Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “corrective actions”

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.

784 records · Page 44
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1994

General purpose architecture for intelligent computer-aided training

An intelligent computer-aided training system having a general modular architecture is provided for use in a wide variety of training tasks and environments. It is comprised of a user interface which permits the trainee to access the same information available in the task environment and serves as a means for the trainee to assert actions to the system; a domain expert which is sufficiently intelligent to use the same information available to the trainee and carry out the task assigned to the trainee; a training session manager for examining the assertions made by the domain expert and by the trainee for evaluating such trainee assertions and providing guidance to the trainee which are appropriate to his acquired skill level; a trainee model which contains a history of the trainee interactions with the system together with summary evaluative data; an intelligent training scenario generator for designing increasingly complex training exercises based on the current skill level contained in the trainee model and on any weaknesses or deficiencies that the trainee has exhibited in previous interactions; and a blackboard that provides a common fact base for communication between the other components of the system. Preferably, the domain expert contains a list of 'mal-rules' which typifies errors that are usually made by novice trainees. Also preferably, the training session manager comprises an intelligent error detection means and an intelligent error handling means. The present invention utilizes a rule-based language having a control structure whereby a specific message passing protocol is utilized with respect to tasks which are procedural or step-by-step in structure. The rules can be activated by the trainee in any order to reach the solution by any valid or correct path.

Loftin, R. Bowen↗
DOE OSTI2020

Understanding Structures of Cyber Competition in an Era of Major Power Rivalry

Over the past two decades, the cyber domain has emerged and evolved into a key strategic domain for nations across the globe. Security strategies are espoused by heads of state that focus on how to manage the increasingly enormous, crosscutting impact that the cyber domain has on national security across economic, military, intelligence, intellectual property, and countless other facets. These strategies frequently evolve, and even change entirely, as leaders adapt to new technologies and administrations change. Even if these strategies did not change at all, they would take inordinate amounts of time to effectively implement within the organizational structures of government. The time required to go from setting department and agency-level goals, to the time small teams have well-oiled processes and expertise to accomplish tactical objectives that meet the strategic vision is lengthy. With near certainty, by the time objectives and vision are implemented, the landscape, strategy, or both has changed entirely. While this churn will likely never cease due to the rapidly changing nature of the cyber domain, this problem raises an important question: can governmental structures be organized to rapidly adapt to changing cyber strategies? As offices responsible for particular missions in cyberspace shuffle about within the bureaucracy, are technical capabilities enabled or enhanced? No matter how advanced a particular technical capability is or how adept the staff is at solving problems, they will be ineffective if placed haphazardly within the organization: the right authorities may not exist for their office, the correct lines of interpersonal communication may not be established properly, or insufficient resources have not been allocated to effectively deploy a brilliant technical solution. This concept of organizational agility in the context of national cyber capabilities is important when taking into account the National Defense Strategy’s emphasis on cyber capability and the ability of the United States to compete and rapidly adapt to new challenges posed by rivals. As a nation, we are at a point where technology evolves rapidly enough to warrant thoughtful and nimble changes to the bureaucratic structures that support how cyber operations are carried out. Taking these questions and cross-comparing them to the organizational structures across China, Russia, and the United States provides for an interesting thought experiment. As non-democratic regimes, China and Russia have differing priorities and internal power dynamics than the United States and thus organize their governments differently. By combining known and broadcasted strategies of these nations with the observed technical capabilities demonstrated in the public domain, we can begin to see how organizational structures map to strategic goals and directly enable technical capabilities. Insight can be gained by introducing organizational structures into traditional analysis focusing solely around strategies and capabilities; additionally, otherwise unknown capabilities or intents might be discovered or inferred by analyzing organizational structures alone. Analyzing cyber operations from this oft-overlooked perspective could potentially provide useful insight and more concrete actions that can be undertaken to realize the National Defense Strategy’s goals.

45 MILITARY TECHNOLOGY, WEAPONRY, AND NATIONAL DEF↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Setting the Bar for the Replacement of the Probability of Collision Metric

