Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “CERTIFICATION”

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 685 records · Page 38
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2003

Analysis of Near Simultaneous Jimsphere and AMPS High Resolution Wind Profiles

The high-resolution wind profile of the Automated Meteorological Profiling System (HRAMPS) is the proposed replacement for the Jimsphere measurement system used to support NASA Shuttle launches from the Eastern Test Range (ETR). Samples of twenty-six ETR near simultaneous Jimsphere and HRAMPS wind profiles were obtained for Shuttle program HRAMPS certification studies. Shuttle systems engineering certification is to ensure that spacecraft and launch vehicle systems performance and safety evaluations for each launch (derived from flight simulations with Jimsphere wind profile data bases) retain their validity when HRAMPS profiles are used on day-of-launch (DOL) in trajectory and loads simulations to support the commit-to-launch decision. This paper describes a statistical analysis of the near simultaneous profiles. In principle the differences between a Jimsphere profile and an HRAMPS profile should be attributed to tracking technology (radar versus GPS tracking of a Jimsphere flight element) and the method for derivation of wind vectors from the raw tracking data. In reality, it is not technically feasible to track the same Jimsphere balloon with the two systems. The aluminized Mylar surface of the standard Jimsphere flight element facilitates radar tracking, but it interferes with HRAMPS during simultaneous tracking. Suspending a radar reflector from an HRAMPS flight element (Jimsphere without aluminized coating) does not produce satisfactory Jimsphere profiles because of intermittent radar returns. Thus, differences between the Jimsphere and HRAMPS profiles are also attributed to differences in the trajectories of separate flight elements. Because of small sample size and a test period limited to one winter season, test measurements during extreme high winds aloft could not have been expected and did not occur. It is during the highest winds that the largest differences between Jimsphere and HRAMPS would occur because the distance between flight elements would be larger. Jimsphere radar tracking noise increases as a function of balloon displacement downrange. The Jimsphere data processing compensates for tracking signal/noise degradation by increasing the smoothing interval. The Jimsphere wind profile effective resolution is a function of downrange distance and altitude, whereas the effective resolution of the HRAMPS should be independent of those variables. The procedure used for editing Jimsphere spikes in Shuttle DOL profiles was not implemented for the Jimsphere profile measurements during the AMPS field tests. For this analysis a code was developed that essentially mimics DOL Jimsphere spike editing. Jimsphere profiles have somewhat more noise in the wavelength range less than 200m defined as the noise floor. No differences between Jimsphere and HRAMPS wind profile pairs have been found that would support denial of HRAMPS certification for application in Shuttle DOL applications. The reliability of the HRAMPS system, which is an important certification issue, is not addressed in this study.

Adelfang, S. I.↗
NASA NTRS2004

A Generic Software Safety Document Generator

Formal certification is based on the idea that a mathematical proof of some property of a piece of software can be regarded as a certificate of correctness which, in principle, can be subjected to external scrutiny. In practice, however, proofs themselves are unlikely to be of much interest to engineers. Nevertheless, it is possible to use the information obtained from a mathematical analysis of software to produce a detailed textual justification of correctness. In this paper, we describe an approach to generating textual explanations from automatically generated proofs of program safety, where the proofs are of compliance with an explicit safety policy that can be varied. Key to this is tracing proof obligations back to the program, and we describe a tool which implements this to certify code auto-generated by AutoBayes and AutoFilter, program synthesis systems under development at the NASA Ames Research Center. Our approach is a step towards combining formal certification with traditional certification methods.

