SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
Reliability Abstracts and Technical Reviews is an abstract and critical analysis service covering published and report literature on reliability. The service is designed to provide information on theory and practice of reliability as applied to aerospace and an objective appraisal of the quality, significance, and applicability of the literature abstracted.
The words reliability, robustness, and resilience are often used interchangeably to describe tough and dependable systems but the distinctions between them suggest how to design more serviceable space systems. Reliability is simply the quality of consistently performing well. A system that dependably meets its design requirements in the specified environment is reliable. The designers may not consider themselves responsible for failures under unanticipated conditions. Robustness is the capability of performing without failure under a wide range of conditions, which can go beyond the expected range to include possible off-nominal conditions. Resilience is the ability to recover from or adapt to unanticipated damaging events, such as failures, accidents, external disruptions, and repurposing. Such changes can invalidate the usual operating assumptions and cause system failure. Reliability, robustness, and resilience describe dependable performance under increasingly difficult conditions, first the specified environment, then a wider possible environment, and finally unanticipated damaging conditions. These three qualities are increasingly desirable and increasingly difficult to achieve. Engineering for resilience would design systems that can ignore or repair failures, survive accidents, and recover from unanticipated disruptions. Increasing the resilience of space systems would greatly increase space crew safety. Improving reliability and robustness requires dealing with known problems, but improving resilience requires implementing a general approach to reducing the impact of unknown future events. The need for robustness and resilience has been stated for decades but little has been done. Systems designers often assume that they understand everything they need to know. The potential failures caused by changes, failures, accidents, unknown environments, and unknown unknowns can be ignored. Such overconfidence can lead to neglect of reliability, robustness, and resilience.
The words reliability, robustness, and resilience are often used interchangeably to describe tough and dependable systems but the distinctions between them suggest how to design more serviceable space systems. Reliability is simply the quality of consistently performing well. A system that dependably meets its design requirements in the specified environment is reliable. The designers may not consider themselves responsible for failures under unanticipated conditions. Robustness is the capability of performing without failure under a wide range of conditions, which can go beyond the expected range to include possible off-nominal conditions. Resilience is the ability to recover from or adapt to unanticipated damaging events, such as failures, accidents, external disruptions, and repurposing. Such changes can invalidate the usual operating assumptions and cause system failure. Reliability, robustness, and resilience describe dependable performance under increasingly difficult conditions, first the specified environment, then a wider possible environment, and finally unanticipated damaging conditions. These three qualities are increasingly desirable and increasingly difficult to achieve. Engineering for resilience would design systems that can ignore or repair failures, survive accidents, and recover from unanticipated disruptions. Increasing the resilience of space systems would greatly increase space crew safety. Improving reliability and robustness requires dealing with known problems, but improving resilience requires implementing a general approach to reducing the impact of unknown future events. The need for robustness and resilience has been stated for decades but little has been done. Systems designers often assume that they understand everything they need to know. The potential failures caused by changes, failures, accidents, unknown environments, and unknown unknowns can be ignored. Such overconfidence can lead to neglect of reliability, robustness, and resilience.
Future Exploration missions will require an Oxygen Generation Assembly (OGA) to electrolyze water to supply oxygen for crew metabolic consumption. The system design will be based on the International Space Station (ISS) OGA but with added improvements based on lessons learned during ISS operations. These improvements will reduce system weight, crew maintenance time and resupply mass from Earth while increasing reliability. Currently, the design team is investigating the feasibility of the upgrades by performing ground tests and analyses. Upgrades being considered include: redesign of the electrolysis cell stack, deletion of the hydrogen dome, replacement of the hydrogen sensors, deletion of the wastewater interface, redesign of the recirculation loop deionizing bed and redesign of the cell stack Power Supply Module. The upgrades will be first demonstrated on the ISS OGA.
The objective of this study was to establish the initial quantitative reliability bounds for nuclear electric propulsion systems in a manned Mars mission required to ensure crew safety and mission success. Finding the reliability bounds involves balancing top-down (mission driven) requirements and bottom-up (technology driven) capabilities. In seeking this balance we hope to accomplish the following: (1) provide design insights into the achievability of the baseline design in terms of reliability requirements, given the existing technology base; (2) suggest alternative design approaches which might enhance reliability and crew safety; and (3) indicate what technology areas require significant research and development to achieve the reliability objectives.
