Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “program 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.

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

At least 613 records · Page 34
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1991

A constitutive model for the high temperature inelastic response of nickel base superalloys

The objective of this research is to develop a constitutive equation for the uniaxial and multiaxial fatigue response of Rene 80 between the temperatures of 538 C and 982 C. The constitutive equation is accompanied by an experimental program for the evaluation of the material constants and extensive verification through the successful prediction of mechanical cycling experiments. These results include the prediction of the high temperature multiaxial response of Rene 80 that includes torsion and proportional and non-proportional loading histories.

Stouffer, D. C.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human-in-the-Loop Evaluations: Process and Mockup Fidelity

Human-in-the-loop (HITL) evaluations are iterative events used during design and development to identify issues with the implementation of human systems integration. HITL evaluations involve human test subjects who are user-representative participants performing activities with representative hardware, software, and procedures. The paper will describe the process by which HITL evaluations can be implemented in a program or project. This will include definitions for developmental and verification HITL evaluations, levels of mockup fidelity, and certification of HITL articles. The proposed process can be tailored depending on the type of HITL evaluation being conducted. It is highly recommended that findings are timely reported and incorporated in the hardware and/or software design.

Jackelynne Silva-Martinez↗
NASA NTRS2020

Validation on the Europa Clipper Mission in the Formulation Phase

The Europa Clipper mission will perform a detailed investigation of Europa’s environment and habitability by placing a spacecraft into a looping orbit around Jupiter and performing repeated close Europa flybys. The Europa Clipper Project Verification and Validation (V&V) team is responsible for verifying that the Project System is compliant with the science and engineering requirements levied on it and validating that it is capable of meeting the mission objectives. Europa Clipper has developed a V&V framework to ensure that mission capabilities are realized at a reasonable confidence level prior to launch. The V&V team will coordinate the validation activities defined by this framework throughout the project lifecycle as the spacecraft evolves from design to implementation and operations. Validation of space missions is typically grouped into three categories: 1) requirements validation, 2) model validation, and 3) system validation. System validation, along with verification activities, are often the primary focus of V&V programs and these efforts peak in the implementation phase. However, the increasing reliance of exploration missions on models and simulations, and the complexity of the Europa Clipper mission, have dictated attention to requirements and model validation in the formulation phase. This paper discusses the development of the Europa Clipper V&V framework with emphasis on the validation of models and simulations, and of requirements. Approaches include the adaptation of institutional guidelines, such as those in the NASA-STD-7009 document, to create a Project Model V&V Plan and the use of tools such as DOORS NG to plan model validation and derive requirement quality metrics.

Srivastava, Priyanka↗
NASA NTRS2017

The Tools That Help Systems Engineering

There are many tools that systems engineers use in today's space programs. In my time in the Commercial Crew Program I sought to improve one of the vital tools for the verification and validation team. This was my main project but only a small part of what I have done in the department. I have also had the chance to learn from the best and see actual hardware, this real world experience will help me be a better aerospace engineer when I enter the workforce. I look forward to seeing the Commercial Crew Program progress to launch.

Gamertsfelder, Jacob O.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Verification and Validation Process for Progressive Damage and Failure Analysis Methods in the NASA Advanced Composites Consortium

The Advanced Composites Consortium is a US Government/Industry partnership supporting technologies to enable timeline and cost reduction in the development of certified composite aerospace structures. A key component of the consortium's approach is the development and validation of improved progressive damage and failure analysis methods for composite structures. These methods will enable increased use of simulations in design trade studies and detailed design development, and thereby enable more targeted physical test programs to validate designs. To accomplish this goal with confidence, a rigorous verification and validation process was developed. The process was used to evaluate analysis methods and associated implementation requirements to ensure calculation accuracy and to gage predictability for composite failure modes of interest. This paper introduces the verification and validation process developed by the consortium during the Phase I effort of the Advanced Composites Project. Specific structural failure modes of interest are first identified, and a subset of standard composite test articles are proposed to interrogate a progressive damage analysis method's ability to predict each failure mode of interest. Test articles are designed to capture the underlying composite material constitutive response as well as the interaction of failure modes representing typical failure patterns observed in aerospace structures.