Denney, Ewen↗
NASA NTRS2004

JDD, Inc. Database

JDD Inc, is a maintenance and custodial contracting company whose mission is to provide their clients in the private and government sectors "quality construction, construction management and cleaning services in the most efficient and cost effective manners, (JDD, Inc. Mission Statement)." This company provides facilities support for Fort Riley in Fo,rt Riley, Kansas and the NASA John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field here in Cleveland, Ohio. JDD, Inc. is owned and operated by James Vaughn, who started as painter at NASA Glenn and has been working here for the past seventeen years. This summer I worked under Devan Anderson, who is the safety manager for JDD Inc. in the Logistics and Technical Information Division at Glenn Research Center The LTID provides all transportation, secretarial, security needs and contract management of these various services for the center. As a safety manager, my mentor provides Occupational Health and Safety Occupation (OSHA) compliance to all JDD, Inc. employees and handles all other issues (Environmental Protection Agency issues, workers compensation, safety and health training) involving to job safety. My summer assignment was not as considered "groundbreaking research" like many other summer interns have done in the past, but it is just as important and beneficial to JDD, Inc. I initially created a database using a Microsoft Excel program to classify and categorize data pertaining to numerous safety training certification courses instructed by our safety manager during the course of the fiscal year. This early portion of the database consisted of only data (training field index, employees who were present at these training courses and who was absent) from the training certification courses. Once I completed this phase of the database, I decided to expand the database and add as many dimensions to it as possible. Throughout the last seven weeks, I have been compiling more data from day to day operations and been adding the information to the database. It now consists of seven different categories of data (carpet cleaning, forms, NASA Event Schedules, training certifications, wall and vent cleaning, work schedules, and miscellaneous) . I also did some field inspecting with the supervisors around the site and was present at all of the training certification courses that have been scheduled since June 2004. My future outlook for the JDD, Inc. database is to have all of company s information from future contract proposals, weekly inventory, to employee timesheets all in this same database.

Miller, David A., Jr.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Certifying Auto-Generated Flight Code

Model-based design and automated code generation are being used increasingly at NASA. Many NASA projects now use MathWorks Simulink and Real-Time Workshop for at least some of their modeling and code development. However, there are substantial obstacles to more widespread adoption of code generators in safety-critical domains. Since code generators are typically not qualified, there is no guarantee that their output is correct, and consequently the generated code still needs to be fully tested and certified. Moreover, the regeneration of code can require complete recertification, which offsets many of the advantages of using a generator. Indeed, manual review of autocode can be more challenging than for hand-written code. Since the direct V&V of code generators is too laborious and complicated due to their complex (and often proprietary) nature, we have developed a generator plug-in to support the certification of the auto-generated code. Specifically, the AutoCert tool supports certification by formally verifying that the generated code is free of different safety violations, by constructing an independently verifiable certificate, and by explaining its analysis in a textual form suitable for code reviews. The generated documentation also contains substantial tracing information, allowing users to trace between model, code, documentation, and V&V artifacts. This enables missions to obtain assurance about the safety and reliability of the code without excessive manual V&V effort and, as a consequence, eases the acceptance of code generators in safety-critical contexts. The generation of explicit certificates and textual reports is particularly well-suited to supporting independent V&V. The primary contribution of this approach is the combination of human-friendly documentation with formal analysis. The key technical idea is to exploit the idiomatic nature of auto-generated code in order to automatically infer logical annotations. The annotation inference algorithm itself is generic, and parametrized with respect to a library of coding patterns that depend on the safety policies and the code generator. The patterns characterize the notions of definitions and uses that are specific to the given safety property. For example, for initialization safety, definitions correspond to variable initializations while uses are statements which read a variable, whereas for array bounds safety, definitions are the array declarations, while uses are statements which access an array variable. The inferred annotations are thus highly dependent on the actual program and the properties being proven. The annotations, themselves, need not be trusted, but are crucial to obtain the automatic formal verification of the safety properties without requiring access to the internals of the code generator. The approach has been applied to both in-house and commercial code generators, but is independent of the particular generator used. It is currently being adapted to flight code generated using MathWorks Real-Time Workshop, an automatic code generator that translates from Simulink/Stateflow models into embedded C code.

Denney, Ewen↗
NASA NTRS2009

Group Capability Model

The Group Capability Model (GCM) is a software tool that allows an organization, from first line management to senior executive, to monitor and track the health (capability) of various groups in performing their contractual obligations. GCM calculates a Group Capability Index (GCI) by comparing actual head counts, certifications, and/or skills within a group. The model can also be used to simulate the effects of employee usage, training, and attrition on the GCI. A universal tool and common method was required due to the high risk of losing skills necessary to complete the Space Shuttle Program and meet the needs of the Constellation Program. During this transition from one space vehicle to another, the uncertainty among the critical skilled workforce is high and attrition has the potential to be unmanageable. GCM allows managers to establish requirements for their group in the form of head counts, certification requirements, or skills requirements. GCM then calculates a Group Capability Index (GCI), where a score of 1 indicates that the group is at the appropriate level; anything less than 1 indicates a potential for improvement. This shows the health of a group, both currently and over time. GCM accepts as input head count, certification needs, critical needs, competency needs, and competency critical needs. In addition, team members are categorized by years of experience, percentage of contribution, ex-members and their skills, availability, function, and in-work requirements. Outputs are several reports, including actual vs. required head count, actual vs. required certificates, CGI change over time (by month), and more. The program stores historical data for summary and historical reporting, which is done via an Excel spreadsheet that is color-coded to show health statistics at a glance. GCM has provided the Shuttle Ground Processing team with a quantifiable, repeatable approach to assessing and managing the skills in their organization. They now have a common frame of reference across NASA/contractor lines to communicate and mitigate any critical skills concerns.

