISHM enables determining the condition (health) of every element in a complex system-of-systems or SoS (detect anomalies, diagnose causes, predict future anomalies), and provide data, information, and knowledge (DIaK) to control systems for safe and effective operation. ISHM capability is achieved by using a wide range of technologies that enable anomaly detection, diagnostics, prognostics, and advise for control: (1) anomaly detection algorithms and strategies, (2) fusion of DIaK for anomaly detection (model-based, numerical, statistical, empirical, expert-based, qualitative, etc.), (3) diagnostics/prognostics strategies and methods, (4) user interface, (5) advanced control strategies, (6) integration architectures/frameworks, (7) embedding of intelligence. Many of these technologies are mature, and they are being used in the KStorMS. The paper will describe the design, implementation, and operation of the KStorMS; and discuss further evolution to support other needs such as condition-based maintenance (CBM).

Figueroa, Fernando↗

NASA NTRS2018

Dynamic Adjustment of Simulation Parameters for Efficient Vehicle Prognostics

Model-based diagnostics and prognostics rely on state estimation and uncertainty management algorithms to produce useful information for system operators and maintainers. This information enables more informed operational decisions, condition-based maintenance, and overall mission safety assurance. Typically, uncertainty is associated with vehicle state-of-health estimation and prediction results because of modeling errors, internal or external sources of noise, and sensor inaccuracy. Probabilistic uncertainty management methods including Sequential Monte Carlo simulation are commonly used to reason about state-of-health estimates and predictions in the presence of these sources of uncertainty. However, such algorithms can be computationally expensive as they require a very large number of samples to obtain a sufficiently accurate quantification of the end of life probability distribution. As a result, highly mobile autonomous systems that leverage the prognostic results for mission-level replanning are often constrained in their processing capability because of these computationally expensive simulation approaches. Therefore, in this paper, we investigate algorithmic methods for dynamically adjusting simulation time step as well as number of samples to achieve highly efficient prognostic results while maintaining results accuracy. Results obtained from simulated flight experiments of an electric unmanned aerial vehicle are presented to verify the efficacy of such algorithms.

Prognostics↗

NASA NTRS2019

Method for Tracking and Communicating Aggregate Risk Through the Use of Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Tools

Large, complex projects can identify a significant number and variety of risks, throughout the project life cycle. These risks are analyzed, mitigated, closed or accepted as independent uncertainties. Once closed or accepted, it is easy for projects to lose awareness of their impact. In reality, each of these risks contributes some amount to the overall risk posture of the project. The ability to track and effectively communicate this aggregate risk has represented a challenge to project management. There have been previous attempts to create a schema to communicate the aggregate effect of risks, without notable success. Most of these attempts have centered on some additive metric derived from the scoring of likelihood and consequence values. This, in and of itself, is a logical approach, but all too often the scores were then aggregated to a level where all context was lost. One weakness has been a lack of attempt to create linkages or logical groups of the risks upon which useful aggregation could then occur. The overall move to model-based (systems) engineering (MBSE) has opened up a vast frontier of opportunities to better integrate all project data. MBSE provides an underlying layer that links data items to each other. Objectives link to requirements, which then link to functions, functions to physical architecture items, and so on, as far down as projects want to model. While it started with a focus on modeling requirements based on things like use cases, efforts are now underway to integrate safety and mission assurance (S&MA) information and analyses, such as risks. This effort, called Model Based Mission Assurance (MBMA), is yielding models that are more useful and are a more accurate representations of the systems. MBSE models, with this ability to link related items, provide a new means of tracking and communicating aggregate risks. In the proposed method, risks are added into the models as distinct items, having attributes that communicate a scoring derived from the likelihood and consequence values as charted on the standard NASA 5x5 risk matrix. Like earlier efforts, each box in the 5x5 has an associated scoring, which may include both a current score and potential post-mitigation/control score. The risk items are then linked to elements of the model, such as system objectives/goals, requirements, functions, or physical architecture items, with "Risk to" relationships. These risks will then be communicated by use of reports generated from the model, detailing all risks and/or hazards linked to model elements. These reports can include aggregate impacts, including a current scoring and potential future state scoring based on the planned mitigations and/or controls. These reports will show all risks, open, accepted, and closed, linked to project objectives or requirements. When run as part of an upcoming risk acceptance discussion, these reports will serve to remind the team of all previous risks that relate to the effected portion of the system. When included as part of periodic program or project reviews, risk reviews, and safety reviews, this method can improve the overall understanding of the system's true risk posture. This proposed method takes full advantage of the advances that modern modeling techniques provide, with a minimal investment of additional time. Utilizing the model environment also enables a near constant access to current state of aggregate risks.

