Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Quality by Design”

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.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1991

On designing for quality

The problem of ensuring the required quality of products and/or technological processes often becomes more difficult due to the fact that there is not general theory of determining the optimal sets of value of the primary factors, i.e., of the output parameters of the parts and units comprising an object and ensuring the correspondence of the object's parameters to the quality requirements. This is the main reason for the amount of time taken to finish complex vital article. To create this theory, one has to overcome a number of difficulties and to solve the following tasks: the creation of reliable and stable mathematical models showing the influence of the primary factors on the output parameters; finding a new technique of assigning tolerances for primary factors with regard to economical, technological, and other criteria, the technique being based on the solution of the main problem; well reasoned assignment of nominal values for primary factors which serve as the basis for creating tolerances. Each of the above listed tasks is of independent importance. An attempt is made to give solutions for this problem. The above problem dealing with quality ensuring an mathematically formalized aspect is called the multiple inverse problem.

Vajingortin, L. D.↗
NASA NTRS1972

HELIOS Critical Design Review: Quality Assurance

The following is an account of the activities of the Quality Assurance (QA) department of the project management office highlighting some of the ways in which it controls QA of the subcontractors on one hand and reports on Quality to GfW (Gesellschaft fur Weltraumforschung) on the other hand. The basic document prepared by MBB (Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm) for QA activities is 1. The QA plan based on GfW 002. The QA department is responsible moreover for monitoring and making decisions about the quality of parts and materials and the governing document for this activity is 2. The Parts and Materials Control Plan based on GfW 001 - the reliability program provisions, as well as GfW 002. A brief survey of the contents of the QA Plan is shown. It should be noted that QA activity dealing with parts procurement is partially covered in a separate presentation entitled "Hi-Rel Parts". Supplementary quality documents are shown.

Benoehr, H. C.↗
NASA NTRS2000

Automated Hardware Design via Evolutionary Search

The goal of this research is to investigate the application of evolutionary search to the process of automated engineering design. Evolutionary search techniques involve the simulation of Darwinian mechanisms by computer algorithms. In recent years, such techniques have attracted much attention because they are able to tackle a wide variety of difficult problems and frequently produce acceptable solutions. The results obtained are usually functional, often surprising, and typically "messy" because the algorithms are told to concentrate on the overriding objective and not elegance or simplicity. advantages. First, faster design cycles translate into time and, hence, cost savings. Second, automated design techniques can be made to scale well and hence better deal with increasing amounts of design complexity. Third, design quality can increase because design properties can be specified a priori. For example, size and weight specifications of a device, smaller and lighter than the best known design, might be optimized by the automated design technique. The domain of electronic circuit design is an advantageous platform in which to study automated design techniques because it is a rich design space that is well understood, permitting human-created designs to be compared to machine- generated designs. developed for circuit design was to automatically produce high-level integrated electronic circuit designs whose properties permit physical implementation in silicon. This process entailed designing an effective evolutionary algorithm and solving a difficult multiobjective optimization problem. FY 99 saw many accomplishments in this effort.

Lohn, Jason D.↗
NASA NTRS1972

The Boeing 747 fatigue integrity program

The fatigue integrity program which was established to insure economic operations and to provide foundation data for inspection and maintenance is discussed. Significant features of the 747 fatigue integrity program are: (1) fatigue analyses which are continually updated to reflect design changes, fatigue test results, and static and flight load survey measurements; (2) material selection and detail design by using initial fatigue analyses, service experience, and testing; and (3) fatigue testing to check detail design quality and to verify the analyses, culminated by the test of a structurally complete airframe. Fatigue stress analyses were performed with the aid of experimental as well as analytical procedures. Extensive application was made of the stress severity factor, developed at Boeing, for evaluating peak stresses in complex joints. A frame of reference was established by families of structural fatigue performance curves (S-N curves) encompassing the range of materials and fatigue qualities anticipated for the 747 airplane design.