Olejarski, Michael↗
NASA NTRS2010

Space Shuttle Main Engine Liquid Air Insulation Redesign Lessons Learned

The Space Shuttle Main Engine Liquid Air Insulation redesign was required to prevent the reoccurance of the STS-111 High Pressure Speed Sensor In-Flight Anomaly. The STS-111 In-Flight Anomaly Failure Investigation Team's initial redesign of the High Pressure Fuel Turbopump Pump End Ball Bearing Liquid Air Insulation failed the certification test by producing Liquid Air. The certification test failure indicated not only the High Pressure Fuel Turbopump Liquid Air Insulation, but all other Space Shuttle Main Engine Liquid Air Insulation. This paper will document the original Space Shuttle Main Engine Liquid Air STS-111 In-Flight Anomaly investigation, the heritage Space Shuttle Main Engine Insulation certification testing faults, the techniques and instrumentation used to accurately test the Liquid Air Insulation systems on the Stennis Space Center SSME test stand, the analysis techniques used to identify the Liquid Air Insulation problem areas and the analytical verification of the redesign before entering certification testing, Trade study down selected to three potential design solutions, the results of the development testing which down selected the final Liquid Air Redesign are also documented within this paper.

Darrell Gaddy↗
NASA NTRS2011

Safe to Fly: Certifying COTS Hardware for Spaceflight

Providing hardware for the astronauts to use on board the Space Shuttle or International Space Station (ISS) involves a certification process that entails evaluating hardware safety, weighing risks, providing mitigation, and verifying requirements. Upon completion of this certification process, the hardware is deemed safe to fly. This process from start to finish can be completed as quickly as 1 week or can take several years in length depending on the complexity of the hardware and whether the item is a unique custom design. One area of cost and schedule savings that NASA implements is buying Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) hardware and certifying it for human spaceflight as safe to fly. By utilizing commercial hardware, NASA saves time not having to develop, design and build the hardware from scratch, as well as a timesaving in the certification process. By utilizing COTS hardware, the current detailed certification process can be simplified which results in schedule savings. Cost savings is another important benefit of flying COTS hardware. Procuring COTS hardware for space use can be more economical than custom building the hardware. This paper will investigate the cost savings associated with certifying COTS hardware to NASA s standards rather than performing a custom build.

Fichuk, Jessica L.↗
NASA NTRS2011

International Space Station Payload Operations Integration

The Payload Operations Integrator (POINT) plays an integral part in the Certification of Flight Readiness process for the Mission Operations Laboratory and the Payload Operations Integration Function that supports International Space Station Payload operations. The POINTs operate in support of the POIF Payload Operations Manager to bring together and integrate the Certification of Flight Readiness inputs from various MOL teams through maintaining an open work tracking log. The POINTs create monthly metrics for current and future payloads that the Payload Operations Integration Function supports. With these tools, the POINTs assemble the Certification of Flight Readiness package before a given flight, stating that the Mission Operations Laboratory is prepared to support it. I have prepared metrics for Increment 29/30, maintained the Open Work Tracking Logs for Flights ULF6 (STS-134) and ULF7 (STS-135), and submitted the Mission Operations Laboratory Certification of Flight Readiness package for Flight 44P to the Mission Operations Directorate (MOD/OZ).