To date, satellite conjunction assessment (CA) risk analysis has largely embraced the probability of collision (Pc) as the omnibus metric to evaluate collision likelihood, and its use in such assessments has mostly been straightforward: at the point at which a conjunction mitigation decision is required, the calculated Pc is compared to a threshold; and if the calculated Pc exceeds that threshold, then a mitigation action is warranted. With only minor variation, this approach is employed by major CA risk assessment centers (e.g., NASA, EUSST, CNES, JAXA) and is advanced as the preferred method in the published CA best practices handbooks. Despite this near unanimity of operational practice, there is a major strain of secondary literature critical of the Pc and willing to propose alternatives. Alfano (2005) pointed out the ability of the Pc to underrepresent the risk in certain situations and counselled a maximum Pc construct. Carpenter (2017, 2019) reiterated this criticism and proposed using instead a confidence interval on the miss distance. Balch et al. (2019) identified what they argued was a defect in the entire Bayesian Pc construct and believed that the use of a more conservative methodology based on covariance ellipsoid overlap was necessary. Delande (2022) introduced the framework of collision “plausibility” to the risk assessment process and sketched out how this might be used operationally. Elkantassi (2022) published a full development of the miss distance confidence interval approach and applied it to several worked examples. While these different approaches to collision risk assessment do differ in their details, they all converge on two central points: first, the Pc’s failure to give an adequate expression of the risk in dilution region situations is a fatal flaw; and second, a conjunction should be presumed risky and in need of mitigation until the evidence of the situation can establish otherwise. These criticisms, if correct, would counsel a number of modifications to current CA operational practice; as such, they force a re-examination of fundamental aspects of the CA problem, including the following: 1. Is the CA risk assessment a probability problem, a statistics problem, or something else? 2. If it is a statistics problem, does it lend itself naturally to a hypothesis test construction? 3. If it can be construed as a hypothesis test, what form should the null hypothesis take, to wit: what constraints exist on the choice of the null hypothesis, what selections are in best alignment with all of the attendant parameters of the problem, and what is implied philosophically by different choices? 4. What are the implications of using the different proposed risk assessment parameters for CA? This question should be answered both in determining how frequently the dilution region situation cited by the critics of the Pc actually appears in an operationally significant manner and the missed detection and false alarm rates of all of the proposed risk assessment metrics, compared both to the Pc and to each other. This paper explores and offers preliminary answers to the above questions, presenting a researched treatment of the philosophical nature of the CA problem and the null hypothesis choice that achieves the greatest consistency with all of the different aspects of operational CA conduct. It then profiles all of the different proposed risk assessment metrics enumerated in the earlier paragraph against an extremely large database of conjunction events at both the 550km and 700km altitudes. The combination of the philosophical exploration of the CA problem and the results of the profiling activity articulates what a risk assessment metric will need to demonstrate, in terms of both innate construction and performance, in order to be a true competitor to the Pc.

conjunction assessment↗
NASA NTRS2007

Predicting the Earth encounters of (99942) Apophis

Arecibo delay-Doppler measurements of (99942) Apophis in 2005 and 2006 resulted in a five standard-deviation trajectory correction to the optically predicted close approach distance to Earth in 2029. The radar measurements reduced the volume of the statistical uncertainty region entering the encounter to 7.3% of the pre-radar solution, but increased the trajectory uncertainty growth rate across the encounter by 800% due to the closer predicted approach to the Earth. A small estimated Earth impact probability remained for 2036. With standard-deviation plane-of-sky position uncertainties for 2007-2010 already less than 0.2 arcsec, the best near-term ground-based optical astrometry can only weakly affect the trajectory estimate. While the potential for impact in 2036 will likely be excluded in 2013 (if not 2011) using ground-based optical measurements, approximations within the Standard Dynamical Model (SDM) used to estimate and predict the trajectory from the current era are sufficient to obscure the difference between a predicted impact and a miss in 2036 by altering the dynamics leading into the 2029 encounter. Normal impact probability assessments based on the SDM become problematic without knowledge of the object's physical properties; impact could be excluded while the actual dynamics still permit it. Calibrated position uncertainty intervals are developed to compensate for this by characterizing the minimum and maximum effect of physical parameters on the trajectory. Uncertainty in accelerations related to solar radiation can cause between 82 and 4720 Earth-radii of trajectory change relative to the SDM by 2036. If an actionable hazard exists, alteration by 2-10% of Apophis' total absorption of solar radiation in 2018 could be sufficient to produce a six standard-deviation trajectory change by 2036 given physical characterization; even a 0.5% change could produce a trajectory shift of one Earth-radius by 2036 for all possible spin-poles and likely masses. Planetary ephemeris uncertainties are the next greatest source of systematic error, causing up to 23 Earth-radii of uncertainty. The SDM Earth point-mass assumption introduces an additional 2.9 Earth-radii of prediction error by 2036. Unmodeled asteroid perturbations produce as much as 2.3 Earth-radii of error. We find no future small-body encounters likely to yield an Apophis mass determination prior to 2029. However, asteroid (144898) 2004 VD17, itself having a statistical Earth impact in 2102, will probably encounter Apophis at 6.7 lunar distances in 2034, their uncertainty regions coming as close as 1.6 lunar distances near the center of both SDM probability distributions.