The words reliability, robustness, and resilience, are often used interchangeably to describe tough and dependable systems but the distinctions between them suggest how to design more serviceable space systems. Reliability is simply the quality of consistently performing well. A system that dependably meets its design requirements in the specified environments is reliable. The designers may not consider themselves responsible for failures under unanticipated conditions. Robustness is the capability of performing without failure under a wide range of conditions, which can go beyond the expected range to include possible off-nominal conditions. Resilience is the ability to recover from or adapt to damaging events, such as failures, accidents, external disruptions, and repurposing. Such changes are usually unanticipated. They often invalidate the usual operating assumptions and cause system failure. Reliability, robustness, and resilience describe dependable performance under increasingly difficult conditions, first the specified environment, then a wider possible environment, and finally unanticipated damaging events. These three are increasingly desirable and increasingly difficult to achieve. Engineering for resilience would design systems that can ignore or repair failures, survive accidents, and recover from disruptions. Increasing the resilience of space systems, the ability to perform after unanticipated events, would greatly increase space crew safety. Improving reliability and robustness can be done by dealing with known sources of problems, but improving resilience requires implementing a general approach to reducing the impact of unknown future events. Two contrasting approaches are reducing system complexity and adding supervisory control. The need for resilience has been claimed for decades but little has been accomplished. Systems designers assume that they understand requirements, technologies, designs, architectures, integration, testing, operations, and environments. The potential problems of changes, failures, accidents, unknown environments, and unknown unknowns are ignored. Systems designers are typically overconfident and ignore the need for robustness and resilience.
In order to make design decisions, engineers may seek to identify regions of the design domain that are acceptable in a computationally efficient manner. A design is typically considered acceptable if its reliability with respect to parametric uncertainty exceeds the designer’s desired level of confidence. Despite major advancements in reliability estimation and in design classification via decision boundary estimation, the current literature still lacks a design classification strategy that incorporates parametric uncertainty and desired design confidence. To address this gap, this paper offers a novel interpretation of the acceptance region by defining the decision boundary as the hypersurface which isolates the designs that exceed a user-defined level of confidence given parametric uncertainty. This work addresses the construction of this novel decision boundary using computationally efficient algorithms that were developed for reliability analysis and decision boundary estimation. The approach proposed in this paper is verified on two physical examples from structural and thermal analysis using Support Vector Machines and Efficient Global Optimization-based contour estimation.
Past sodium-cooled fast reactors (SFR) were built with an active experimental program in place to support the design and development work. Most of the experimental facilities in the United States that were important for SFR design were shutdown in the 1980s and 1990s. Reactor licensing and construction requires any reactor design to be verified against existing reactor facilities or experimental measurements. With the absence of those experimental facilities, modern SFR projects must rely on historical measurements to demonstrate that the engineering modeling software and data being used for the new reactor design work are reliable. There has been a considerable push in the last 6 years by both DOE and commercial companies to obtain historical experimental measurements that are relevant for SFRs, in particular those with features that are important for the new reactor designs of interest. The zero power reactor experiments carried out at Argonne National Laboratory’s critical facilities (ZPR-3, ZPR-6, ZPR-9, and ZPPR) from the 1950s to the 1980s are some of the best reactor physics experiments on SFR technology that are available today. Of particular interest today are the ZPPR-15 measurements done at the ZPPR facility for the Integral Fast Reactor project in the 1980s as they are in line with most commercial and DOE interests today. In the past 10 years, the measurements done on ZPPR-15 have been processed into both Monte Carlo (MCNP) and deterministic models (MC2-3 and DIF3D) useable for validating the engineering modeling software for key parts of the SFR design work. To achieve this, a detailed model description must be created for the experiment and the experimental measurement that the engineering modeling software is to reproduce. Then, an assessment of the uncertainty on the measured quantity which considers all of the sources of uncertainty in defining the model must be obtained and documented. The models created for ZPPR-15 provide the best validation basis available today for neutronics modeling software. Reference 2 is a good resource to understand how these models were built and how the uncertainties on the measured quantities were derived. The intention of the Zero Power Reactor Database (ZPRD), hosted at frdb.ne.anl.gov, is to make available the experimental measurements and models that have been constructed to-date. Though ZPPR-15 measurements are the primary data requested for validation needs, other measurements on ZPPR, ZPR-6, and ZPR-9 in support of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor (CRBR) and Fast Test Reactor (FFTF) should also be considered important for future software validation needs. In this manuscript, the details of available measurements on ZPR-3, ZPR-6, ZPR-9, and ZPPR facilities are summarized, and a general organization of the web interface is displayed. Many of the documents associated with the measurements are export controlled information so access to the database will also have to be controlled.