Fanske, Elizabeth Anne↗
NASA NTRS2012

SOFIA: Flying the Telescope

The primary focus of this paper is how the flight test team for the Stratospheric Observatory For Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) re-cast an extensive developmental test program to meet key milestones while simultaneously ensuring safe certification of the airframe and delivery of an operationally relevant platform, ultimately saving the overall program from financial demise. Following a brief introduction to the observatory and what it is designed to do, SOFIAs planned developmental test program is summarized, including analysis and design philosophy, envelope expansion, model validation and airframe certification. How NASA used lessons learned from other aircraft that employed open cavities in flight is explained as well as how and why the chosen design was selected. The approach to aerodynamic analysis, including bare airframe testing, wind tunnel testing, computational fluid dynamics and finite element modeling proved absolutely critical. Despite a solid analytical foundation, many unknowns remained. History provides several examples of disastrous effects on both systems and flight safety if cavity design is not approached properly. For these reasons, an extensive test plan was developed to ensure a safe and thorough build-up for envelope expansion, airframe certification and early science missions. Unfortunately, as is often the case, because of chronic delays in overall program execution, severe schedule and funding pressures were present. If critical milestones were not met, domestic as well as international funding was in serious jeopardy, and the demise of the entire program loomed large. Concentrating on rigorous model validation, the test team challenged certification requirements, increased test efficiency and streamlined engineering analysis. This resulted in the safe reduction of test point count by 72%, meeting all program milestones and a platform that soundly satisfied all operational science requirements. Results from early science missions are shown and a proof of concept mission for which SOFIA was opportunely positioned is showcased. Success on this time-critical mission to observe a rare astronomical event proved the usefulness of an airborne observatory and the value in waiting for the capability provided by SOFIA. Finally, lessons learned in the test program are presented with emphasis on how lessons from previous aircraft and successful test programs were applied to SOFIA. Effective application of these lessons was crucial to the success of the SOFIA flight test program. SOFIA is an international cooperative program between NASA and the German Space Agency, DLR. It is a 2.5 meter (100-inch) telescope mounted in a Boeing 747SP aircraft used for astronomical observations at altitudes above 35,000 feet. SOFIA will accommodate a host of scientific instruments from the international science community and has a planned operational lifespan of more than 20 years.

Asher, Troy A.↗
NASA NTRS2013

NASA's Commercial Crew Program, the Next Step in U.S. Space Transportation

The Commercial Crew Program (CCP) is leading NASA's efforts to develop the next U.S. capability for crew transportation and rescue services to and from the International Space Station (ISS) by the middecade timeframe. The outcome of this capability is expected to stimulate and expand the U.S. space transportation industry. NASA is relying on its decades of human space flight experience to certify U.S. crewed vehicles to the ISS and is doing so in a two phase certification approach. NASA certification will cover all aspects of a crew transportation system, including: Development, test, evaluation, and verification. Program management and control. Flight readiness certification. Launch, landing, recovery, and mission operations. Sustaining engineering and maintenance/upgrades. To ensure NASA crew safety, NASA certification will validate technical and performance requirements, verify compliance with NASA requirements, validate that the crew transportation system operates in the appropriate environments, and quantify residual risks. The Commercial Crew Program will present progress to date and how it manages safety and reduces risk.

Mango, Edward J., Jr.↗
NASA NTRS2013

NASA's Commercial Crew Program, The Next Step in U.S. Space Transportation

The Commercial Crew Program (CCP) is leading NASA's efforts to develop the next U.S. capability for crew transportation and rescue services to and from the International Space Station (ISS) by the mid-decade timeframe. The outcome of this capability is expected to stimulate and expand the U.S. space transportation industry. NASA is relying on its decades of human space flight experience to certify U.S. crewed vehicles to the ISS and is doing so in a two phase certification approach. NASA Certification will cover all aspects of a crew transportation system, including development, test, evaluation, and verification; program management and control; flight readiness certification; launch, landing, recovery, and mission operations; sustaining engineering and maintenance/upgrades. To ensure NASA crew safety, NASA Certification will validate technical and performance requirements, verify compliance with NASA requirements, validate the crew transportation system operates in appropriate environments, and quantify residual risks.