Orbit determination↗
NASA NTRS2010

Model for Simulating a Spiral Software-Development Process

A discrete-event simulation model, and a computer program that implements the model, have been developed as means of analyzing a spiral software-development process. This model can be tailored to specific development environments for use by software project managers in making quantitative cases for deciding among different software-development processes, courses of action, and cost estimates. A spiral process can be contrasted with a waterfall process, which is a traditional process that consists of a sequence of activities that include analysis of requirements, design, coding, testing, and support. A spiral process is an iterative process that can be regarded as a repeating modified waterfall process. Each iteration includes assessment of risk, analysis of requirements, design, coding, testing, delivery, and evaluation. A key difference between a spiral and a waterfall process is that a spiral process can accommodate changes in requirements at each iteration, whereas in a waterfall process, requirements are considered to be fixed from the beginning and, therefore, a waterfall process is not flexible enough for some projects, especially those in which requirements are not known at the beginning or may change during development. For a given project, a spiral process may cost more and take more time than does a waterfall process, but may better satisfy a customer's expectations and needs. Models for simulating various waterfall processes have been developed previously, but until now, there have been no models for simulating spiral processes. The present spiral-process-simulating model and the software that implements it were developed by extending a discrete-event simulation process model of the IEEE 12207 Software Development Process, which was built using commercially available software known as the Process Analysis Tradeoff Tool (PATT). Typical inputs to PATT models include industry-average values of product size (expressed as number of lines of code), productivity (number of lines of code per hour), and number of defects per source line of code. The user provides the number of resources, the overall percent of effort that should be allocated to each process step, and the number of desired staff members for each step. The output of PATT includes the size of the product, a measure of effort, a measure of rework effort, the duration of the entire process, and the numbers of injected, detected, and corrected defects as well as a number of other interesting features. In the development of the present model, steps were added to the IEEE 12207 waterfall process, and this model and its implementing software were made to run repeatedly through the sequence of steps, each repetition representing an iteration in a spiral process. Because the IEEE 12207 model is founded on a waterfall paradigm, it enables direct comparison of spiral and waterfall processes. The model can be used throughout a software-development project to analyze the project as more information becomes available. For instance, data from early iterations can be used as inputs to the model, and the model can be used to estimate the time and cost of carrying the project to completion.

Mizell, Carolyn↗
NASA NTRS2016

Modeling in the State Flow Environment to Support Launch Vehicle Verification Testing for Mission and Fault Management Algorithms in the NASA Space Launch System

Analysis methods and testing processes are essential activities in the engineering development and verification of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) new Space Launch System (SLS). Central to mission success is reliable verification of the Mission and Fault Management (M&FM) algorithms for the SLS launch vehicle (LV) flight software. This is particularly difficult because M&FM algorithms integrate and operate LV subsystems, which consist of diverse forms of hardware and software themselves, with equally diverse integration from the engineering disciplines of LV subsystems. M&FM operation of SLS requires a changing mix of LV automation. During pre-launch the LV is primarily operated by the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Ground Systems Development and Operations (GSDO) organization with some LV automation of time-critical functions, and much more autonomous LV operations during ascent that have crucial interactions with the Orion crew capsule, its astronauts, and with mission controllers at the Johnson Space Center. M&FM algorithms must perform all nominal mission commanding via the flight computer to control LV states from pre-launch through disposal and also address failure conditions by initiating autonomous or commanded aborts (crew capsule escape from the failing LV), redundancy management of failing subsystems and components, and safing actions to reduce or prevent threats to ground systems and crew. To address the criticality of the verification testing of these algorithms, the NASA M&FM team has utilized the State Flow environment6 (SFE) with its existing Vehicle Management End-to-End Testbed (VMET) platform which also hosts vendor-supplied physics-based LV subsystem models. The human-derived M&FM algorithms are designed and vetted in Integrated Development Teams composed of design and development disciplines such as Systems Engineering, Flight Software (FSW), Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) and major subsystems and vehicle elements such as Main Propulsion Systems (MPS), boosters, avionics, Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GN&C), Thrust Vector Control (TVC), liquid engines, and the astronaut crew office. Since the algorithms are realized using model-based engineering (MBE) methods from a hybrid of the Unified Modeling Language (UML) and Systems Modeling Language (SysML), SFE methods are a natural fit to provide an in depth analysis of the interactive behavior of these algorithms with the SLS LV subsystem models. For this, the M&FM algorithms and the SLS LV subsystem models are modeled using constructs provided by Matlab which also enables modeling of the accompanying interfaces providing greater flexibility for integrated testing and analysis, which helps forecast expected behavior in forward VMET integrated testing activities. In VMET, the M&FM algorithms are prototyped and implemented using the same C++ programming language and similar state machine architectural concepts used by the FSW group. Due to the interactive complexity of the algorithms, VMET testing thus far has verified all the individual M&FM subsystem algorithms with select subsystem vendor models but is steadily progressing to assessing the interactive behavior of these algorithms with LV subsystems, as represented by subsystem models. The novel SFE applications has proven to be useful for quick look analysis into early integrated system behavior and assessment of the M&FM algorithms with the modeled LV subsystems. This early MBE analysis generates vital insight into the integrated system behaviors, algorithm sensitivities, design issues, and has aided in the debugging of the M&FM algorithms well before full testing can begin in more expensive, higher fidelity but more arduous environments such as VMET, FSW testing, and the Systems Integration Lab7 (SIL). SFE has exhibited both expected and unexpected behaviors in nominal and off nominal test cases prior to full VMET testing. In many findings, these behavioral characteristics were used to correct the M&FM algorithms, enable better test coverage, and develop more effective test cases for each of the LV subsystems. This has improved the fidelity of testing and planning for the next generation of M&FM algorithms as the SLS program evolves from non-crewed to crewed flight, impacting subsystem configurations and the M&FM algorithms that control them. SFE analysis has improved robustness and reliability of the M&FM algorithms by revealing implementation errors and documentation inconsistencies. It is also improving planning efficiency for future VMET testing of the M&FM algorithms hosted in the LV flight computers, further reducing risk for the SLS launch infrastructure, the SLS LV, and most importantly the crew.