Spencer, M. M.↗
NASA NTRS1975

Intercity rail-passenger car ride quality test program

The Federal Railroad Administration's research and development program relating to intercity rail-passenger ride quality focuses on developing ride quality design criteria and specifications. The FRA ride quality test program and some of the techniques being used to analyze and evaluate the design criteria of the program are discussed.

Scharr, R. L.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Handling Qualities Optimization for Rotorcraft Conceptual Design

Over the past decade, NASA, under a succession of rotary-wing programs has been moving towards coupling multiple discipline analyses to evaluate rotorcraft conceptual designs. Handling qualities is one of the component analyses to be included in such a future Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization framework for conceptual design of VTOL aircraft. Similarly, the future vision for the capability of the Concept Design and Assessment Technology Area of the U.S Army Aviation Development Directorate also includes a handling qualities component. SIMPLI-FLYD is a tool jointly developed by NASA and the U.S. Army to perform modeling and analysis for the assessment of the handling qualities of rotorcraft conceptual designs. Illustrative scenarios of a tiltrotor in forward flight and singlemain rotor helicopter at hover are analyzed using SIMPLI-FLYD and the conceptual design sizing tool, NDARC, integrated in a single process. The effects of variations of design parameters such as horizontal tail and tail rotor size were evaluated in the form of margins to fixed- and rotary-wing handling qualities metrics and the computed vehicle empty weight. The handling qualities design margins are shown to vary across the flight envelope due to both changing flight dynamic and control characteristics and changing handling qualities specification requirements. The current SIMPLI-FLYD capability and future developments are discussed in the context of an overall rotorcraft conceptual design process.

Rotorcraft Conceptual Design↗
NASA NTRS2016

Handling Qualities Optimization for Rotorcraft Conceptual Design

Over the past decade, NASA, under a succession of rotary-wing programs has been moving towards coupling multiple discipline analyses in a rigorous consistent manner to evaluate rotorcraft conceptual designs. Handling qualities is one of the component analyses to be included in a future NASA Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization framework for conceptual design of VTOL aircraft. Similarly, the future vision for the capability of the Concept Design and Assessment Technology Area (CD&A-TA) of the U.S Army Aviation Development Directorate also includes a handling qualities component. SIMPLI-FLYD is a tool jointly developed by NASA and the U.S. Army to perform modeling and analysis for the assessment of flight dynamics and control aspects of the handling qualities of rotorcraft conceptual designs. An exploration of handling qualities analysis has been carried out using SIMPLI-FLYD in illustrative scenarios of a tiltrotor in forward flight and single-main rotor helicopter at hover. Using SIMPLI-FLYD and the conceptual design tool NDARC integrated into a single process, the effects of variations of design parameters such as tail or rotor size were evaluated in the form of margins to fixed- and rotary-wing handling qualities metrics as well as the vehicle empty weight. The handling qualities design margins are shown to vary across the flight envelope due to both changing flight dynamic and control characteristics and changing handling qualities specification requirements. The current SIMPLI-FLYD capability and future developments are discussed in the context of an overall rotorcraft conceptual design process.

Handling Qualities↗
NASA NTRS1976

Field spectrometer (S191H) preprocessor tape quality test program design document

Program QA191H performs quality assurance tests on field spectrometer data recorded on 9-track magnetic tape. The quality testing involves the comparison of key housekeeping and data parameters with historic and predetermined tolerance limits. Samples of key parameters are processed during the calibration period and wavelength cal period, and the results are printed out and recorded on an historical file tape.

Campbell, H. M.↗
NASA NTRS1994

Rotor-state feedback in the design of flight control laws for a hovering helicopter

The use of rigid-body and rotor-state feedback gains in the design of helicopter flight control laws was investigated analytically on a blade element, articulated rotor, helicopter model. The study was conducted while designing a control law to meet an existing military rotorcraft handling qualities design specification (ADS-33C) in low-speed flight. A systematic approach to meet this specification was developed along with an assessment of the function of these gains in the feedback loops. Using the results of this assessment, the pitch and roll crossover behavior was easily modified by adjusting the body attitude and rotor-flap feedback gains. Critical to understanding the feedback gains is that the roll and pitch rate dynamics each have second-order behavior, not the classic first-order behavior, which arises from a quasi-static rotor, six degree-of-freedom model.