Mango, Edward J.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Commercial Crew Program and the Safety Technical Review Board

The Commercial Crew Program (CCP) is unique to any other program office at NASA. After the agency suffered devastating budget cuts and the Shuttle Program retired, the U.S. gave up its human spaceflight capabilities. Since 2011 the U.S. has been dependent on Russia to transport American astronauts and cargo to the International Space Station (ISS) and back. NASA adapted and formed CCP, which gives private, domestic, aerospace companies unprecedented reign over America's next ride to space. The program began back in 2010 with 5 companies and is now in the final phase of certification with 2 commercial partners. The Commercial Crew Program is made up of 7 divisions, each working rigorously with the commercial providers to complete the certification phase. One of these 7 divisions is Systems Engineering and Integration (SE&I) which is partly comprised of the Safety Technical Review Board (STRB). The STRB is primarily concerned with mitigating improbable, but catastrophic hazards. It does this by identifying, managing, and tracking these hazards in reports. With the STRB being in SE&I, it significantly contributes to the overall certification of the partners' vehicles. After the partners receive agency certification approval, they will have the capability to provide the U.S. with a reliable, safe, and cost-effective means of human spaceflight and cargo transport to the ISS and back.

crew transportation system↗
NASA NTRS2017

Formal Methods Tool Qualification

Formal methods tools have been shown to be effective at finding defects in safety-critical digital systems including avionics systems. The publication of DO-178C and the accompanying formal methods supplement DO-333 allows applicants to obtain certification credit for the use of formal methods without providing justification for them as an alternative method. This project conducted an extensive study of existing formal methods tools, identifying obstacles to their qualification and proposing mitigations for those obstacles. Further, it interprets the qualification guidance for existing formal methods tools and provides case study examples for open source tools. This project also investigates the feasibility of verifying formal methods tools by generating proof certificates which capture proof of the formal methods tool's claim, which can be checked by an independent, proof certificate checking tool. Finally, the project investigates the feasibility of qualifying this proof certificate checker, in the DO-330 framework, in lieu of qualifying the model checker itself.

Wagner, Lucas G.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Verification and Validation Challenges for Adaptive Flight Control of Complex Autonomous Systems

Autonomy of aerospace systems requires the ability for flight control systems to be able to adapt to complex uncertain dynamic environment. In spite of the five decades of research in adaptive control, the fact still remains that currently no adaptive control system has ever been deployed on any safety-critical or human-rated production systems such as passenger transport aircraft. The problem lies in the difficulty with the certification of adaptive control systems since existing certification methods cannot readily be used for nonlinear adaptive control systems. Research to address the notion of metrics for adaptive control began to appear in the recent years. These metrics, if accepted, could pave a path towards certification that would potentially lead to the adoption of adaptive control as a future control technology for safety-critical and human-rated production systems. Development of certifiable adaptive control systems represents a major challenge to overcome. Adaptive control systems with learning algorithms will never become part of the future unless it can be proven that they are highly safe and reliable. Rigorous methods for adaptive control software verification and validation must therefore be developed to ensure that adaptive control system software failures will not occur, to verify that the adaptive control system functions as required, to eliminate unintended functionality, and to demonstrate that certification requirements imposed by regulatory bodies such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) can be satisfied. This presentation will discuss some of the technical issues with adaptive flight control and related V&V challenges.

Nguyen, Nhan T.↗
NASA NTRS2021

NASA Electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing (eVTOL) Aircraft Technology for Public Services – A White Paper