Trevino, Luis↗
DOE OSTI2020

Sources of Propane Consumed in California

Project Scope: The objective of this study is to specify the sources of propane consumed in California. It answers the questions, where does the propane used in California come from and how was it produced? The results of this study provide comprehensive, transparent, and verifiable estimates, based on the 2018 market. The information provided in this report is suitable for use to assess the life cycle carbon intensity of propane used as a transportation fuel in California. As the 2009 Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) aims to reduce California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other smog-forming and toxic air pollutants, the appropriate designation of carbon intensity for propane as a transportation fuel is important for evaluating propane’s potential to contribute to GHG goals and understandings in the context of various actions. This study focuses on estimating the shares of total propane consumed in the state of California produced from petroleum refineries, natural gas plants, and bituminous sands sources inside California and elsewhere. Results: An estimated 590 million gallons of propane were consumed in California in 2018, of which, 59.5% originated from refinery production and 40.5% originated from natural gas plants. The majority of this was sourced from refinery production in California, 334 million gallons. Most of the propane imported to California for consumption was sourced from natural gas plants, 113 million gallons, with over half of the imported volume sourced from Canada. The volume sourced from bituminous sand upgrader and fractionator operations was negligible. Details from this analysis are presented in the table below which provides an overview of the propane flows estimated in this study by region and production method. The shares and volumes presented here represent a snapshot for 2018. A significant increase in propane demand, such as could be caused by increased use of propane as a transportation fuel in the state, would affect California’s propane production, imports, and exports. The method and data sources used for the estimates provided in this report also provide the framework which could be used for future updates. Key Method Considerations: The values presented here are based on a two-step approach where the first step was to determine the flows of propane into and out of California from different regions and the second step was to estimate the propane production methods in each region. A volume balance approach is used as the primary method for tracking the volume of propane in and out of California as propane production and import volumes are available by Petroleum Administration of Defense District (PADD) from EIA and neither inter-PADD propane transfers nor state-specific non-prime supplier consumption are available from a public data source. The volume balance performed for this study covered PADD 5 (the West Coast), which includes Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. The volume balance used all available public datasets to determine propane production, imports, exports, and consumption. Volumes unaccounted for by these datasets were estimated using the resulting volume balance by assuming market equilibrium. Consumption within each state in PADD 5 was estimated based on known import, export, and production volumes and this amount was used to develop the volume balance. EIA only tracks consumption at the state level by prime supplier sales. The volume balance approach provides the basis to correct for additional propane consumed in-states where propane is transferred to California. To determine the California propane sources and trade in 2018. volume of propane consumed in California, the volume balance approach is again used where it was estimated all imported volumes not specifically flagged for re-export were consumed, and the remaining consumption was produced in-state. The California Energy Commission (CEC) provided the total volume of propane imported and exported from California in 2018; this volume data set along with commodity tracking from the Canada Energy Regulator (CER) and the International Trade Commission (ITC) which tracks port of entry and final destination was used to determine where propane originated from and where it was ultimately consumed. For example, the CER tracks propane leaving Canada and entering each state within the U.S. Imported propane from Canada to California – marked for California – is assumed to be consumed in California. When no further data were available, import volumes were assumed to be consumed in California without pass-through (i.e., no propane imported to California was directly sold and exported). In most cases, the production method for each propane source region was applied to the volume of propane transferred to California. In other words, the shares of propane sourced from natural gas and refineries for each production region was assigned to California imports based on their contribution to the total volume flows into California to determine the production method for propane consumed in-state. For volumes imported into California from PADD 4, Washington State, Canada, and the rest of the world (Argentina, Chile, Norway, Peru, South Korea, and Trinidad and Tobago), the volumes sourced from petroleum refineries and natural gas plants reflect the either production ratio for the region or, in cases where the sources specific to the amounts exported to California could be determined, the sources specific to the volumes transferred to California.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Low Count and Background Radionuclides Analysis - 20488