Reliability has been highlighted by NASA as critical to future human space exploration particularly in the area of environmental controls and life support systems. The Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) projects have been encouraged to pursue higher reliability components and systems as part of technology development plans. However there is no consensus on what is meant by improving on reliability; nor on how to assess reliability within the AES projects. This became apparent when trying to assess reliability as one of several figures of merit for a regenerable water architecture trade study. In the spring of 2013, the AES Water Recovery Project (WRP) hosted a series of events at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) with the intended goal of establishing a common language and understanding of our reliability goals, and equipping the projects with acceptable means of assessing our respective systems. This campaign included an educational series in which experts from across the agency and academia provided information on terminology, tools and techniques associated with evalauating and designing for system reliability. The campaign culminated in a workshop at JSC with members of the ECLSS and AES communities with the goal of developing a consensus on what reliability means to AES and identifying methods for assessing our low to mid-technology readiness level (TRL) technologies for reliability. This paper details the results of the workshop.
NASA has highlighted reliability as critical to future human space exploration, particularly in the area of environmental controls and life support systems. The Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) projects have been encouraged to pursue higher reliability components and systems as part of technology development plans. However, no consensus has been reached on what is meant by improving on reliability, or on how to assess reliability within the AES projects. This became apparent when trying to assess reliability as one of several figures of merit for a regenerable water architecture trade study. In the spring of 2013, the AES Water Recovery Project hosted a series of events at Johnson Space Center with the intended goal of establishing a common language and understanding of NASA's reliability goals, and equipping the projects with acceptable means of assessing the respective systems. This campaign included an educational series in which experts from across the agency and academia provided information on terminology, tools, and techniques associated with evaluating and designing for system reliability. The campaign culminated in a workshop that included members of the Environmental Control and Life Support System and AES communities. The goal of this workshop was to develop a consensus on what reliability means to AES and identify methods for assessing low- to mid-technology readiness level technologies for reliability. This paper details the results of that workshop.
Reliability has been highlighted by NASA as critical to future human space exploration particularly in the area of environmental controls and life support systems. The Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) projects have been encouraged to pursue higher reliability components and systems as part of technology development plans. However, there is no consensus on what is meant by improving on reliability; nor on how to assess reliability within the AES projects. This became apparent when trying to assess reliability as one of several figures of merit for a regenerable water architecture trade study. In the Spring of 2013, the AES Water Recovery Project (WRP) hosted a series of events at the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) with the intended goal of establishing a common language and understanding of our reliability goals and equipping the projects with acceptable means of assessing our respective systems. This campaign included an educational series in which experts from across the agency and academia provided information on terminology, tools and techniques associated with evaluating and designing for system reliability. The campaign culminated in a workshop at JSC with members of the ECLSS and AES communities with the goal of developing a consensus on what reliability means to AES and identifying methods for assessing our low to mid-technology readiness level (TRL) technologies for reliability. This paper details the results of the workshop.
Hydrogen technologies are expected to play a key role in the decarbonization of several sectors including energy storage and transportation. Rigorous investigation and quantification of the risk and reliability issues associated with hydrogen technologies will be critical to ensuring both their wider adoption and safe, economical operations. Quantitative risk assessment (QRA) is an important tool that has been used to enable the safe deployment of many engineering systems, including hydrogen fueling stations and hydrogen storage systems. However, QRA studies require reliability data which is currently lacking for expanding applications of hydrogen systems. Here, to address this gap, we present a new structure for a hydrogen component reliability database (HyCReD) that can be used to generate reliability data to be used in QRA, reliability, safety studies, maintenance planning, and more. Building on our previous work examining four major hydrogen safety data collection tools (West et al., 2022) [1], our approach in this work was to consult scientific literature on reliability data collection as well as a number of existing reliability engineering databases in the oil & gas, chemical processing, and nuclear power plant sectors. The evaluation of these databases led to identifying best practices to be implemented in a data collection framework for a hydrogen component reliability database. Based on these best practices, a set of 24 requirements for the proposed database are presented, covering its characteristics and the types of data to be collected. We define the structure of the HyCReD database and 25 data elements to be collected, spanning system description, failure, shutdown, or near-miss events, and maintenance events. The data elements are then defined according to international standards used in the safety and reliability practice and potential choice lists are provided for each field. Since this database is being piloted for hydrogen fueling stations, a generic station component hierarchy developed by West (2021) [2] is used to standardize system data. Finally, we demonstrate populating the database with information extracted from five narrative reports on hydrogen fueling station incidents.
To meet changing research demands, new scanning tunneling microscope (STM) features must constantly evolve. We describe the design, development, and performance of a modular plug-in STM, which is compact and stable. The STM head is equipped with a quick-connect socket that is matched to a universal connector plug, enabling it to be transferred between systems. This head can be introduced into a vacuum system via a load-lock and transferred to various sites equipped with the connector plug, permitting multi-site STM operation. Its design allows for reliable operation in a variety of experimental conditions, including a broad temperature range, ultra-high vacuum, high magnetic fields, and closed-cycle pulse-tube cooling. The STM’s compact size is achieved by a novel nested piezoelectric coarse walker design, which allows for large orthogonal travel in the X, Y, and Z directions, ideal for studying both bulk and thin film samples ranging in size from mm to μm. Its stability and noise tolerance are demonstrated by achieving atomic resolution under ambient conditions on a laboratory desktop with no vibrational or acoustic isolation. The operation of the nested coarse walkers is demonstrated by successful navigation to a μm-sized 2D sample.
