Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “concurrent engineering”

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 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1999

True Concurrent Thermal Engineering Integrating CAD Model Building with Finite Element and Finite Difference Methods

Thermal engineering has long been left out of the concurrent engineering environment dominated by CAD (computer aided design) and FEM (finite element method) software. Current tools attempt to force the thermal design process into an environment primarily created to support structural analysis, which results in inappropriate thermal models. As a result, many thermal engineers either build models "by hand" or use geometric user interfaces that are separate from and have little useful connection, if any, to CAD and FEM systems. This paper describes the development of a new thermal design environment called the Thermal Desktop. This system, while fully integrated into a neutral, low cost CAD system, and which utilizes both FEM and FD methods, does not compromise the needs of the thermal engineer. Rather, the features needed for concurrent thermal analysis are specifically addressed by combining traditional parametric surface based radiation and FD based conduction modeling with CAD and FEM methods. The use of flexible and familiar temperature solvers such as SINDA/FLUINT (Systems Improved Numerical Differencing Analyzer/Fluid Integrator) is retained.

Panczak, Tim↗
NASA NTRS2004

Model-Based Engineering Design for Trade Space Exploration throughout the Design Cycle

This paper presents ongoing work to standardize model-based system engineering as a complement to point design development in the conceptual design phase of deep space missions. It summarizes two first steps towards practical application of this capability within the framework of concurrent engineering design teams and their customers. The first step is standard generation of system sensitivities models as the output of concurrent engineering design sessions, representing the local trade space around a point design. A review of the chosen model development process, and the results of three case study examples, demonstrate that a simple update to the concurrent engineering design process can easily capture sensitivities to key requirements. It can serve as a valuable tool to analyze design drivers and uncover breakpoints in the design. The second step is development of rough-order- of-magnitude, broad-range-of-validity design models for rapid exploration of the trade space, before selection of a point design. At least one case study demonstrated the feasibility to generate such models in a concurrent engineering session. The experiment indicated that such a capability could yield valid system-level conclusions for a trade space composed of understood elements. Ongoing efforts are assessing the practicality of developing end-to-end system-level design models for use before even convening the first concurrent engineering session, starting with modeling an end-to-end Mars architecture.

models↗
NASA NTRS2010

Identification and Classification of Common Risks in Space Science Missions

Due to the highly constrained schedules and budgets that NASA missions must contend with, the identification and management of cost, schedule and risks in the earliest stages of the lifecycle is critical. At the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) it is the concurrent engineering teams that first address these items in a systematic manner. Foremost of these concurrent engineering teams is Team X. Started in 1995, Team X has carried out over 1000 studies, dramatically reducing the time and cost involved, and has been the model for other concurrent engineering teams both within NASA and throughout the larger aerospace community. The ability to do integrated risk identification and assessment was first introduced into Team X in 2001. Since that time the mission risks identified in each study have been kept in a database. In this paper we will describe how the Team X risk process is evolving highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the different approaches. The paper will especially focus on the identification and classification of common risks that have arisen during Team X studies of space based science missions.

Risk Identification↗
NASA NTRS2022

2020 I.F._Wickizer_New CE Tool for MDC_Final Report

Our team surveyed available products and found no readily-available/U.S. commercial or Agency products which supported our envisioned workflow for the Mission Design Center and the concurrent engineering (CE) process we use. Therefore, we sought to create our own CE tool. Changes in agency policy during the performance period allowed us to shift direction and instead adapt our previous legacy tool (Atlas) to include the collaboration features we sorely needed. Atlas relied upon databases for its back-end data management. Poseidon, the work proposed under this effort, was also intended to leverage from that previous back end (in part). However, in May 2021, EUSO announced that “SBU/CUI Information Can Now Be Shared/Stored Within O365 Without Encryption.” Consequently, we made the decision to use O365 in place of our back end. This change provides for version history, collaborative simultaneous editing, and other collaboration tools agency-wide that were previously unavailable with the old database architecture. The new Atlas O365 has more flexibility and capability for users. It’s now easier for users to switch between using the tool for concurrent engineering and individual subsystem engineering. A version was delivered for concurrent engineering of small satellite missions; so far, it has been used successfully on the Aeolus MDC study. Atlas O365 will facilitate the design and assessment of Small Satellite Missions at low Concept Maturity Level at Ames. Feasibility assessments on mission concepts still at a low CML permit strategic planning and decision-making efforts at the center level about which concepts should be pursued and proposed.

concurrent engineering↗
NASA NTRS2001

A Software Tool for Integrated Optical Design Analysis

Design of large precision optical systems requires multi-disciplinary analysis, modeling, and design. Thermal, structural and optical characteristics of the hardware must be accurately understood in order to design a system capable of accomplishing the performance requirements. The interactions between each of the disciplines become stronger as systems are designed lighter weight for space applications. This coupling dictates a concurrent engineering design approach. In the past, integrated modeling tools have been developed that attempt to integrate all of the complex analysis within the framework of a single model. This often results in modeling simplifications and it requires engineering specialist to learn new applications. The software described in this presentation addresses the concurrent engineering task using a different approach. The software tool, Integrated Optical Design Analysis (IODA), uses data fusion technology to enable a cross discipline team of engineering experts to concurrently design an optical system using their standard validated engineering design tools.