The US Department of Energy (DOE) is often faced with the need to evaluate radionuclides at low concentrations. When site sample data are likely to be close to threshold activity concentrations of interest, then the means by which the radiochemical analysis is performed and reported is critical. This situation can occur when differentiating from zero (presence/absence) for radionuclides that do not occur naturally, close comparison with environmental background for naturally occurring radionuclides, close comparison with a risk- or dose-based threshold concentrations of interest, or even comparisons across studies. There are several analytical issues that are of concern, but the two that appear to cause incorrect decisions to be made most often involve establishing detection limits and subtracting ambient background conditions in the laboratory. These issues are not critical when radionuclide activity concentrations are large relative to thresholds of concern, but they seem to be poorly understood when it matters. When the comparisons are important and are likely to be close to a threshold of interest, then the general contract with the analytical laboratories needs to be changed so that the right or appropriate data are obtained. The concern is that important decisions are made incorrectly more often as greater scrutiny is placed on DoE's radionuclide cleanup or monitoring decisions by the public and other stakeholders. Examples are presented of problems that have been observed for different projects, both within and outside the realm of DOE and NRC remediation and radioactive waste disposal problems, and solutions are offered that should lead to better data from which important decisions need to be made. The first example is from Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and involves radionuclide concentrations in soil and rock beneath LANL's Material Disposal Area (MDA) G. An initial review of the data led to a conclusion that americium and plutonium are a long way present beneath MDA G. A more thorough review of the data that accounted properly for ambient background and the detection limits that had been established led to the opposite conclusion. Another example is from the Nevada National Security Site where tritium results from one of the wells were unexpectedly high. Proper understanding and analysis of ambient background led to the conclusion that the increased concentrations were not so obvious, and that a different contract with the analytical laboratory was needed to provide more appropriate data to support a better determination. Other examples are used from regulatory review of projects in Nevada, where background levels and secular equilibrium for naturally occurring radionuclides are not established correctly because of analytical issues. The same basic issues have also been found to create difficulties analyzing historical data from the West Valley Demonstration Project. There is evidence in the data that the apparent lack of secular equilibrium where it is expected to exist is related to ambient background subtraction or other analytical issues. A final example is presented for analysis of Tc-99 in samples of depleted uranium. In this case, two different studies that were performed only three months apart provide quite different results. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the data quality objectives (DQO) process in the mid-1980's to establish decision performance criteria for data collection. EPA guidance (EPA G-4, for example) clearly distinguishes between DQOs and measurement performance objectives (MQOs) that should be addressed for laboratory analysis of samples. The language of DQOs and MQOs has become confused over time it seems, and the subsequent effects seem to include a lack of attention to decision performance and a routine approach to measurement quality. In order to better address radionuclide sample analysis when the concentrations are close to thresholds of concern, which might be zero for some radionuclides, background for others, and risk-based thresholds for yet others, it is important that routine laboratory analysis methods are adjusted, and that the project team and the laboratory work closely together to ensure that the data meets the MQO requirements of laboratory analysis and reporting of results, and that the MQOs effectively support project-specific DQOs. This basic approach will be applied in Los Alamos in the coming year to the collection of moisture data from underneath MDA T that will be analyzed for americium and neptunium isotopes. Proper understanding of the radiochemistry methods and reporting, and of appropriate statistical methods is critical to the success of such projects, ensuring that the right decisions are made. (authors)

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Monitoring Airspace Complexity and Determining Contributing Factors