Takahashi, Marc D.↗
NASA NTRS2000

Aerospace Systems Design in NASA's Collaborative Engineering Environment

Past designs of complex aerospace systems involved an environment consisting of collocated design teams with project managers, technical discipline experts, and other experts (e.g., manufacturing and systems operation). These experts were generally qualified only on the basis of past design experience and typically had access to a limited set of integrated analysis tools. These environments provided less than desirable design fidelity, often lead to the inability of assessing critical programmatic and technical issues (e.g., cost, risk, technical impacts), and generally derived a design that was not necessarily optimized across the entire system. The continually changing, modern aerospace industry demands systems design processes that involve the best talent available (no matter where it resides) and access to the the best design and analysis tools. A solution to these demands involves a design environment referred to as collaborative engineering. The collaborative engineering environment evolving within the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is a capability that enables the Agency's engineering infrastructure to interact and use the best state-of-the-art tools and data across organizational boundaries. Using collaborative engineering, the collocated team is replaced with an interactive team structure where the team members are geographical distributed and the best engineering talent can be applied to the design effort regardless of physical location. In addition, a more efficient, higher quality design product is delivered by bringing together the best engineering talent with more up-to-date design and analysis tools. These tools are focused on interactive, multidisciplinary design and analysis with emphasis on the complete life cycle of the system, and they include nontraditional, integrated tools for life cycle cost estimation and risk assessment. NASA has made substantial progress during the last two years in developing a collaborative engineering environment. NASA is planning to use this collaborative engineering engineering infrastructure to provide better aerospace systems life cycle design and analysis, which includes analytical assessment of the technical and programmatic aspects of a system from "cradle to grave." This paper describes the recent NASA developments in the area of collaborative engineering, the benefits (realized and anticipated) of using the developed capability, and the long-term plans for implementing this capability across Agency.

Monell, Donald W.↗
NASA NTRS1999

Aerospace Systems Design in NASA's Collaborative Engineering Environment

Past designs of complex aerospace systems involved an environment consisting of collocated design teams with project managers, technical discipline experts, and other experts (e.g. manufacturing and systems operations). These experts were generally qualified only on the basis of past design experience and typically had access to a limited set of integrated analysis tools. These environments provided less than desirable design fidelity, often lead to the inability of assessing critical programmatic and technical issues (e.g., cost risk, technical impacts), and generally derived a design that was not necessarily optimized across the entire system. The continually changing, modern aerospace industry demands systems design processes that involve the best talent available (no matter where it resides) and access to the best design and analysis tools. A solution to these demands involves a design environment referred to as collaborative engineering. The collaborative engineering environment evolving within the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is a capability that enables the Agency's engineering infrastructure to interact and use the best state-of-the-art tools and data across organizational boundaries. Using collaborative engineering, the collocated team is replaced with an interactive team structure where the team members are geographically distributed and the best engineering talent can be applied to the design effort regardless of physical location. In addition, a more efficient, higher quality design product is delivered by bringing together the best engineering talent with more up-to-date design and analysis tools. These tools are focused on interactive, multidisciplinary design and analysis with emphasis on the complete life cycle of the system, and they include nontraditional, integrated tools for life cycle cost estimation and risk assessment. NASA has made substantial progress during the last two years in developing a collaborative engineering environment. NASA is planning to use this collaborative engineering infrastructure to provide better aerospace systems life cycle design and analysis, which includes analytical assessment of the technical and programmatic aspects of a system from "cradle to grave." This paper describes the recent NASA developments in the area of collaborative engineering, the benefits (realized and anticipated) of using the developed capability, and the long-term plans for implementing this capability across the Agency.