History has shown that our personal life is highly dependent on the technology that people have developed. A strategic scan of the aerospace environment at the beginning of the 21st century strongly suggests that the world might be approaching a new age of airpower—the era of electrified/hybrid aircraft propulsion. Undeniably, starting from the Montgolfier Brothers balloon flight in 1783, to the Wright Brothers piston engine flight in 1903, and the jet engine of the 1960s, or the space age of today, one can say that leaps in propulsion technology have marked the different ages of human flight. The technological advancements, brought at the beginning of 21st century by the revolution in data exchange, computational power, sensors, wireless communication, internet, and autonomy, contributed to the vision of this new age of propulsion we are approaching. Historically, conventional vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft have been equipped with propulsion units relying on complex internal combustion machines (turbines, piston engines, for example), and complex mechanical arrangements (gearboxes, shafts, variable pitch propeller). By contrast, electric VTOL aircraft (eVTOL)1 rely on simpler propulsion units (electric motors and in some cases fixed-pitch propellers). This promotes redundancy and improves tolerance to failures, in turn improving safety. The use of simpler electric propulsion units should also allow significant acquisition and operating cost reductions. Whether full-electric (relying solely on batteries) or hybrid-electric (relying on a combination of batteries, fuel-powered engines, and generators.), eVTOLs are also expected to generate less noise and air pollution than conventional aircraft with similar payloads. According to the 2019 Annual Review of IATA (International Air Transport Association) [ref.1], due to an expected increase in air transport traffic by 5% every year and a doubling of air transport passenger numbers to 8.2 billion by 2037 significant challenges are posed to the aviation industry. Furthermore, this report does not factor in the expected demand for short-range (intra-city) air transportation, which is in development and yet to be operational. The increased demand to fly creates a responsibility to expand in a sustainable manner and an endeavor to develop more environmentally-friendly aircraft. eVTOL aircraft, either piloted or autonomous, is gathering considerable interest worldwide. Modern and novel full-electric or hybrid-electric eVTOL configurations enable a new paradigm shift in air transportation as the aviation industry remains committed to its goals of carbon-neutral growth from 2020 onwards and cutting CO2 emissions to half 2005 levels by 2050. While electric power has been used for decades, recent developments in mobile electric/hybrid propulsion coupled with advanced materials and autonomous systems may create the possibility to transition into the next age of air mobility propelled by electric/hybrid VTOL aircraft technology. Although eVTOL aircraft might seem like an incremental improvement or even a counterintuitive regression with regard to past VTOL development, it has in fact the potential to transform air mobility across a wide range of government applications. Previous transformations in aviation generated dramatic leaps in performance, but the cost was commensurate with performance, limiting quantity produced. This next age appears to take a different approach. Performance may not increase, but at this moment technology is poised for future urban mobility that will spawn commercial passenger drone services, that is, autonomous (pilotless) air taxis and thereby add a new dimension to the urban transportation mix of the future [ref. 2]. Advances in electric propulsion, autonomous flight technology, and 5G communication networks will enable this fast new-growing market to become a reality. It is now time to envision the introduction of electric/hybrid eVTOL aircraft for Public Services2. We believe that in the next decades eVTOL aircraft will have the potential to become an essential tool to Public Service agencies around the world in applications such as firefighting, public safety, search and rescue, disaster relief and law enforcement. This is due to several major factors. • First, with the increasing popularity of small, unmanned aircraft vehicles (UAVs) or drones, many companies today are focusing on the development of passenger UAVs designed to accommodate up to five passengers or equivalent cargo payload. Many such configurations are electric or hybrid-electric designs with VTOL capabilities. Several of these projects have started a flight test program and many more are expected to be in the experimental and development phase in 2020. Such revolutionary vehicles could be in commercial operations by 2030. These eVTOL systems could be ready for selected Public Services missions even sooner. • Second, although these advanced eVTOL vehicles under development still need access to fuel (hybrid) and/or electric charging capability, they can take off and land from almost anywhere. Therefore, such vehicles, both manned and unmanned can be successfully integrated for the critical missions of the Public Services with extra deployment flexibilities. • Third, advancement in electric propulsion systems in the automotive industry together with NASA’s leading efforts in electrification of aircraft propulsion systems, FAA’s ongoing active eVTOL certification programs, and EASA’s proposed framework for the certification of electric/hybrid small category VTOL aircraft in Europe [ref. 3] will help accelerate industry electric propulsion system development and integration. • Finally, eVTOL vehicles could be deployed for Public Services sooner than air taxi or other commercial applications, since Public Services missions may be more easily approved based on specific mission criteria, localized airworthiness authority for public-use aircraft3, and are normally operating under centralized airspace management and control by the theater command. Moreover, public perception and acceptance are generally less of a concern when operations save lives and benefit the wider community. The prioritized introduction of eVTOL aircraft in Public Services is ambitious, but we believe it is achievable in the coming decades if fundamental enablers (people and technologies) are engaged in defining the objectives and needs of these missions. The revolution that is currently taking place in eVTOL aircraft represents an unprecedented opportunity to develop a safer, more affordable, more available and more environmentally friendly future of vertical flight. To ensure that these novel aircraft meet the future expectations of Public Services, it is essential to take a collaborative and multi-disciplinary approach to their development, across engineering disciplines, policy-making, program management, business case development, manufacturing, and flight demonstrations. It should be noted that the term eVTOL (in the near term) used throughout this publication implies aircraft capable of transporting up to 5 persons which may or may not include a pilot if operated fully autonomously, assuming an average of 200 pounds (91 kg) per person or equivalent payload and a range up to 60 miles plus a suitable reserve. Hybrid or hydrogen powered eVTOLs would have greater range. For example, a “3-seat” eVTOL aircraft may only be able to carry two fully equipped firemen, and payload capacity is more relevant when used for the supply mission. Moreover, this paper concentrates on the “last-mile” solutions with a deployment time of no more than 6 hours. Although not specifically discussed in this document, it is understood that the future of Transformative Vertical Flight in general and Public Services, in particular, will also involve smaller UAVs that will undoubtedly play a crucial role in future aerial operations. For example, smaller unmanned aircraft may be used to dispatch medical supplies, portable filtration systems or perform the Search task of future Search and Rescue (SAR) operations. Close collaboration between the aircraft industry, the Civil Aviation Authorities (CAA), e.g., Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) and the Department of Defense (DoD) certifiers, will help identify Public Services requirements, define expectations and limit development cost and timescales. Take the US Air Force Agility Prime as an example, the majority of the eVTOL application opportunities and mission elements identified are in line with the NASA TVF WG-4 objectives and use cases. Together, it forms a strong partnership to accelerate the development, certification, and practical deployment for public service missions. The US Air Force Agility Prime has been a collaboration partner on this white paper, and provided valuable input and recommendations. Most of the eVTOL public service mission elements discussed in this paper and additional use cases envisioned by the NASA TVF WG-4 team are shared by the Agility Prime program. The focus and efforts of the Agility Prime in product and system development, industry and government partnership, accelerated certifications as well as early test and deployment are totally in sync with the path forward recommended by this white paper. This kind of collaboration and partnership will help enable the practical use of the eVTOL for public service missions, benefit the eVTOL public acceptance, and accelerate the eVTOL industry revolution.