The national airspace has evolved over many years to accommodate increased traffic demand [1] while simultaneously maintaining one of the safest forms of transportation [2], [3]. One of the reasons for this success is the ability of the system and the operators to adapt and accommodate to situations that routinely disrupt optimal operations. These situations may include: adverse weather, delays, early arrivals, equipment outages, and other factors that are outside the operators ability to control. These factors can lead to states where automation is unable to properly handle these issues and therefore air traffic controllers and pilots have to intervene, ultimately increasing communication between operators resulting in higher workload. As controller workload increases to handle sub-optimal operating conditions this can be viewed as an increase in complexity. The reasoning for this is because humans are now required to make tactical decisions in response to external factors, resulting in a departure from the strategic plan where operations would be more efficiently managed. Human operators control airspace complexity under rigid regulations that are constantly changing. The airspace is divided into sectors and the number of aircraft assigned to each controller is limited for safe handling. There has been past work that devised airspace complexity metrics in commercial aviation and related these metrics to controller workload (e.g., [4],[5]). The upper bounds on the system load are pre-determined. Such bounds on complexity make for a safe system, but the system cannot scale and adapt to autonomous, dense, and heterogeneous traffic, including the many types of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) envisioned to be added to the operations. We hypothesize that, as traffic density and heterogeneity grow, and other key metrics change, there will be phase transitions at which the way traffic should be managed changes significantly [6]. We offer a method for in-time detection of contributing factors that lead to phase transitions, characterized by increased complexity. To the best of our knowledge, there is no tool similar to our proposed effort that identifies such contributing factors or precursor patterns. To define the scope we are proposing to measure complexity from the viewpoint of the Terminal Radar Approach Control Facilities (TRACON) controller’s perspective. In particular we are analyzing arrivals into KSFO. With safety as the top concern for airspace operators, it is important to recognize that as density and heterogeneity grow, the focus of the system will change. Times of the day when the airspace has low density and heterogeneity, the flights will follow more efficient paths where the aircraft move on established routes that are more or less directly to the destination. However, when density and heterogeneity increases, the system will begin changing focus to avoiding conflicts and collisions and route the flights in a more flexible way. Higher flexibility requires more communication and coordination between controllers and pilots which the current automation is unable to handle. This paper proposes a novel approach that monitors airspace complexity at multiple scales, uses a Machine Learning-based tool that predicts when operations will transition to a regime of greater complexity, and identifies actions that can reduce the complexity while still maintaining efficient and safe operations. We demonstrate our proposed approach using data from multiple complementary sources. This includes, but is not limited to: historical aircraft surveillance data from NASA’s Sherlock Data Warehouse [7], METAR weather data, and airport configuration data from Aviation System Performance Metrics (ASPM). The surveillance data flight paths are sampled at a variable sample rate — increasing as the aircraft approaches the airport. This is due to how Sherlock manages flight track stitching between different radar facilities which have different sampling rates. The weather and performance data are logged at defined intervals throughout the day at a courser refresh rate. In addition to the logged data and metrics, we leverage pre-defined Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs) procedures to characterize the path of each flight. Each flight files for one of these routes in the flight plan well before entering the terminal airspace, and approximately follows the route until it leaves the STAR, typically on the final fix of a runway transition. However, most flights do not always fly the full STAR procedure to completion [8], but the majority do adhere to the fixes within the common route of the procedure. Our approach leverages fixes in the common route of each of the STARs to build a reference path to the airport. This allows us to characterize the flight paths in what we are defining as the “maneuvering area” (the airspace between the STAR and before the flight is lined up on the runway’s final approach) to determine how off nominal the flights are to calculate its complexity score. Determining airspace complexity is a concept that does not have a concrete answer. In designing this metric, we consider what increases the workload for the air traffic controllers. Consequently more specialized vectoring maneuvers results in higher workload. Accordingly, we start with a theory: each flight has a direct path it takes from the STAR’s common route to the final approach’s outer marker fix for the flight’s landing runway. It is important to note that the direct path is only used as a reference. If the majority of the flights have a large consistent offset as compared to other routes it does not necessarily mean that those flights have higher complexity. We are merely building a distribution based on this direct path for that particular STAR and runway pair to determine the normal mode of operations for that route. Flights that are in the upper tail of these distributions will result in higher complexity scores and flights that fly in the median will represent the normal mode of operations and therefore will have lower complexity scores. Since flights following each STAR route take different paths to the airport, we have a different distribution for each STAR route and therefore can model these distributions to compute a complexity score from their respective normalized distributions. To evaluate the effectiveness of our proposed airspace complexity metric we will compare against an established approach based on trajectory clustering [9]. This unsupervised learning technique consists of the following steps: (1) identify the general maneuvering areas (waypoints) by performing $\kappa$-means or DBSCAN clustering on locations where aircraft frequently turn based on the surveillance radar track data, (2) map flight trajectories onto sequences of waypoints, and (3) cluster the sequences based on their common subsequences. From a high-level perspective, this baseline model learns nominal operations in the airspace through the sequence of waypoints that are representative of where aircraft change direction and defines deviations from the nominal operations as “complex.” Therefore, more deviations from the nominal operations correspond to higher complexity values. For our validation, we re-implemented this technique and tune model hyper-parameters to correctly detect waypoints for the arrival traffic into the San Francisco bay area. We will compute the complexity measure over a one-year period using our proposed technique as well as the baseline. Our validation will be based on each technique’s ability to detect a set of undesirable outcomes (e.g., go-arounds, holding patterns, average time in the airspace, etc.). Since our current complexity metric is derived from the offset from the direct reference path, it’s important to understand what causes these offsets. In many of the flights with high offset distance, flights performing holding patterns and S turns can be observed. These maneuvering tactics are utilized to add distance between the aircraft and the destination runway to prevent multiple flights from having conflicting arrival times. In order to predict a rise in complexity (or the precursor to complexity), it’s necessary to be able to identify these potential conflicts (which in turn, result in higher offsets). To do this, we define a “representative flight” for each STAR route and runway pair. This flight is approximately the path the flight would take if there was a clear path with no other flights in the airspace — including the time remaining to the airport. We first identify the flights for a given STAR runway pair using the offset to the reference path distributions that fall between the 44-55 percentiles. This yields the flights that conform to the most normal mode of operation. Each of these flights is partitioned based on the percent complete from the entry point into the maneuvering areas from 0\% – 100\% complete. Then for each percent “bin”, we take the median value of the flight’s latitude/longitude coordinates, airspeed, and (non causal) time remaining to the airport to construct a lookup table for each percent complete bin on a given route. As a flight enters the maneuvering area, we can find the estimated arrival time of a flight to the airport by finding the closest point to the representative path’s percent complete bin (relative to the flight’s current position at any snapshot in the airspace) and therefore retrieve the corresponding remaining time left on the “representative path”. We assume that the flight will follow the representative path to completion when deriving these estimates. We can then compare these estimated arrival times against other flights for the same snapshot in time to identify potential conflicts. If more flights are estimated to arrive within a tolerance window than there are runways available, then we have a potential conflict. We can use this derived measure along with other factors expected to add disruption to the operation such as weather and runway configuration changes as an input to machine learning tools to detect precursors that increases in our complexity measure. This novel method will assist in uncovering insights into the contributing factors that lead to increased complexity that may allow for in-time responses to avoid reaching a high complexity state in the airspace.