model based mission assurance↗

NASA NTRS2019

Health Management and Prognostics for Electric Aircraft Powertrain

W and c Any air borne vehicle needs incorporating safety as key parameter of measure, and inclusion of autonomy raises the critical need for safety under autonomous operations. Management of faults and component degradation is key as complexity in autonomous operations grow over the period of time. Therefore, in addition to basic operational requirements, an autonomous electric vehicle should be able to make accurate estimates of its current system health and take the correct decisions to complete its mission successfully. Real-time safety and state-awareness tools are therefore essential for the vehicle to be able to reach its destination in a safe and successful manner. The need for safety assurance and health management capabilities is particularly relevant for aircraft electric propulsion systems, which are relatively new and with limited historical to learn. They are critical systems requiring high power density along with reliability, resilience, efficient management of weight, and operational costs. A model- based fault diagnosis and prognostics approach of complex critical systems can successfully accomplish the safety and state awareness goal for such electric propulsion systems, enabling autonomous decision making capability for safe and efficient operation. To identify critical components in the system a Qualitative Bayesian approach using FMECA is implemented. This requires the assessment of some quantities representing the state of the electric unmanned aerial systems (e-UAS), as well as look-ahead forecasts of such states during the entire flight, presented in form of safety metrics (SM). In-service data and performance data gathered from degraded components sup- ports diagnostic and prognostic methods for these systems, but this data can be difficult to obtain as weight and packaging restrictions reduce redundancy and instrumentation on-board the vehicle. Therefore, an model-based framework should be capable or operating with limited data. In addition to data scarcity, the variability of such complex critical systems re- quires the model-based framework to reason in the presence of uncertainty, such as sensor noise, and modeling imperfections. Quantification of errors and uncertainties in the measured states and quantities is therefore a fundamental step for a precise estimation of such SMs; un-modeled uncertainty may result in erroneous state assessment and un- reliable predictions of future states of e-UAVs. Typical, centralized model-based schemes suffer from inherent disadvantages such as computational complexity, single point of failure, and scalability issues, and therefore may fail in such a complex scenario. This paper presents a methodology for developing a system level diagnostics and prognostics approach using a Qualitative Bayesian FMECA approach along with a formal uncertainty management framework for an e-UAS. In this work we demonstrate the efficacy of the framework to predict effects of sub-system level degradation on vehicle operation incorporating uncertainty management to predict future behavior under different operating conditions.

Kulkarni, Chetan↗

NASA NTRS2019

Enabling Assurance in the MBSE Environment

Evans, John W.↗

NASA NTRS2019

Realized Benefits from the Model-Based Systems Engineering Infusion and Modernization Initiative

Although Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) as a concept has existed for over a decade, overall acceptance within the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has been slow and is now growing. Since 2016, NASA’s MBSE Infusion And Modernization Initiative (MIAMI) has proven MBSE’s value to and increased its adoption at NASA. MBSE Pathfinder projects provided focused use cases that demonstrated both qualitative and quantitative benefits for systems engineering activities, and demonstrated the ability to connect MBSE models with discipline models such as structural loads and safety and mission assurance. MIAMI assisted NASA’s field centers to establish or enhance an MBSE presence. MIAMI partners with JAXA’s Systems Technology Unit to share lessons learned and demonstrate how MBSE can be used across organizations. Following its successful test cases, MIAMI is using design thinking, lean startup, and high technology marketing methodologies to implement a targeted deployment of its Community of Practice and other resources.

MBSE↗