Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “software engineering software verification validation”

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 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2019

Updated Verification and Validation Assessment for VERA

The Virtual Environment for Reactor Applications (VERA) code suite is assessed in terms of capability and credibility against the Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors (CASL) Verification and Validation Plan (presented herein) in the context of three selected challenge problems: CRUD-Induced Power Shift (CIPS), Departure from Nucleate Boiling (DNB), and Pellet-Clad Interaction (PCI). Capability refers to evidence of required functionality for capturing phenomena of interest while credibility refers to the evidence that provides confidence in the calculated results. For this assessment, each challenge problem defines a set of phenomenological requirements against which the VERA software is assessed. This approach, in turn, enables the focused assessment of only those capabilities relevant to the challenge problem. The evaluation of VERA against the challenge problem requirements represents a capability assessment. The mechanism for assessment is the Sandia-developed Predictive Capability Maturity Model (PCMM) that, for this assessment, evaluates VERA on 8 major criteria: (1) Representation and Geometric Fidelity, (2) Physics and Material Model Fidelity, (3) Software Quality Assurance and Engineering, (4) Code Verification, (5) Solution Verification, (6) Separate Effects Model Validation, (7) Integral Effects Model Validation, and (8) Uncertainty Quantification. For each attribute, a maturity score from zero to three is assigned in the context of each challenge problem. The evaluation of these eight elements constitutes the credibility assessment for VERA.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
NASA NTRS1987

A NASA initiative: Software engineering for reliable complex systems

The objective is the development of methods, technology, and skills that will enable NASA to cost-effectively specify, build, and manage reliable software which can evolve and be maintained over an extended period. The need for such software is rooted in the increasing integration of software and computing components into NASA systems. Current NASA Software Engineering expertise was applied toward some of the largest reliable systems including: shuttle launch; ground support; shuttle simulation; minor control; satellite tracking; and scientific data systems. Unfortunately, no theory exists for reliable complex software systems. NASA is seeking to fill this theoretical gap through a number of approaches. One such approach is to conduct research on theoretical foundations for managing complex software systems. It includes: communication models, new and modified paradigms, and life-cycle models. Another approach is research in the theoretical foundations for reliable software development and validation. It focuses upon formal specifications, programming languages, software engineering systems, software reuse, formal verification, and software safety. Further approaches involve benchmarking a NASA software environment, experimentation within the NASA context, evolution of present NASA methodology, and transfer of technology to the space station software support environment.

Holcomb, Lee B.↗
NASA NTRS1991

NASA software documentation standard software engineering program

The NASA Software Documentation Standard (hereinafter referred to as Standard) can be applied to the documentation of all NASA software. This Standard is limited to documentation format and content requirements. It does not mandate specific management, engineering, or assurance standards or techniques. This Standard defines the format and content of documentation for software acquisition, development, and sustaining engineering. Format requirements address where information shall be recorded and content requirements address what information shall be recorded. This Standard provides a framework to allow consistency of documentation across NASA and visibility into the completeness of project documentation. This basic framework consists of four major sections (or volumes). The Management Plan contains all planning and business aspects of a software project, including engineering and assurance planning. The Product Specification contains all technical engineering information, including software requirements and design. The Assurance and Test Procedures contains all technical assurance information, including Test, Quality Assurance (QA), and Verification and Validation (V&V). The Management, Engineering, and Assurance Reports is the library and/or listing of all project reports.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1991

NASA Software Documentation Standard

The NASA Software Documentation Standard (hereinafter referred to as "Standard") is designed to support the documentation of all software developed for NASA; its goal is to provide a framework and model for recording the essential information needed throughout the development life cycle and maintenance of a software system. The NASA Software Documentation Standard can be applied to the documentation of all NASA software. The Standard is limited to documentation format and content requirements. It does not mandate specific management, engineering, or assurance standards or techniques. This Standard defines the format and content of documentation for software acquisition, development, and sustaining engineering. Format requirements address where information shall be recorded and content requirements address what information shall be recorded. This Standard provides a framework to allow consistency of documentation across NASA and visibility into the completeness of project documentation. The basic framework consists of four major sections (or volumes). The Management Plan contains all planning and business aspects of a software project, including engineering and assurance planning. The Product Specification contains all technical engineering information, including software requirements and design. The Assurance and Test Procedures contains all technical assurance information, including Test, Quality Assurance (QA), and Verification and Validation (V&V). The Management, Engineering, and Assurance Reports is the library and/or listing of all project reports.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1992