Monell, Donald W.↗
NASA NTRS1984

A summary of rotorcraft handling qualities research at NASA Ames Research Center

The objectives of the rotorcraft handling qualities research program at Ames Research Center are twofold: (1) to develop basic handling qualities design criteria to permit cost effective design decisions to be made for helicopters, and (2) to obtain basic handling qualities data for certification of new rotorcraft configurations. The research on the helicopter handling qualities criteria has focused primarily on military nap-of-the-earth (NOE) terrain flying missions, which are flown in day visual meteorological conditions (VMC) and instrument meteorological conditions (IMC), or at night. The Army has recently placed a great deal of emphasis on terrain flying tactics in order to survive and effectively complete the missions in modern and future combat environments. Unfortunately, the existing Military Specification MIL-H 8501A which is a 1961 update of a 1951 document, does not address the handling qualities requirements for terrain flying. The research effort is therefore aimed at filling the void and is being conducted jointly with the Army Aeromechanics Laboratory at Ames. The research on rotorcraft airworthiness standards with respect to flying qualities requirements was conducted to collaboration with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Chen, R. T.↗
NASA NTRS2000

Initial Flight Evaluation of the Army/NASA RASCAL Variable Stability Helicopter

NASA Ames Research Center and the U.S. Army Aeroflightdynamics Directorate (AFDD) [will] have performed initial flight evaluations of the Research Flight Control System (RFCS) that has been integrated into the Army/NASA Rotorcraft Aircrew Systems Concepts Airborne Laboratory (RASCAL) variable stability helicopter. The RASCAL, a highly modified JUH-60A Black Hawk helicopter, is a variable-stability, in-flight simulator that is designed to support flight research programs that leverage on the flight control and handling qualities design tools developed by the Army and NASA. These tools are used in the flight control design life cycle from initial concept definition, through simulation, and ultimately into flight on-board the RASCAL helicopter. The RASCAL will be used to validate methodologies for reducing design cycle costs for new or modified aircraft, and it will serve as a base for the investigation of new rotorcraft technology.

Moralez, Ernesto, III↗
NASA NTRS1973

Establishment of quality, reliability and design standards for low, medium, and high power microwave hybrid microcircuits

Quality, reliability, and design standards for microwave hybrid microcircuits were established. The MSFC Standard 85M03926 for hybrid microcircuits was reviewed and modifications were generated for use with microwave hybrid microcircuits. The results for reliability tests of microwave thin film capacitors, transistors, and microwave circuits are presented. Twenty-two microwave receivers were tested for 13,500 unit hours. The result of 111,121 module burn-in and operating hours for an integrated solid state transceiver module is reported.

Robinson, E. A.↗
NASA NTRS2022

Recommendations on the Use of Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) Parts for NASA Missions - Phase II