Johnny T. Doo↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Improved Benchmarking of Cohesive Elements in Abaqus Standard for Predicting Disbond and Delamination in Composite Structures

Traditional approaches for aircraft certification require the assumption of an initial flaw condition, either represented as barely visible impact damage (BVID) or through inclusion of a Teflon insert to serve as surrogate damage. Based on the initial composite damage state, the structure must be shown to demonstrate structural durability and damage tolerance (DaDT) according to the following criteria: a. Damage displays no detrimental growth under cyclic loading b. The structure is able to sustain design limit load (DLL) Currently, the only available manner for validating structural performance is through test. Since damage can occur over a wide variety of areas within a structure, this approach has proven to be increasingly expensive and time consuming for composite airframes and acreage structure within the design-test-certification building block. A further complicating factor is the requirement to accurately capture the most critical damage morphologies as a starting condition. To understand the severity of the damage, it is either required to experimentally determine the most critical areas at tremendous expense or rely on legacy data of similar structural testing, which limits design space expansion. A preferred solution is to use advanced analysis to provide improved understanding of load margins for critical locations based on a wide variety of potential starting damage conditions. The standard industry approach for DaDT certification adheres to the use of the traditional virtual crack closure technique (VCCT) method. VCCT is generally a preferred method because it conforms to the current certification principles of damage from a known flaw, and when used correctly, can be effective at predicting delamination propagation under static and cyclic loading. The VCCT method requires the inclusion of an initial flaw in the finite element (FE) model requiring a-priori knowledge of the flaw location. This in turn requires a plethora of analysis cases to be examined to cover a reasonable span of potential damage states. Additionally, the VCCT approach requires node-to-node connectivity rendering it incompatible with the best practices and approaches for using continuum damage mechanics (CDM) based progressive damage and failure analysis (PDFA) tools within a typical FE solver. Alternatives to VCCT have emerged in the form of cohesive elements which utilize the cohesive zone model (CZM). Unlike VCCT which models linear elastic fracture mechanics, cohesive elements couples continuum and fracture based responses through the use of bilinear traction separation laws. These laws are defined based on a penalty stiffness, a cohesive strength, and a strain energy release rate. The approach can be mesh regularized with native cohesive elements within many FE solvers such as Abaqus and LS-DYNA. In Phase I of the NASA Advanced Composites Consortium (ACC) post-buckled stiffened panel with BVID, Strength and Life [1], the performance of cohesive elements were benchmarked in comparison to VCCT and LEFM solutions and showed good agreement using Abaqus explicit [2]. To realize savings on current and future programs, it is still necessary to close technical gaps related to the use of cohesive elements with Abaqus Standard. Within a program environment, standard finite element analysis is the preferred analytical capability for quasi-static loading as it eliminates uncertainty due to oscillatory behavior commonly seen with explicit analysis. This oscillatory behavior creates difficulties in writing margins of safety based on the analysis. The use of negative tangent stiffness material models complicates convergence which typically requires the use of numerical controls such as viscous damping to overcome. To date, there has not been a comprehensive study on how to establish best practices for cohesive element convergence for predictive capability within the Abaqus implicit solver. In pursuit of these goals, under the NASA ACC program, several numerical benchmark problems were proposed including pure mode I (double cantilevered beam – DCB), pure mode II (end notch flexure – ENF), and symmetric/unsymmetric evolving mixed mode (single leg bend – SLB). This paper focuses on the use of cohesive elements to model the delamination through the use of CZM. Specifically, finite element models for the DCB, ENF, symmetric SLB, and unsymmetric SLB, are developed and various solution controls for convergence are studied to develop a best practice. Once the best practice has been developed, the predictive capability of the objective CZM model is used to analyze the hat pull-off strength of a standard hat stiffened configuration under various loading conditions.