Wanthal, Steven↗
NASA NTRS1978

Advanced rotorcraft technology: Task force report

The technological needs and opportunities related to future civil and military rotorcraft were determined and a program plan for NASA research which was responsive to the needs and opportunities was prepared. In general, the program plan places the primary emphasis on design methodology where the development and verification of analytical methods is built upon a sound data base. The four advanced rotorcraft technology elements identified are aerodynamics and structures, flight control and avionic systems, propulsion, and vehicle configurations. Estimates of the total funding levels that would be required to support the proposed program plan are included.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1991

Towards Other Planetary Systems (TOPS): A technology needs identification workshop

The workshop identified a strong commonality between the technology needs for NASA's TOPS program and the technology needs that were identified for NASA's astrophysics program through its Astrotech 21 survey. The workshop encourages NASA to have the Solar System Exploration and Astrophysics Div. work cooperatively to share in technology studies that are common to both programs, rather than to conduct independent studies. It was also clear, however, that there are technology needs specific to TOPS, and these should be pursued by the Solar System Exploration Div. There are two technology areas that appear to be particularly critical to realizing the ultimate performance that is being sought under the TOPS program, these areas are metrology and optics. The former is critical in calibration and verification of instrument performance, while the latter is needed to provide optical systems of sufficient quality to conduct a search for and characterization of other planetary systems at the more extreme levels of performance identified in TOPS program.

Black, David C.↗
DOE OSTI2023

The Uniform Methods Project: Smart Thermostat Evaluation Protocol

A smart thermostat is an internet-connected device that controls home heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment and can automatically adjust temperature set points to optimize performance and achieve energy savings. Smart thermostat features often include two way communication, occupancy detection (such as geofencing and occupancy sensors), schedule learning, and seasonal optimization algorithms. Smart thermostats can control most conventional HVAC systems, including central air conditioners, heat pumps, and forced air furnaces. Several types of residential utility programs offer smart thermostats as replacements measures. Working with smart thermostat vendors, utilities can offer separate optimization programs to produce energy savings beyond those achieved by installing a smart thermostat. From an evaluation perspective, smart thermostat programs have several noteworthy features. First, the energy savings from a smart thermostat may change over the life of the device. As a smart thermostat is connected to the internet, original equipment manufacturers can update the thermostat software to improve the thermostat's energy efficiency. Likewise, users can adjust the thermostat settings and schedules over time in response to changes in weather, thermal comfort, energy prices, or preferences for energy efficiency. Additionally, many thermostat manufacturers offer seasonal optimization programs that recommend changes or make minor, automated adjustments to the thermostat settings to improve energy efficiency. These opt-in programs are now standard offerings for many smart thermostat manufacturers and provided at no additional cost to users. The potential for software updates and continuous optimization and the evolving nature of user interactions mean future energy savings may differ from first-year savings and the energy savings of smart thermostats may need to be evaluated more than once. Second, smart thermostats often have small unit energy savings relative to a home's total energy consumption, especially in comparison to whole- home retrofit programs. This can make it difficult to detect the smart thermostat savings in billing or advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) meter consumption data. For example, as cooling loads in many regions average about 20% of annual electricity consumption, smart thermostat savings of 10% of cooling energy use would equate to a 2% reduction in home electricity consumption. Evaluators should use regression analysis of whole-home billing consumption or advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) meter consumption data to evaluate smart thermostat savings because, as explained at greater length below , these data are usually available to evaluators and regression can control for the impacts of weather and other potentially confounding factors on a home's energy consumption. Finally, as with other energy efficiency programs, participation in smart thermostat programs is self-selective. As discussed at greater length below , smart thermostat participants tend to be, among other things, younger, higher-income, and more likely to adopt electric vehicles (EVs) and internet connected devices than nonparticipants. These differences are often unobservable to the evaluator and correlated with a home's energy consumption, creating the potential for bias in estimating savings. Due to the small unit savings of thermostats, errors and biases from self-selection that may not be very consequential when evaluating a whole- home retrofits (e.g., ±2% of home electricity consumption) can have a major impact when evaluating the savings and cost-effectiveness of smart thermostat programs. A percentage point change in the estimated savings could affect the cost-effectiveness of a program. This means it is important for evaluators to assess and to minimize the potential for error from selection bias in estimating smart thermostat program savings. The Uniform Methods Project provides model protocols for determining energy savings and demand reductions that result from specific energy efficiency measures implemented through state and utility programs. In most cases, the measure protocols are based on a particular option identified by the International Performance Verification and Measurement Protocol ; however, this work provides a more detailed approach to implementing that option. Each chapter is written by technical experts in collaboration with their peers, reviewed by industry experts, and subject to public review and comment. The UMP protocols can be used by utilities, program administrators, public utility commissions, evaluators, and other stakeholders for both program planning and evaluation.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
NASA NTRS2009