Software assurance standard

This standard specifies the software assurance program for the provider of software. It also delineates the assurance activities for the provider and the assurance data that are to be furnished by the provider to the acquirer. In any software development effort, the provider is the entity or individual that actually designs, develops, and implements the software product, while the acquirer is the entity or individual who specifies the requirements and accepts the resulting products. This standard specifies at a high level an overall software assurance program for software developed for and by NASA. Assurance includes the disciplines of quality assurance, quality engineering, verification and validation, nonconformance reporting and corrective action, safety assurance, and security assurance. The application of these disciplines during a software development life cycle is called software assurance. Subsequent lower-level standards will specify the specific processes within these disciplines.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2015

Survey of Verification and Validation Techniques for Small Satellite Software Development

The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the current trends and practices in small-satellite software verification and validation. This document is not intended to promote a specific software assurance method. Rather, it seeks to present an unbiased survey of software assurance methods used to verify and validate small satellite software and to make mention of the benefits and value of each approach. These methods include simulation and testing, verification and validation with model-based design, formal methods, and fault-tolerant software design with run-time monitoring. Although the literature reveals that simulation and testing has by far the longest legacy, model-based design methods are proving to be useful for software verification and validation. Some work in formal methods, though not widely used for any satellites, may offer new ways to improve small satellite software verification and validation. These methods need to be further advanced to deal with the state explosion problem and to make them more usable by small-satellite software engineers to be regularly applied to software verification. Last, it is explained how run-time monitoring, combined with fault-tolerant software design methods, provides an important means to detect and correct software errors that escape the verification process or those errors that are produced after launch through the effects of ionizing radiation.

Small Satellite Technology↗
NASA NTRS2003

Technology Transfer Challenges for High-Assurance Software Engineering Tools

In this paper, we describe our experience with the challenges thar we are currently facing in our effort to develop advanced software verification and validation tools. We categorize these challenges into several areas: cost benefits modeling, tool usability, customer application domain, and organizational issues. We provide examples of challenges in each area and identrfj, open research issues in areas which limit our ability to transfer high-assurance software engineering tools into practice.

John Penix↗
NASA NTRS1990

Knowledge-based system verification and validation

The objective of this task is to develop and evaluate a methodology for verification and validation (V&V) of knowledge-based systems (KBS) for space station applications with high reliability requirements. The approach consists of three interrelated tasks. The first task is to evaluate the effectiveness of various validation methods for space station applications. The second task is to recommend requirements for KBS V&V for Space Station Freedom (SSF). The third task is to recommend modifications to the SSF to support the development of KBS using effectiveness software engineering and validation techniques. To accomplish the first task, three complementary techniques will be evaluated: (1) Sensitivity Analysis (Worchester Polytechnic Institute); (2) Formal Verification of Safety Properties (SRI International); and (3) Consistency and Completeness Checking (Lockheed AI Center). During FY89 and FY90, each contractor will independently demonstrate the user of his technique on the fault detection, isolation, and reconfiguration (FDIR) KBS or the manned maneuvering unit (MMU), a rule-based system implemented in LISP. During FY91, the application of each of the techniques to other knowledge representations and KBS architectures will be addressed. After evaluation of the results of the first task and examination of Space Station Freedom V&V requirements for conventional software, a comprehensive KBS V&V methodology will be developed and documented. Development of highly reliable KBS's cannot be accomplished without effective software engineering methods. Using the results of current in-house research to develop and assess software engineering methods for KBS's as well as assessment of techniques being developed elsewhere, an effective software engineering methodology for space station KBS's will be developed, and modification of the SSF to support these tools and methods will be addressed.

Johnson, Sally C.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Analysis of the Value Added When Deploying a Model-Based Approach for the Validation and Verification of the Medical Database Software

The Medical Database (MD) is a virtual repository consisting of two software components: Medical Item Database (MedID) and the Evidence Library (EL). MedID consists of engineering data and associated information for specific medical resource items (e.g., pharmaceutical, medical devices, and supporting components), while the EL is a tool which provides all of the medical evidence necessary. The MD will 1) serve as the single “source of truth” for the Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces (IMPACT) tool suite for both medical evidence and medical resource engineering data and 2) will be used in conjunction with the IMPACT tool suite to inform research prioritizations and perform systematic trade study evaluations to aid stakeholders in making informed decisions regarding simulated human spaceflight missions. The MD project used a Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) approach to support all life cycles of the software development, while in parallel the human factors engineering team used modeling to support Human Centered Design (HCD) strategies in an effort to improve software usability. HCD is a frequently used approach in design frameworks that develops resolutions to complexities and challenges by involving the human perspective in all steps of the problem-solving process. By integrating the model-based approaches used for systems engineering and human factors activities, the project is able to leverage the model-based artifacts originally created for HCD activities for system level and human factors validation. In this presentation, our team highlights the value added when leveraging these model-based artifacts to support the on-going verification and validation activities.