This assessment had two Phases. Phase I captured NASA Centers’ current practices for commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical (EEE) parts 1 used in spaceflight systems and ground support equipment (available at https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20205011579) [ref. 1]. The Phase II report provides guidance for selecting and using COTS parts in NASA missions. The approaches proposed in this report differ from current agency practices. This top-level executive summary touches on these new approaches for using COTS parts but does not provide the detailed information that is critical in understanding the rationale behind these new approaches. Readers will need to read the entire report to gain full understanding and effectively use the recommendations herein. NASA’s historical approach to selecting and applying parts has been to define certain parts, primarily specific classes of military specification (MIL-SPEC) parts, as “standard”, leaving all others, including COTS parts, as nonstandard. Standard parts typically are used without further testing (“use-as-is”). Nonstandard parts are subjected to initial screening and subsequent lot acceptance testing of representative samples from each procured lot per MIL-SPEC or similar requirements. Decades later, top-tier commercial part manufacturers have evolved significant manufacturing, statistical control, and technological improvements that can now provide parts as reliable or more reliable than MIL-SPEC parts, when used within their datasheet limits. Concurrently, the space science and exploration community’s needs demand technological advances unavailable with MIL-SPEC parts. This ongoing change necessitates using COTS parts for space missions. Properly selected COTS parts in appropriate applications can offer performance and supply availability advantages compared to MIL-SPEC parts. Their utility and demonstrated reliability result from large volumes and automated production and testing processes. However, careful review and a thorough understanding of their specifications (i.e., datasheet limitations) is needed, and verifying that manufacturer specifications and reliability meet space hardware application needs are necessary. This report recommends MIL-SPEC screening and non-radiation-related lot acceptance testing be reduced or eliminated in cases where evidence of sufficient quality and reliability exists for COTS parts. The extent of NASA's insight into COTS manufacturers and the amount and nature of the needed evidence will differ by mission and will likely be driven by a mission's resources and associated risk posture. To facilitate this goal, two new terminologies have been defined and described: “Industry Leading Parts Manufacturer (ILPM)” and “Established COTS parts.” An ILPM is a COTS manufacturer that produces high quality and reliable parts. Some parts produced by ILPMs, defined as Established COTS parts, do not need any additional MIL-SPEC or NASA screening and lot acceptance testing to be used in space applications. This report provides guidance for selecting, procuring, and applying COTS parts and for performing part-, board-, and system-level COTS parts verification. The recommendation to select Established COTS parts from ILPMs will assure those COTS parts will have comparable quality to corresponding MIL-SPEC parts. Selecting, applying, and verifying Established COTS parts from ILPMs requires a holistic team approach, engaging parts engineers, circuit designers, quality, reliability, and systems engineers, procurement specialists, radiation specialists, avionics leads, and program/project managers. A mission-specific approach tailored to a project’s Mission, Environment, Applications and Lifetime (MEAL) [ref. 2] requirements should be developed and approved by program/project managers. Any associated risks should be clearly identified, quantified, mitigated, and/or accepted. Different approaches are recommended according to program/project Risk Classes A, B, C, and D [ref. 3] and human-rated missions [ref. 4]: 1. Recommend Classes A and B and human-rated missions consider a “MIL-SPEC parts- based design” approach. ”MIL-SPEC parts-based design” approach is one in which most parts are MIL-SPEC parts and Established COTS parts from ILPMs are used only when an equivalent MIL-SPEC part does not meet functional or size, weight, and power (SWaP) or performance requirements, or is not available. 2. Recommend Classes D and Sub-D missions consider a “System of COTS” approach. “System of COTS” approach is one which most parts are Established COTS parts from ILPMs. 3. Recommend Class C missions determine which approach is the best for their projects; that is, use either a “MIL-SPEC parts-based design” approach, “System of COTS” approach, or a combined approach utilizing elements of both. This report intends to provide guidance in using COTS parts for NASA missions with risk classifications of A through D and human-rated missions; but it does not address the costs of using COTS parts. Costs of using COTS parts in different NASA mission classes can vary significantly even if the same parts are used in different risk postures, due to differing verification levels needed. The guidance does not distinguish between critical or non-critical systems, and a given project will need to apply the appropriate guidance based on their risk posture. The intended audience of this report are NASA personnel and commercial practitioners who support NASA’s spaceflight missions, including spaceflight program or project managers, parts engineers, parts manufacturers, radiation engineers, avionics engineers, system engineers, circuit design engineers, reliability engineers, safety and mission assurance (SMA) personnel, and parts procurement specialists. The NEPP Program will perform a pathfinder study to explore implementing the guidance in this NESC report. An ILPM verification process is not the same as conventional vendor qualification processes performed according to military standards and specifications. This NESC report intends to provide guidance in utilizing available parts data from ILPM manufacturers for parts assurance assessments needed for NASA missions. The report also captured the current practices from DoD and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in Section 10. Note each DoD and FAA report was provided by the corresponding agencies regarding their practices, which are independent from the NESC recommendations in the report.

