SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Qualitative and Quantitative verification”

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.

21 records · Page 2

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2018

Overview of the Exploration Exercise Device Validation Study Plans

The NASA has determined that a multi-functional exercise device will be developed for use as an exercise device during exploration missions. The device will allow for full body resistance and metabolic exercise necessary to minimize physiological losses during space flight and to maintain fitness necessary to perform critical mission tasks. Prior to implementation as an exercise device on an Exploration vehicle, there will be verification and validation testing completed to determine device efficacy at providing the necessary training stimuli to achieve desired goals. Because the exploration device will be new device that has yet be specified, specific Verification and Validation (V&V) protocols have yet to be developed. Upon delivery of an exploration exercise device training unit, stakeholders throughout NASA will develop V&V plans that include ground-based testing and testing on the International Space Station (ISS). Stakeholders will develop test protocols that include success criterion for the device. Ground tests will occur at NASA Johnson Space Station prior to flight testing. The intents of the ground tests are to allow crew, spaceflight medicine, science, engineering, Astronaut Strength, Conditioning, and Reconditioning staff, and others to gain experience in the best utilization of the device. The goal is to obtain an evidence base for recommending use of the device on the ISS. The developed protocol will be created to achieve multiple objectives, including determining if the device provides an adequate training stimulus for 5th - 95th percentile males and females, allows for exercise modalities that protect functional capability, and is robust and can withstand extensive human use. Although protocols are yet to be determined, current expectations include use of the device by test subjects and current crew in order to obtain quantitative and qualitative feedback. Information obtained during the ground tests may be used to influence device modifications during design iterations. Assuming successful ground tests, the device will be installed on the ISS for testing during space flight. Spaceflight testing is envisioned to include an activation and checkout (ACO) phase and a V&V phase. During the ACO phase, 1-2 crewmembers will exercise with the device to ensure proper function. ACO is expected to last multiple months because of the many modes and methods of exercise that need to be assessed. However, the goal is to complete the ACO as quickly as possible. Once successful ACO occurs, the crew will be free to use the device for normal exercise pending concurrence from stakeholders. V&V tests on the ISS will ideally consist of crew using the device for all of their exercise for an entire mission. Exercise prescriptions will be supplied that replicate expected prescriptions during exploration missions. Crew that are not enrolled in the V&V studies would be also free to use the device as their schedule permits. As experience is gained by users, exercise protocols could change. The intent of all V&V testing is to ensure that all have thorough understanding of experience at optimizing device capability

DeWitt, J. K.↗

DOE OSTI2025

Simulation Center for Runaway Electron Avoidance and Mitigation (SCREAM SciDAC) (Technical Final Report)

Runaway electrons can severely damage the plasma facing components on ITER during a major disruption and pose a major risk for tokamak fusion. It has been recognized that an adequate disruption mitigation system (DMS) is essential for the safe operation of ITER. The United States is responsible for the design and implementation of the disruption mitigation system on ITER, and in July 2016 the Simulation Center for Runaway Electron Avoidance and Mitigation (SCREAM) was launched by DOE, in a joint Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) and Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) collaboration. SCREAM was a comprehensive theory and simulation SciDAC center that provided physics guidance in the avoidance and mitigation of runaway electrons, and in tandem with domestic and international experiments, helped establish the qualitative and quantitative bases for safe operational scenarios and viable mitigation techniques. The SCREAM center assembled a national team of experts in runaway electron physics, tokamak disruptions, magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulation, and advanced algorithms and computing. The team combined advanced simulation and analysis capability facilitated by direct participation of ASCR SciDAC institutes with theoretical models and code development by FES scientists to focus on the runaway risk for ITER and tokamaks in general. The research scope was focussed on integrated simulations of kinetic runaway electrons, including MHD and fluid models of impurity transport, within a research plan guided by theory. The specific research tasks were (1) establish the fundamental physics of runaway generation, saturation, and dynamical evolution in a tokamak; (2) examine the critical path toward runaway avoidance; and (3) investigate the viability and effectiveness of the leading candidate schemes for runaway mitigation. In all three areas, members of the team carried out scoping studies that established the readiness for rapid and critical advances, especially in the deployment and further development of large-to extreme-scale simulation tools. Our multi-pronged computational approach included (1) relativistic Fokker-Planck solvers with discretization in phase space, (2) self-consistent particle-in-cell techniques, (3) particle-based Monte-Carlo, and (4) MHD-particle hybrid simulations. Cross-check between these different methods provided an additional means for verification and further bolstered the fidelity of our physics prediction. Validation against experimental results brings confidence to the predictive capability for ITER and frequently leads to new ideas for understanding and mitigating the thermal quench driven runaway electron phenomenon.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗

NASA NTRS2003

Experimental Evaluation of Verification and Validation Tools on Martian Rover Software

To achieve its science objectives in deep space exploration, NASA has a need for science platform vehicles to autonomously make control decisions in a time frame that excludes intervention from Earth-based controllers. Round-trip light-time is one significant factor motivating autonomy capability, another factor is the need to reduce ground support operations cost. An unsolved problem potentially impeding the adoption of autonomy capability is the verification and validation of such software systems, which exhibit far more behaviors (and hence distinct execution paths in the software) than is typical in current deepspace platforms. Hence the need for a study to benchmark advanced Verification and Validation (V&V) tools on representative autonomy software. The objective of the study was to access the maturity of different technologies, to provide data indicative of potential synergies between them, and to identify gaps in the technologies with respect to the challenge of autonomy V&V. The study consisted of two parts: first, a set of relatively independent case studies of different tools on the same autonomy code, second a carefully controlled experiment with human participants on a subset of these technologies. This paper describes the second part of the study. Overall, nearly four hundred hours of data on human use of three different advanced V&V tools were accumulated, with a control group that used conventional testing methods. The experiment simulated four independent V&V teams debugging three successive versions of an executive controller for a Martian Rover. Defects were carefully seeded into the three versions based on a profile of defects from CVS logs that occurred in the actual development of the executive controller. The rest of the document is structured a s follows. In section 2 and 3, we respectively describe the tools used in the study and the rover software that was analyzed. In section 4 the methodology for the experiment is described; this includes the code preparation, seeding of defects, participant training and experimental setup. Next we give a qualitative overview of how the experiment went from the point of view of each technology; model checking (section 5), static analysis (section 6), runtime analysis (section 7) and testing (section 8). The find section gives some preliminary quantitative results on how the tools compared.

Brat, Guillaume↗