From Verified Models to Verifiable Code

Declarative specifications of digital systems often contain parts that can be automatically translated into executable code. Automated code generation may reduce or eliminate the kinds of errors typically introduced through manual code writing. For this approach to be effective, the generated code should be reasonably efficient and, more importantly, verifiable. This paper presents a prototype code generator for the Prototype Verification System (PVS) that translates a subset of PVS functional specifications into an intermediate language and subsequently to multiple target programming languages. Several case studies are presented to illustrate the tool's functionality. The generated code can be analyzed by software verification tools such as verification condition generators, static analyzers, and software model-checkers to increase the confidence that the generated code is correct.

Lensink, Leonard↗
DOE OSTI2024

MOOSE-Based Fast Reactor Core Bowing Capabilities: Coupled Structural Mechanics – Thermal Fluids Demonstration and Related Verification Efforts

Under the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy’s Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NEAMS) Program, an integrated multiphysics approach is being developed to model the core bowing phenomena important to liquid metal-cooled fast reactors. Core bowing is an important passive safety mechanism in liquid metal-cooled fast reactors and involves multiphysics effects including radiation transport, fluid flow, heat transfer, and mechanical response to temperature and flux gradients. Verification and assessment efforts continued on the Multiphysics Object Oriented Simulation Environment (MOOSE) capabilities relevant for modeling thermo-mechanical core bowing behavior. IAEA Verification Problem 4, which was started in FY23, was further examined with MOOSE capabilities to rectify discrepancies observed in previous years when compared to IAEA benchmark participant data. Meshing and postprocessing capabilities in MOOSE were also advanced by other teams and utilized this year. A thermal fluids-structural mechanical coupling demonstration has performed on 7-assemblyand 19-assembly fast reactor assembly configurations using MOOSE. Subchannel capabilities are used to calculate coolant temperature, and heat conduction capabilities calculate duct wall temperature as well as heat transfer through the inter-assembly gap. Structural mechanical capabilities then deform the mesh, accounting for contact between assemblies, according to the temperature gradients calculated by the thermal solvers. Power distributions are imposed rather than calculated to demonstrate different deformations.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Supplement to M&V Guidelines: Measurement and Verification for Performance-Based Contracts Version 4.0

Measurement and verification (M&V) are key to determining and confirming the continued operation of, and savings associated with, performance-based contracts. The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) updates these guidelines to reflect the evolution of M&V to incorporate industry best practices and ensure that savings from these performance-based projects are properly planned, communicated, and realized. FEMP released M&V Guidelines: Measurement and Verification for Federal Energy Projects Version 3.0 in 2008. This document was developed with input from industry-government working groups, previous M&V guideline authors, and national laboratory subject matter experts. The document provided the methods and guidelines, with a focus on federal energy savings performance contracts (ESPCs). When FEMP released M&V Guidelines: Measurement and Verification for Performance-Based Contracts Version 4.0 in 2015, FEMP expanded the intended audience to include anyone (energy managers, procurement officers, and contractors) involved in implementing performance-based contracts. The streamlined M&V Guidelines Version 4.0 provided the procedures and guidelines needed to quantify savings resulting from installing energy-efficient equipment, water conservation, improved operation and maintenance (O&M), renewable energy, and cogeneration projects with a performance-based contract; however, it removed some of the associated details on topics such as developing regression models and sampling plans. The details and information provided in M&V Guidelines v. 3.0 are still pertinent to M&V for performance-based contracts. The objective is to keep FEMP M&V version 4.0 condensed, providing the reference document for specifying M&V methods and procedures and a resource for developing project-specific M&V plans; this supplement provides additional details. The content of this supplement has been updated to include pertinent revisions between M&V version 3.0 and M&V version 4.0 by providing details and updating the content to ensure relevancy.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2023