complexity↗
DOE OSTI2025

Diagnostics: Chapter 8 of the special issue: on the path to tokamak burning plasma operation

This chapter presents the activity conducted by the ITPA topical group (TG) on Diagnostics over about the last 15 years. Following a general introduction of the ITER Diagnostics led by their measurement roles, the document is organized in several subchapters detailing the design support, research and development activity conducted by each of the specialist working groups (WGs) of the TG. Please note that the magnetic diagnostics were supported at the TG without a specific WG. Their status is included in the general introduction. In the following some highlights of the subchapter’s contents are provided. Recent advances in ITER first wall (FW) diagnostics for the measurements of plasma-metallic wall interaction in support of the ITER research plan are reported. An InfraRed imaging Video Bolometer for ITER has been developed and tested on several tokamaks to measure the radiated power loss. A laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) technique which utilizes a pulsed laser beam to ablate locally by forming a crater, will measure local tritium inventory in the FW material. Real-time Residual Gas Analyzers will measure the neutral gas composition in a divertor port and an equatorial port during plasma operation. Due to the full metallic FW environment, the plasma-wall interaction in ITER will face several challenges such as the compromised radiated power and divertor heat flux measurements by reflection. Ray tracing and analysis codes have been developed to eliminate and correct the effects of reflection in the measurements. The characteristics of the reflecting surfaces depending on the roughness and angle of the incidence have been measured by dedicated experiments, and the results were applied to the reflection elimination. For the measurement of the metallic impurity radiation induced by eroded metallic atoms, a vacuum ultraviolet spectrometer has been developed and tested. An extensive thermonuclear diagnostic suite will be required to support the operation of ITER and the planned experimental program for future burning plasma experiments. Due to the harsh environmental conditions, the implementation of diagnostic systems in ITER is a major challenge. These conditions include high levels of neutron and gamma fluxes, neutron heating, particle bombardment. Therefore, the selection and design of diagnostic systems must take into account a number of phenomena previously unseen in diagnostic design. For this reason, the measurement of neutrons and confined or lost fast ions, with particular emphasis on alpha particles, is critical to ITER. The diagnostics associated with these measurements will be important for future plasma-burning experiments at ITER. The high neutron emission and very large plasma size in ITER make neutron diagnostics the main diagnostic method used to measure plasma parameters such as fusion power, fusion power density, ion temperature, energy of fast ions and their spatial distributions in the plasma core. Active spectroscopy techniques are methods where a neutral particle beam is injected into the plasma and information on plasma parameters is extracted from the measurement of line emission resulting from the beam-plasma interaction, either by plasma ions or by beam atoms. Spatial localization is achieved by crossing the beamline and multiple observation lines. The ITER plasma will be a high temperature, moderately dense, fully ionized collisional plasma. The plasma facing surfaces are principally metallic being fashioned from beryllium or tungsten but many other elements, arising from either structural or from operational needs, may enter this plasma. The energy range of the emitted photons range from meV (infra-red) to multi keV (x-rays) and originate from all areas of the plasma volume. The primary role of passive emission diagnostics is to identify what is in the plasma from spectral signatures. Extracting quantitative information from these measurements such as impurity content, ion temperature, rotation, degree of detachment and radiated power depends on calibrated instruments, a physics model of the atomic and molecular processes and plasma transport and an analysis workflow that takes into account environmental effects such as reflections. The particular needs for ITER have prompted a multi-machine, many-year effort to address all these aspects and this chapter reviews the work on diagnostic design, experiments and new analysis techniques. An overview of the laser diagnostics to be implemented on ITER is also provided in this paper. This includes descriptions of the Thomson scattering in the core, edge and divertor regions, polarimetry and interferometry diagnostics used for measuring plasma density and also measurements of helium density in the divertor using Laser Induced Flourescence. Techniques which can allow improvements on current measurements are also addressed in particular expanding poloidal polarimetry measurements to measure field fluctuations and proposed use of dispersion interferometery which has a number of advantages over existing methods. This paper identifies particular areas where further research and testing on existing tokamaks is useful even at this advanced stage to inform the design of diagnostics for ITER. Outstanding areas of concern for the implementation of laser diagnostics, in particular with a view to reliable operation are identified. An overview of the latest developments of microwave diagnostic systems and techniques is given. The primary focus is the contributions for ITER—the next step burning plasma experiment—which is supplemented by describing recent progress of techniques applicable for fusion experiments beyond ITER. The contributions are intentionally kept concise, and are being supplemented by a rich list of references for further studies. Radiation induced effects are receiving continuous and well-deserved attention of the ITER diagnostic community and they are in many cases one of the primary design drivers of the ITER diagnostic systems. The paper summarizes recent progress in this area focusing primarily