C. Laing↗
NASA NTRS1988

Knowledge-based assistance in costing the space station DMS

The Software Cost Engineering (SCE) methodology developed over the last two decades at IBM Systems Integration Division (SID) in Houston is utilized to cost the NASA Space Station Data Management System (DMS). An ongoing project to capture this methodology, which is built on a foundation of experiences and lessons learned, has resulted in the development of an internal-use-only, PC-based prototype that integrates algorithmic tools with knowledge-based decision support assistants. This prototype Software Cost Engineering Automation Tool (SCEAT) is being employed to assist in the DMS costing exercises. At the same time, DMS costing serves as a forcing function and provides a platform for the continuing, iterative development, calibration, and validation and verification of SCEAT. The data that forms the cost engineering database is derived from more than 15 years of development of NASA Space Shuttle software, ranging from low criticality, low complexity support tools to highly complex and highly critical onboard software.

Henson, Troy↗
NASA NTRS2015

Fault Management Architectures and the Challenges of Providing Software Assurance

Fault Management (FM) is focused on safety, the preservation of assets, and maintaining the desired functionality of the system. How FM is implemented varies among missions. Common to most missions is system complexity due to a need to establish a multi-dimensional structure across hardware, software and spacecraft operations. FM is necessary to identify and respond to system faults, mitigate technical risks and ensure operational continuity. Generally, FM architecture, implementation, and software assurance efforts increase with mission complexity. Because FM is a systems engineering discipline with a distributed implementation, providing efficient and effective verification and validation (V&V) is challenging. A breakout session at the 2012 NASA Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) Annual Workshop titled "V&V of Fault Management: Challenges and Successes" exposed this issue in terms of V&V for a representative set of architectures. NASA's Software Assurance Research Program (SARP) has provided funds to NASA IV&V to extend the work performed at the Workshop session in partnership with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). NASA IV&V will extract FM architectures across the IV&V portfolio and evaluate the data set, assess visibility for validation and test, and define software assurance methods that could be applied to the various architectures and designs. This SARP initiative focuses efforts on FM architectures from critical and complex projects within NASA. The identification of particular FM architectures and associated V&V/IV&V techniques provides a data set that can enable improved assurance that a system will adequately detect and respond to adverse conditions. Ultimately, results from this activity will be incorporated into the NASA Fault Management Handbook providing dissemination across NASA, other agencies and the space community. This paper discusses the approach taken to perform the evaluations and preliminary findings from the research.

Fault Management↗
NASA NTRS2015

Fault Management Architectures and the Challenges of Providing Software Assurance

The satellite systems Fault Management (FM) is focused on safety, the preservation of assets, and maintaining the desired functionality of the system. How FM is implemented varies among missions. Common to most is system complexity due to a need to establish a multi-dimensional structure across hardware, software and operations. This structure is necessary to identify and respond to system faults, mitigate technical risks and ensure operational continuity. These architecture, implementation and software assurance efforts increase with mission complexity. Because FM is a systems engineering discipline with a distributed implementation, providing efficient and effective verification and validation (VV) is challenging. A breakout session at the 2012 NASA Independent Verification Validation (IVV) Annual Workshop titled VV of Fault Management: Challenges and Successes exposed these issues in terms of VV for a representative set of architectures. NASA's IVV is funded by NASA's Software Assurance Research Program (SARP) in partnership with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) to extend the work performed at the Workshop session. NASA IVV will extract FM architectures across the IVV portfolio and evaluate the data set for robustness, assess visibility for validation and test, and define software assurance methods that could be applied to the various architectures and designs. This work focuses efforts on FM architectures from critical and complex projects within NASA. The identification of particular FM architectures, visibility, and associated VVIVV techniques provides a data set that can enable higher assurance that a satellite system will adequately detect and respond to adverse conditions. Ultimately, results from this activity will be incorporated into the NASA Fault Management Handbook providing dissemination across NASA, other agencies and the satellite community. This paper discusses the approach taken to perform the evaluations and preliminary findings from the research including identification of FM architectures, visibility observations, and methods utilized for VVIVV.

Fault Management↗
NASA NTRS1992

Knowledge-based system V and V in the Space Station Freedom program

Knowledge Based Systems (KBS's) are expected to be heavily used in the Space Station Freedom Program (SSFP). Although SSFP Verification and Validation (V&V) requirements are based on the latest state-of-the-practice in software engineering technology, they may be insufficient for Knowledge Based Systems (KBS's); it is widely stated that there are differences in both approach and execution between KBS V&V and conventional software V&V. In order to better understand this issue, we have surveyed and/or interviewed developers from sixty expert system projects in order to understand the differences and difficulties in KBS V&V. We have used this survey results to analyze the SSFP V&V requirements for conventional software in order to determine which specific requirements are inappropriate for KBS V&V and why they are inappropriate. Further work will result in a set of recommendations that can be used either as guidelines for applying conventional software V&V requirements to KBS's or as modifications to extend the existing SSFP conventional software V&V requirements to include KBS requirements. The results of this work are significant to many projects, in addition to SSFP, which will involve KBS's.

