Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “assurance case”

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 NTRS2015

Explicate '78: Uncovering the Implicit Assurance Case in DO-178C

For about two decades, compliance with Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification (DO-178B/ED-12B) has been the primary means for receiving regulatory approval for using software on commercial airplanes. A new edition of the standard, DO-178C/ED-12C, was published in December 2011, and recognized by regulatory bodies in 2013. The purpose remains unchanged: to provide guidance 'for the production of software for airborne systems and equipment that performs its intended function with a level of confidence in safety that complies with airworthiness requirements.' The text of the guidance does not directly explain how its collection of objectives contributes to achieving this purpose; thus, the assurance case for the document is implicit. This paper presents an explicit assurance case developed as part of research jointly sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Holloway, C. Michael↗
NASA NTRS2012

Towards Understanding the DO-178C / ED-12C Assurance Case

This paper describes initial work towards building an explicit assurance case for DO-178C / ED-12C. Two specific questions are explored: (1) What are some of the assumptions upon which the guidance in the document relies, and (2) What claims are made concerning test coverage analysis?

Holloway, C M.↗
NASA NTRS2017

A CubeSat-Payload Radiation-Reliability Assurance Case using Goal Structuring Notation

CubeSats have become an attractive platform for universities, industry, and government space missions because they are cheaper and quicker to develop than full-scale satellites. One way CubeSats keep costs low is by using commercial off-the-shelf parts (COTS) instead of space-qualified parts. Space-qualified parts are often costlier, larger, and consume more power than their commercial counterparts precluding their use within the CubeSat form-factor. Given typical power budgets, monetary budgets, and timelines for CubeSat missions, conventional radiation hardness assurance, like the use of space-qualified parts and radiation testing campaigns of COTS parts, is not practical. Instead, a system-level approach to radiation effects mitigation is needed. In this paper an assurance case for a system-level approach to mitigate radiation effects of a CubeSat science experiment is expressed using Goal Structuring Notation (GSN), a graphical argument standard. The case specifically looks at three main mitigation strategies for the radiation environment: total ionizing dose (TID) screening of parts, detection and recovery from single-event latch-ups (SEL) and single-event functional interrupts (SEFI). The graphical assurance case presented makes a qualitative argument for the radiation reliability of the CubeSat experiment using part and system-level mitigation strategies.

COTS↗
NASA NTRS2013

Making the Implicit Explicit: Towards an Assurance Case for DO-178C

For about two decades, compliance with Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification (DO-178B) has been the primary means for receiving regulatory approval for using software on commercial airplanes. A new edition of the standard, DO-178C, was published in December 2011, and regulatory bodies have started the process towards recognizing this edition. The stated purpose of DO-178C remains unchanged from its predecessor: providing guidance “for the production of software for airborne systems and equipment that performs its intended function with a level of confidence in safety that complies with airworthiness requirements.” Within the text of the guidance, little or no rationale is given for how a particular objective or collection of objectives contributes to achieving this purpose. Thus the assurance case for the document is implicit. This paper discusses a current effort to make the implicit explicit. In particular, the paper describes the current status of the research seeking to identify the specific arguments contained in, or implied by, the DO-178C guidance that implicitly justify the assumption that the document meets its stated purpose.

Holloway, C. Michael↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Exploring Digital Transformation for NASA Nuclear Flight Safety

The U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA)’s Nuclear Flight Safety discipline is exploring opportunities to combine incremental advancements in many contributing areas in a way that produces a transformative change for how work is performed. More specifically, after providing some general NASA and space nuclear policy background, the authors will describe concepts and efforts that enable: (i) the use of objectives-d riven approaches (in concert with internal and external constraints) to establish a mission risk posture; (ii) the use of that risk posture in the planning process to risk-inform the selection of Safety and Mission Success (S&MS) methods and models; (iii) use of model-based and machine-assisted techniques to manage the complex and ponderous amount of information and interfaces that typify spaceflight efforts; (iv ) the means by which that infrastructure can directly feed an assurance case (including use of systems modelling language, ontological formulation, and semantic web technology) so as to address known weaknesses in our ability to communicate and manage that complexity; and (v) use of that case-assured framework to demonstrate that one did the adequate and sufficient S&MS work and that the S&MS work was done competently.

Donald Helton↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Dynamic Assurance of Autonomous Systems through Ground Control Software