Abaqus↗
NASA NTRS2021

ATTRACTOR: Autonomy Teaming and TRAjectories for Complex Trusted Operational Reliability

Autonomous systems (AS) are crucial to realizing the vision of new, complex transportation modes, such as advanced air mobility (AAM) and urban air mobility (UAM). A chief barrier to induction of AS into aviation is insufficient understanding of AS reliability in time-critical and safety-critical environments—an obstacle to certification. ATTRACTOR is aimed at building a basis for certification of classes of autonomous cyber-physical-human systems (CPHS) via establishing metrics and models of trustworthiness and trust in multi-agent team interactions, analyzable trajectories, explainability of computational algorithms (explainable artificial intelligence, or XAI), and persistent modeling and simulation, in the context of missions planning and operation. By “building a basis for certification,” we mean acquiring an understanding of when a system is trustworthy and developing computable means to estimate trustworthiness and trust in order to eventually inform functional requirements that contribute to certification. The outcomes are applicable not just to aviation but to all domains that rely on autonomous systems.

Autonomy↗
NASA NTRS2022

Making or Breaking a Rover: System Engineering Parameters On-Board the Mars 2020 Perseverance Rover

On February 18, 2021, Perseverance, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s (JPL’s) Mars 2020 Rover, successfully landed on Mars with all systems nominal, despite the risk surrounding the over 200,000 internal flight parameters that had to be properly configured. The Perseverance team defines these parameters as software variables that are configurable, commandable and retrievable from Earth. In 2015, the Mars 2020 project leaders focused on improving systems engineering of parameters based on their experiences from parameter management on previous Mars rovers (Curiosity, Opportunity, Spirit, and Pathfinder) and parameter failures of past missions, such as the mission-ending parameter of the Mars Climate Orbiter. The new rigorous development process allowed for efficient certification and effective implementation of the parameters, allowing the rover to approach and land on the red planet (the most challenging phase of the mission) with zero parameter issues. Although successful, the Perseverance team learned many lessons for how to better manage parameters for the continued surface operations of the Mars 2020 mission and future missions. This paper will discuss eight parameter-management topics for the Perseverance Mission. The first is parameter definition: how we define parameters on our mission, where they are physically located on the vehicle, and why we have so many of them. The second topic is the updated parameter flight software module from Curiosity, including details on the 99% reduction in parameter commands, new bulk configuration capabilities, and improved parameter traceability. The third topic is parameter selection for different mission phases; this includes improving and tweaking our preferred parameter settings until they become certification candidates and managing parameter configurations based on test venue throughout the mission life cycle. The fourth topic is our flight certification process; this includes certification of flight values for four different epochs in the mission: Launch, Entry Decent and Landing (EDL) - 6days, Landing + 5 Sols (Martian Days, still on Cruise Flight Software), and once are on Surface Flight Software (FSW). The fifth topic covers in-flight command implementation, along with details on testing, validation, and verification of those commands. In the sixth section, we will explain our use of open-source management tools, including how we used GitHub for version control and management approvals. The seventh topic will describe the ground tools used in operations, including capabilities of the in-house built tool called Parasol. The eighth and final topic will dig into lessons learned for improving parameter management in the future of this mission and others.

Roth, Brian↗