Kelley, Keith↗
NASA NTRS2002

Verification and Validation of Neural Networks for Aerospace Systems

The Dryden Flight Research Center V&V working group and NASA Ames Research Center Automated Software Engineering (ASE) group collaborated to prepare this report. The purpose is to describe V&V processes and methods for certification of neural networks for aerospace applications, particularly adaptive flight control systems like Intelligent Flight Control Systems (IFCS) that use neural networks. This report is divided into the following two sections: Overview of Adaptive Systems and V&V Processes/Methods.

Mackall, Dale↗
NASA NTRS2002

Verification and Validation of Neural Networks for Aerospace Systems

The Dryden Flight Research Center V&V working group and NASA Ames Research Center Automated Software Engineering (ASE) group collaborated to prepare this report. The purpose is to describe V&V processes and methods for certification of neural networks for aerospace applications, particularly adaptive flight control systems like Intelligent Flight Control Systems (IFCS) that use neural networks. This report is divided into the following two sections: 1) Overview of Adaptive Systems; and 2) V&V Processes/Methods.

Mackall, Dale↗
NASA NTRS1990

Cost and quality planning for large NASA programs

The Software Cost and Quality Engineering methodology developed over the last two decades at IBM Federal Sector Div. is used to plan the NASA Space Station Data Management System (DMS). An ongoing project to capture this methodology, which is built on a foundation of experiences and lessons learned, has resulted in the development of a PC-based tool that integrates cost and quality forecasting methodologies and data in a consistent manner. This tool, Software Cost and Quality Engineering Starter Set (SCQESS), is being used to assist in the DMS costing exercises. At the same time, DMS planning serves as a forcing function and provides a platform for the continuing, iterative development, calibration, and validation and verification of SCQESS. The data that forms the cost and quality engineering data base is derived from more than 17 years of development of NASA Space Shuttle software, ranging from low criticality, low complexity support tools to highly complex and highly critical onboard software.

Rone, Kyle Y.↗
NASA NTRS1985

Some key considerations in evolving a computer system and software engineering support environment for the space station program

The space station data management system involves networks of computing resources that must work cooperatively and reliably over an indefinite life span. This program requires a long schedule of modular growth and an even longer period of maintenance and operation. The development and operation of space station computing resources will involve a spectrum of systems and software life cycle activities distributed across a variety of hosts, an integration, verification, and validation host with test bed, and distributed targets. The requirement for the early establishment and use of an apporopriate Computer Systems and Software Engineering Support Environment is identified. This environment will support the Research and Development Productivity challenges presented by the space station computing system.

Mckay, C. W.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Connecting Research and Practice: An Experience Report on Research Infusion with SAVE

NASA systems need to be highly dependable to avoid catastrophic mission failures. This calls for rigorous engineering processes including meticulous validation and verification. However, NASA systems are often highly distributed and overwhelmingly complex, making the software portion of these systems challenging to understand, maintain, change, reuse, and test. NASA's systems are long-lived and the software maintenance process typically constitutes 60-80% of the total cost of the entire lifecycle. Thus, in addition to the technical challenges of ensuring high life-time quality of NASA's systems, the post-development phase also presents a significant financial burden. Some of NASA's software-related challenges could potentially be addressed by some of the many powerful technologies that are being developed in software research laboratories. Many of these research technologies seek to facilitate maintenance and evolution by for example architecting, designing and modeling for quality, flexibility, and reuse. Other technologies attempt to detect and remove defects and other quality issues by various forms of automated defect detection, architecture analysis, and various forms of sophisticated simulation and testing. However promising, most such research technologies nevertheless do not make the transition from the research lab to the software lab. One reason the transition from research to practice seldom occurs is that research infusion and technology transfer is difficult. For example, factors related to the technology are sometimes overshadowed by other types of factors such as reluctance to change and therefore prohibits the technology from sticking. Successful infusion might also take very long time. One famous study showed that the discrepancy between the conception of the idea and its practical use was 18 years plus or minus three. Nevertheless, infusing new technology is possible. We have found that it takes special circumstances for such research infusion to succeed: 1) there must be evidence that the technology works in the practitioner's particular domain, 2) there must be a potential for great improvements and enhanced competitive edge for the practitioner, 3) the practitioner has to have strong individual curiosity and continuous interest in trying out new technologies, 4) the practitioner has to have support on multiple levels (i.e. from the researchers, from management, from sponsors etc), and 5) to remain infused, the new technology has to be integrated into the practitioner's processes so that it becomes a natural part of the daily work. NASA IV&V's Research Infusion initiative sponsored by NASA's Office of Safety & Mission Assurance (OSMA) through the Software Assurance Research Program (SARP), strives to overcome some of the problems related to research infusion.

Lindvall, Mikael↗