FAST-1.2 User Installation and Verification Guide: Developed Under NQA-1-2017

The purpose of this document is to provide the user information about the installation of Fuel Analysis for Steady state and Transient (FAST)-1.2 on their computers or servers. General information about the code and supported operating systems is described in Section 1.0. Self-service oriented FAST-1.2 software licensing steps are described in Section 2.0. An installation verification test suite is provided with FAST-1.2 and described in Section 3.0. A convenience script for converting Fuel Rod Analysis Program – Constant (FRAPCON) to FAST inputs is discussed in Section 4.0. FAST-1.2 was developed and released under a software quality assurance program based upon NQA-1-2017 at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). FAST-1.2 is the latest baseline code. The installation verification test suite contains both steady state and transient Anticipated Operation Occurrences (AOOs), accident conditions, such as Reactivity Initiated Accidents (RIAs) and Loss of Coolant Accidents (LOCAs).

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
NASA NTRS1992

Manipulator design and development for the Ranger satellite servicing vehicle

The Ranger program is a planned series of low cost telerobotics flight experiments, based on the use of Pegasus launch vehicles. As the first step towards this goal, the Space Systems Lab was developing a neutral buoyancy version of Ranger for use in design verification and operations testing. The design approach and results of the Ranger manipulator development program is related. Ranger is designed to incorporate four appendages: a pair of dexterous, seven degree of freedom manipulators for general manipulation; a six DOF grappling arm for securing the vehicle to the local work site; and a five DOF positioning manipulator for the stereo camera pair that provide feedback to the remote operator. Each of these manipulators incorporate unique approaches to satisfying design requirements. The numerical and operational requirements are given for Ranger manipulators, and the evolution is discussed of the differing design approaches based on similarities and differences in the requirements. Testing results for individual joints and manipulator assemblies are presented, followed by initial results of operational testing on satellite servicing tasks with the integrated Ranger neutral buoyancy vehicle.

Howard, Russell D.↗
NASA NTRS1987

Verification of FANTASTIC integrated code

FANTASTIC is an acronym for Failure Analysis Nonlinear Thermal and Structural Integrated Code. This program was developed by Failure Analysis Associates, Palo Alto, Calif., for MSFC to improve the accuracy of solid rocket motor nozzle analysis. FANTASTIC has three modules: FACT - thermochemical analysis; FAHT - heat transfer analysis; and FAST - structural analysis. All modules have keywords for data input. Work is in progress for the verification of the FAHT module, which is done by using data for various problems with known solutions as inputs to the FAHT module. The information obtained is used to identify problem areas of the code and passed on to the developer for debugging purposes. Failure Analysis Associates have revised the first version of the FANTASTIC code and a new improved version has been released to the Thermal Systems Branch.

Chauhan, Rajinder Singh↗
NASA NTRS1993

Verification of thermal analysis codes for modeling solid rocket nozzles

One of the objectives of the Solid Propulsion Integrity Program (SPIP) at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) is development of thermal analysis codes capable of accurately predicting the temperature field, pore pressure field and the surface recession experienced by decomposing polymers which are used as thermal barriers in solid rocket nozzles. The objective of this study is to provide means for verifications of thermal analysis codes developed for modeling of flow and heat transfer in solid rocket nozzles. In order to meet the stated objective, a test facility was designed and constructed for measurement of the transient temperature field in a sample composite subjected to a constant heat flux boundary condition. The heating was provided via a steel thin-foil with a thickness of 0.025 mm. The designed electrical circuit can provide a heating rate of 1800 W. The heater was sandwiched between two identical samples, and thus ensure equal power distribution between them. The samples were fitted with Type K thermocouples, and the exact location of the thermocouples were determined via X-rays. The experiments were modeled via a one-dimensional code (UT1D) as a conduction and phase change heat transfer process. Since the pyrolysis gas flow was in the direction normal to the heat flow, the numerical model could not account for the convection cooling effect of the pyrolysis gas flow. Therefore, the predicted values in the decomposition zone are considered to be an upper estimate of the temperature. From the analysis of the experimental and the numerical results the following are concluded: (1) The virgin and char specific heat data for FM 5055 as reported by SoRI can not be used to obtain any reasonable agreement between the measured temperatures and the predictions. However, use of virgin and char specific heat data given in Acurex report produced good agreement for most of the measured temperatures. (2) Constant heat flux heating process can produce a much higher heating rate than the radiative heating process. The results show that heating rates of 125 C/s (225 F/s) can be achieved. (3) The electrical resistance of the FM 5055 samples were about 150 Omega in the virgin state, and decreased to about 35 Omega when charred. A reliable scheme must be developed to electrically insulate the composite from the heater foil in order to prevent any current leakage into the sample which can result in volumetric heating of the char zone of the composite.