Commercial-Off-The-Shelf↗
NASA NTRS2015

Asteroid Redirect Crewed Mission Space Suit and EVA System Maturation

The Asteroid Redirect Crewed Mission (ARCM) requires a Launch/Entry/Abort (LEA) suit capability and short duration Extra Vehicular Activity (EVA) capability from the Orion spacecraft. For this mission, the pressure garment that was selected, for both functions, is the Modified Advanced Crew Escape Suit (MACES) with EVA enhancements and the life support option that was selected is the Exploration Portable Life Support System (PLSS). The proposed architecture was found to meet the mission constraints, but much more work is required to determine the details of the required suit upgrades, the integration with the PLSS, and the rest of the tools and equipment required to accomplish the mission. This work has continued over the last year to better define the operations and hardware maturation of these systems. EVA simulations have been completed in the NBL and interfacing options have been prototyped and analyzed with testing planned for late 2014. For NBL EVA simulations, in 2013, components were procured to allow in-house build up for four new suits with mobility enhancements built into the arms. Boots outfitted with clips that fit into foot restraints have also been added to the suit and analyzed for possible loads. Major suit objectives accomplished this year in testing include: evaluation of mobility enhancements, ingress/egress of foot restraint, use of foot restraint for worksite stability, ingress/egress of Orion hatch with PLSS mockup, and testing with two crew members in the water at one time to evaluate the crew's ability to help one another. Major tool objectives accomplished this year include using various other methods for worksite stability, testing new methods for asteroid geologic sampling and improving the fidelity of the mockups and crew equipment. These tests were completed on a medium fidelity capsule mockup, asteroid vehicle mockup, and asteroid mockups that were more accurate for an asteroid type EVA than previous tests. Another focus was the design and fabrication of the interface between the MACES and the PLSS. The MACES was not designed to interface with a PLSS, hence an interface kit must accommodate the unique design qualities of the MACES and provide the necessary life support function connections to the PLSS. A prototype interface kit for MACES to PLSS has been designed and fabricated. Unmanned and manned testing of the interface will show the usability of the kit while wearing a MACES. The testing shows viability of the kit approach as well as the operations concept. The design will be vetted through suit and PLSS experts and, with the findings from the testing, the best path forward will be determined. As the Asteroid Redirect Mission matures, the suit/life support portion of the mission will mature along with it and EVA Tools & Equipment can be iterated to accommodate the overall mission objectives and compromises inherent in EVA Suit optimization. The goal of the EVA architecture for ARCM is to continue to build on the previously developed technologies and lessons learned, and accomplish the ARCM EVAs while providing a stepping stone to future missions and destinations.

Bowie, Jonathan T.↗
NASA NTRS1990

Integrated topology and shape optimization in structural design

Structural optimization procedures usually start from a given design topology and vary its proportions or boundary shapes to achieve optimality under various constraints. Two different categories of structural optimization are distinguished in the literature, namely sizing and shape optimization. A major restriction in both cases is that the design topology is considered fixed and given. Questions concerning the general layout of a design (such as whether a truss or a solid structure should be used) as well as more detailed topology features (e.g., the number and connectivities of bars in a truss or the number of holes in a solid) have to be resolved by design experience before formulating the structural optimization model. Design quality of an optimized structure still depends strongly on engineering intuition. This article presents a novel approach for initiating formal structural optimization at an earlier stage, where the design topology is rigorously generated in addition to selecting shape and size dimensions. A three-phase design process is discussed: an optimal initial topology is created by a homogenization method as a gray level image, which is then transformed to a realizable design using computer vision techniques; this design is then parameterized and treated in detail by sizing and shape optimization. A fully automated process is described for trusses. Optimization of two dimensional solid structures is also discussed. Several application-oriented examples illustrate the usefulness of the proposed methodology.

Bremicker, M.↗