on the ITER diagnostics but in some cases provides also outlook for the possible solutions for even more demanding radiation environment of fusion reactors beyond ITER. Despite advancements in the area of modeling and simulation of various radiation induced effects, experimental testing in a nuclear environment as close as possible to the target one is still seen as unavoidable for proper qualification of particular diagnostic functional elements. Recent advancement within three diagnostic areas: optical diagnostics, magnetics and bolometers is covered. Encouraging results on qualification of silica glass vacuum window assemblies are presented. In the area of magnetic sensors, progress of irradiation tests performed on ITER in-vessel LTCC inductive sensors is presented with outlook for novel technological approaches to inductive sensors utilizing thick printing and photolithography technologies being highlighted. Summary of advancements in the area of steady state magnetic field sensors based on Hall effect is given. New results of neutron irradiation test of the ITER borosilicate glass inserts for vacuum electrical feedthroughs are summarized finding negligible swelling at target level of neutron fluence. Off-line irradiation tests of fiber optic current sensors for plasma current measurement demonstrated that both for gamma doses up to 5 MGy and a total neutron fluence up to 10 15 cm −2 , radiation induced changes are still compatible with required measurement accuracy on ITER. The ITER bolometers are given as an example how considering radiation effects may influence the diagnostic design. Finally, outlook for future main R&D directions is outlined. All optical and laser-based diagnostics in ITER will be using mirrors to guide plasma radiation toward detectors, cameras and sensors. In the hostile plasma, radiation and particle environment the optical characteristics of diagnostic mirrors will degrade directly affecting the entire performance of involved diagnostic systems. An assessment of factors affecting mirror performance is provided. Among the prime adverse factors are deposition of plasma impurities, sputtering of mirror surface and steam ingress in the vicinity of mirrors. Within the International Tokamak Physics Activity with active support by ITER central team and domestic agencies, the structured research and development (R&D) program on mitigation of risks for diagnostic mirrors is underway. Within this program the mirror material development, the passive mitigation of mirror degradation by using diagnostic ducts and shutters along with an active mirror recovery program comprising the in-situ mirror cleaning and calibration is underway. Recent developments in diagnostic mirror R&D are described in this Chapter along with an example of their implementation of R&D solutions in ITER Infrared Thermography diagnostic. An assessment of still open engineering and physics questions, considerations on mirror risks during an early phase of ITER operation are given along with an overview of diagnostic mirror evolution in the late ITER operation stage toward the demonstration fusion power plant. Several crucial areas of diagnostic R&D outlined in ITER Research Plan are addressed. The basic control groups in a fusion reactor can be broken-down in five categories: (1) plasma position, magnetic configuration, and plasma current control, (2) profile control and confinement optimization, (3) MHD control and suppression, (4) edge dissipation control, radiation and plasma exhaust control and (5) break-down optimization. These categories are coupled via the physics (a control action in one domain will affect the other domains) and via shared actuators (e.g. ECRH for impurity accumulation avoidance, current density distribution control and MHD suppression). Consequently, a supervisory control system should determine the priority of the various control tasks, their couplings, and the interfaces with the safety and interlock system. For the systematic development of the various controllers taking the complexity of the plasma and the control system into account, a model-based approach is required. A short historical overview is given of the developments in systems and control theory and control engineering with special emphasis on those developments that are most relevant for Nuclear Fusion research and operation. An overview is given of the state of the field of fusion plasma control for the control categories. It will be shown how synthetic diagnostics are being developed in ITER and how they are used in diagnostic design and design validation and how they can be in model-based controller synthesis using relatively simple models. In modern control methods, multiple diagnostics are used to constrain relatively simple models. The constrained models provide an estimate for the state. This opens the route to state controllers, such as model predictive control. A major challenge in nuclear fusion research is the coherent combination of data from heterogeneous diagnostics and modeling codes for machine control and safety as well as physics studies. Measured data from different diagnostics often provide information about the same subset of physical parameters. Additionally, information provided by some diagnostics might be needed for the analysis of other diagnostics. A joint analysis of complementary and redundant data allows, e.g. to improve the reliability of parameter estimation, to increase the spatial and temporal resolution of profiles, to obtain synergistic effects, to consider diagnostics interdependencies and to find and resolve data inconsistencies. Physics-based modeling and parameter relationships provide additional information improving the treatment of ill-posed inversion problems. A coherent combination of all kind of available information within a probabilistic framework allows for improved data analysis results. The concept of integrated data analysis (IDA) in the framework of Bayesian probability theory is outlined and contrasted with conventional data analysis. Components of the probabilistic approach are summarized and specific ingredients beneficial for data analysis at fusion devices are discussed.

ITER↗