Keyhani, M.↗
NASA NTRS1986

Design and Verification Guidelines for Vibroacoustic and Transient Environments

Design and verification guidelines for vibroacoustic and transient environments contain many basic methods that are common throughout the aerospace industry. However, there are some significant differences in methodology between NASA/MSFC and others - both government agencies and contractors. The purpose of this document is to provide the general guidelines used by the Component Analysis Branch, ED23, at MSFC, for the application of the vibroacoustic and transient technology to all launch vehicle and payload components and payload components and experiments managed by NASA/MSFC. This document is intended as a tool to be utilized by the MSFC program management and their contractors as a guide for the design and verification of flight hardware.

Source record↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Fusion of Test and Analysis: Artemis I Booster to Mobile Launcher Interface Validation

NASA is in the midst of bold and exciting next steps in human exploration and spaceflight. The designs of the new Space Launch System (SLS), the Orion spacecraft and the Exploration Ground Systems (EGS) for vehicle processing and launch are essentially complete and there has been significant progress in manufacturing and assembly of specific hardware for the Artemis I and Artemis II missions. Equally as important, the program level and integrated system level testing and analyses are also well underway to support integrated verification, validation, and Certificate of Flight Readiness (CoFR) for Artemis I. Testing and analysis are key to addressing technical challenges faced by the Artemis missions. Building block approaches are required that provide the right balance between component, element, and/or system level testing that satisfies verification and validation objectives where uncertainties are quantified and minimized. Artemis I is a system of systems that requires a fusion of test and analysis that adeptly characterizes critical interfaces between major program elements. An example of this fusion involves characterizing the interface between the SLS booster and the Mobile Launcher (ML) Vertical Support Post (VSP) interfaces. Proper characterization of this interface represents a number of challenges beginning with the fact that it is a mating of ground support structure in the form of a civil structure to flight hardware. Both sides of the interface are built to different construction standards, but are governed by interface requirements to ensure compatibility when mated. From past program experience, the flexibility at the booster to ML interface is critical in developing accurate prelaunch stacking and cryogenic preloads, squat loads, and pad separation release of preloads and squat loads. This same premise holds for Artemis I. To characterize the asymmetric characteristics at this interface, careful consideration of static forces due to gravity loading with the commensurate effects due to leveling during booster stacking (i.e., spacing and shimming) and nonlinear geometric forces are necessary for inclusion in pre-test assessments. This paper will look at these issues for the upcoming Booster Pull Test in which two boosters will be installed on the ML and one of these boosters will undergo static lateral loading followed afterwards with dynamic excitation into resonance and free-decay. This paper evaluates the booster to ML interface characteristics by characterizing the interface flexibility between the booster aft skirt and the ML VSP interfaces. Furthermore, this paper methodically evaluates the effect of the following on the test outcome: gravitational effects on the booster and ML, the effects of VSP leveling, spacing, and shimming under gravitational loading during booster stacking, the effect of geometric nonlinear follower force due to cg offset as booster is laterally displaced, and the system coupling between the booster under test, ML, and the second booster. Simulated results for a static load pull and dynamic excitation provide insight into the differences in measurement responses when boundary conditions and geometric conditions are included and not included.

Joel W Sills Jr.↗