Assurance cases are being increasingly acknowledged as a way to build trust in complex systems with autonomous capabilities [1]. An assurance case is a comprehensive, defensible, and valid justification that a system will function as intended for the specific mission and operating environment. Such justifications for systems with autonomous capabilities are often based on various probabilistic quantifications [2]. Due to the dynamic nature of the environmental conditions in which these systems operate, as well as the changing nature of the autonomous systems themselves, these probabilistic quantifications cannot be simply estimated once during design time. Rather, they need to be continually evaluated during systems operations to ensure that the assurance case justifications are valid. We refer to the assurance case that combines both the static and dynamic elements as a Dynamic Assurance Case (DAC). Such complex systems with autonomous capabilities are often deployed with a Ground Control Software (GCS) component to enable remote operation. Whether the system is composed of a single unit or a fleet of units, deployed distributed or in remote environments, GCS acts as a window into the behavior of the deployed system. It receives telemetry from the system, issues commands to the system and provides various functionalities to visualize the system performance. We propose a dynamic assurance framework where the GCS acts as a relay between the autonomous system and its DAC. GCS can be used to measure both unit-specific as well as system-wide probabilistic quantifications using the incoming telemetry. We embed these quantifications throughout the DAC as variables that can be updated by external sources. We use the GCS to periodically update these variables, which allows us to continually evaluate the formally defined assurance case justifications. We demonstrate our dynamic assurance framework in the NASA Ames project Troupe1 that aims at developing a fleet of rovers capable of au- tonomously mapping their environment. The rovers work cooperatively, each collecting data for different parts of the environment. Each rover runs an identical core Flight System (cFS) [4] application. Troupe1 uses OpenC3 Cosmos [5] as the ground system, and AdvoCATE [3] to capture the system DAC. We show how we can measure both rover-specific and system-wide quantifications in Cosmos using its Ruby scripting editor and pass them into the DAC modelled in AdvoCATE. Then, we show how these incoming variables can be embedded in different parts of the DAC and how effects of their updates can be observed

Irfan Sljivo↗
NASA NTRS2017

Technology and Tool Development to Support Safety and Mission Assurance

The Assurance Case approach is being adopted in a number of safety-mission-critical application domains in the U.S., e.g., medical devices, defense aviation, automotive systems, and, lately, civil aviation. This paradigm refocuses traditional, process-based approaches to assurance on demonstrating explicitly stated assurance goals, emphasizing the use of structured rationale, and concrete product-based evidence as the means for providing justified confidence that systems and software are fit for purpose in safely achieving mission objectives. NASA has also been embracing assurance cases through the concepts of Risk Informed Safety Cases (RISCs), as documented in the NASA System Safety Handbook, and Objective Hierarchies (OHs) as put forth by the Agency's Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA). This talk will give an overview of the work being performed by the SGT team located at NASA Ames Research Center, in developing technologies and tools to engineer and apply assurance cases in customer projects pertaining to aviation safety. We elaborate how our Assurance Case Automation Toolset (AdvoCATE) has not only extended the state-of-the-art in assurance case research, but also demonstrated its practical utility. We have successfully developed safety assurance cases for a number of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) operations, which underwent, and passed, scrutiny both by the aviation regulator, i.e., the FAA, as well as the applicable NASA boards for airworthiness and flight safety, flight readiness, and mission readiness. We discuss our efforts in expanding AdvoCATE capabilities to support RISCs and OHs under a project recently funded by OSMA under its Software Assurance Research Program. Finally, we speculate on the applicability of our innovations beyond aviation safety to such endeavors as robotic, and human spaceflight.

Mission Assuranc↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Dynamic Assurance of Autonomous Systems through Ground Control Software∗

Assurance cases are being increasingly acknowledged as a way to build trust in complex systems with autonomous capabilities [1]. An assurance case is a comprehensive, defensible, and valid justification that a system will function as intended for the specific mission and operating environment. Such justifications for systems with autonomous capabilities are often based on various probabilistic quantifications [2]. Due to the dynamic nature of the environmental conditions in which these systems operate, as well as the changing nature of the autonomous systems themselves, these probabilistic quantifications cannot be simply estimated once during design time. Rather, they need to be continually evaluated during systems operations to ensure that the assurance case justifications are valid. We refer to the assurance case that combines both the static and dynamic elements as a Dynamic Assurance Case (DAC).

dynamic assurance case↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Dynamic Assurance of Autonomous Systems Through Ground Control Software

Assurance cases have emerged as a way to build trust in complex autonomous systems. Many assurance case justifications for such systems need to be constantly reevaluated based on the current system context and performance. Autonomous systems, especially those deployed in remote environments, often have a ground control system that enables monitoring and remote operations. In this paper, we propose a dynamic assurance framework that aims at connecting the assurance case with the ground control system. We use the ground control system to facilitate dynamic evaluation of quantitative assurance measures that support various justifications in the assurance case. We demonstrate the proposed dynamic assurance framework on the NASA Ames Research Center project Troupe. We use a combination of in-house and external tools to identify the assurance measures, formalize the related requirements, and generate monitors that feed the data to the external ground control system.

dynamic assurance case↗
DOE OSTI2025

Safety Assurance Framework for Nuclear Digital Instrumentation and Control Software

Software in digital instrumentation and control (D&C) systems poses unique challenges for the safety assurance of nuclear power plants. Through a literature survey of 21 sources, we analyzed various claims, arguments, and evidence used in safety assurance cases across industries. These were organized into a Goal Structuring Notation (GSN) safety assurance case framework to organize and visualize the various arguments for DI&C safety. We developed a classification for the levels of the framework, which can be used in other safety assurance cases to improve clarity.

46 - INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AN↗