Method of estimating design survivability of structural component incorporates finite-element and probabilistic properties of materials. Involves evaluation of design parameters through direct comparisons of survivability of component expressed in terms of percentages of like components that survive at various lifetimes. Probabilistic properties of materials, given in terms of Weibull parameters, coupled with stress field computed by finite-element analysis to determine fatigue life based on initiation of cracks. Method applied to rotating disk containing bolt holes, representative of disks used in aerospace propulsion turbines. Also used in early stages of design process to optimize life-based designs, reducing testing of full-sized components needed to validate designs.
The purpose of health monitoring systems is to detect failures or defects for increased safety and performance and to provide on-condition maintenance with reduced costs. The problems associated with health monitoring systems include high rates of false alarms and missed failures, which make monitoring an unreliable and costly task. The reason for this is that unaccounted variations invalidate signal modeling assumptions. Our approach was to focus on vibration monitoring of rotating components. We analyzed baseline signals to determine statistical variations, identify and model factors that influence vibrations (pre-production vs. post-production variations), determine hit and false alarm rates with baseline flight data, model and predict effects of defects and variations on vibrations, and develop algorithms and metrics for failure and anomaly detection in the presence of variations.
Understanding and predicting accurate property-structure-processing relationships for additively manufactured components is important for both forward and inverse design of robust, reliable parts and assemblies. While direct mapping of process parameters to properties is sometimes plausible, it is often rendered difficult due to poor microstructural control. Exploring the direct relationship between processing conditions and microstructural features can thus provide significant physical insights and aid the overall design process. Here, in this study, we develop an automated high-throughput framework to simulate an uncertainty-aware additive manufacturing (AM) process, characterize microstructural images, and extract meaningful features/descriptors. A kinetic Monte Carlo (KMC) based model of the AM process is used to simulate microstructural evolution for a diverse set of experimentally relevant processing conditions. We perform a parametric study to explore the relationship between microstructural features and processing conditions. Our results indicate that a many-to-one mapping can exist between processing conditions and typical descriptors; therefore, multiple descriptors are thus necessary to unambiguously represent microstructural images. Our work provides crucial quantitative and qualitative in-formation that would aid in the selection of features for microstructural images. Featurized microstructures could then be utilized to build data-driven models for predictive control of microstructures and thereby properties of additively manufactured components.
The traditional design and analysis practice for advanced propulsion systems relies heavily on expensive full-scale prototype development and testing. Over the past decade, use of high-fidelity analysis and design tools such as CFD early in the product development cycle has been identified as one way to alleviate testing costs and to develop these devices better, faster and cheaper. In the design of advanced propulsion systems, CFD plays a major role in defining the required performance over the entire flight regime, as well as in testing the sensitivity of the design to the different modes of operation. Increased emphasis is being placed on developing and applying CFD models to simulate the flow field environments and performance of advanced propulsion systems. This necessitates the development of next generation computational tools which can be used effectively and reliably in a design environment. The turbomachinery simulation capability presented here is being developed in a computational tool called Loci-STREAM [1]. It integrates proven numerical methods for generalized grids and state-of-the-art physical models in a novel rule-based programming framework called Loci [2] which allows: (a) seamless integration of multidisciplinary physics in a unified manner, and (b) automatic handling of massively parallel computing. The objective is to be able to routinely simulate problems involving complex geometries requiring large unstructured grids and complex multidisciplinary physics. An immediate application of interest is simulation of unsteady flows in rocket turbopumps, particularly in cryogenic liquid rocket engines. The key components of the overall methodology presented in this paper are the following: (a) high fidelity unsteady simulation capability based on Detached Eddy Simulation (DES) in conjunction with second-order temporal discretization, (b) compliance with Geometric Conservation Law (GCL) in order to maintain conservative property on moving meshes for second-order time-stepping scheme, (c) a novel cloud-of-points interpolation method (based on a fast parallel kd-tree search algorithm) for interfaces between turbomachinery components in relative motion which is demonstrated to be highly scalable, and (d) demonstrated accuracy and parallel scalability on large grids (approx 250 million cells) in full turbomachinery geometries.
Aerothermal modeling is inherently entwined with TPS design. Aerothermal, radiation, and TPS material response are coupled so it's important to check modeling assumptions. Validation of numerical models using ground and flight tests is important to quantify uncertainties. A margin policy based on statistical methods may provide greater insight in the key drivers and overall reliability of the design