Moore, Jim↗
NASA NTRS1993

Integrated design and manufacturing for the high speed civil transport

In June 1992, Georgia Tech's School of Aerospace Engineering was awarded a NASA University Space Research Association (USRA) Advanced Design Program (ADP) to address 'Integrated Design and Manufacturing for the High Speed Civil Transport (HSCT)' in its graduate aerospace systems design courses. This report summarizes the results of the five courses incorporated into the Georgia Tech's USRA ADP program. It covers AE8113: Introduction to Concurrent Engineering, AE4360: Introduction to CAE/CAD, AE4353: Design for Life Cycle Cost, AE6351: Aerospace Systems Design One, and AE6352: Aerospace Systems Design Two. AE8113: Introduction to Concurrent Engineering was an introductory course addressing the basic principles of concurrent engineering (CE) or integrated product development (IPD). The design of a total system was not the objective of this course. The goal was to understand and define the 'up-front' customer requirements, their decomposition, and determine the value objectives for a complex product, such as the high speed civil transport (HSCT). A generic CE methodology developed at Georgia Tech was used for this purpose. AE4353: Design for Life Cycle Cost addressed the basic economic issues for an HSCT using a robust design technique, Taguchi's parameter design optimization method (PDOM). An HSCT economic sensitivity assessment was conducted using a Taguchi PDOM approach to address the robustness of the basic HSCT design. AE4360: Introduction to CAE/CAD permitted students to develop and utilize CAE/CAD/CAM knowledge and skills using CATIA and CADAM as the basic geometric tools. AE6351: Aerospace Systems Design One focused on the conceptual design refinement of a baseline HSCT configuration as defined by Boeing, Douglas, and NASA in their system studies. It required the use of NASA's synthesis codes FLOPS and ACSYNT. A criterion called the productivity index (P.I.) was used to evaluate disciplinary sensitivities and provide refinements of the baseline HSCT configuration. AE6352: Aerospace Systems Design Two was a continuation of Aerospace Systems Design One in which wing concepts were researched and analyzed in more detail. FLOPS and ACSYNT were again used at the system level while other off-the-shelf computer codes were used for more detailed wing disciplinary analysis and optimization. The culmination of all efforts and submission of this report conclude the first year's efforts of Georgia Tech's NASA USRA ADP. It will hopefully provide the foundation for next year's efforts concerning continuous improvement of integrated design and manufacturing for the HSCT.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2009

Spreadsheets in Team X: Preserving Order in an Inherently Chaotic Environment

JPL is NASA's prime center for deep space missions. In response to the need to reduce the cost and time to complete early concept studies and proposals JPL created the first concurrent engineering team in the aerospace industry: Team X. Started in 1995, Team X has carried out over 800 studies, dramatically reducing the time and cost involved, and has been the model for other concurrent engineering teams both within NASA and throughout the larger aerospace community. Since its inception, the software backbone of this highly successful design team - engaged in examining some of NASA's cutting edge concepts - has been the unassuming spreadsheet. Over the years the Team X spreadsheet-based tools have evolved from simple standalone engineering models into a networked spreadsheet intensive system with real time parameter updating. Recent new capabilities include stochastic cost estimation and a graphical drag and drop block diagram that automatically populates the related spreadsheet parameters of cost, mass and power. This paper describes how the spreadsheet functions within Team X: its history, architecture, current capabilities, enabling strengths and persistent weaknesses. In addition, the verification methods and institutional oversight that have evolved as the Team X products became increasingly critical to Laboratory success are also discussed.

concurrent engineering↗
NASA NTRS2012

What is Team X?

Team X is a concurrent engineering team for rapid design and analysis of space mission concepts. It was developed in 1995 by JPL to reduce study time and cost. More than 1100 studies have been completed It is institutionally endorsed and it has been emulated by many institutions. In Concurrent Engineering (i.e., Parallel) diverse specialists work in real time, in the same place, with shared data, to yield an integrated design

Concurrent Engineering↗
DOE OSTI2021

An orthogonal metabolic framework for one-carbon utilization

Metabolic engineering often entails concurrent engineering of substrate utilization, central metabolism, and product synthesis pathways to maximize the conversion of a carbon substrate into desired product(s). Here, we report an alternative approach using synthetic pathways for C1 bioconversion that are orthogonal to the host metabolic network, thus minimizing interdependency on native metabolism and enabling more efficient biocatalysts. Here, the engineered pathways are based on formyl-CoA elongation (FORCE) reactions catalyzed by the enzyme 2-hydroxyacyl-CoA lyase (HACL) and generate multi-carbon products directly from C1 elongation units in the form of formyl-CoA. Herein, we use thermodynamic and stoichiometric analyses to evaluate different FORCE pathway variants, including aldose elongation, α-reduction, and aldehyde elongation. Promising variants were further prototyped using cell-free systems (purified enzymes and cell extracts) as well as resting and growing cultures of non-methylotrophic bacterium Escherichia coli. We demonstrate that C1 substrates formate, formaldehyde, and methanol can be used as inputs for FORCE pathways and that FORCE reactions can serve as a platform for varied product synthesis including glycolate, ethylene glycol, ethanol, and glycerate. Furthermore, the orthogonal FORCE pathways have the potential to be integrated with host metabolism for synthetic methylotrophy by the production of native growth substrates as demonstrated in a two-strain culture system.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS1992

Quality Function Deployment for Large Systems

Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is typically applied to small subsystems. This paper describes efforts to extend QFD to large scale systems. It links QFD to the system engineering process, the concurrent engineering process, the robust design process, and the costing process. The effect is to generate a tightly linked project management process of high dimensionality which flushes out issues early to provide a high quality, low cost, and, hence, competitive product. A pre-QFD matrix linking customers to customer desires is described.

Dean, Edwin B.↗
NASA NTRS2011

How Engineers Really Think About Risk: A Study of JPL Engineers

The objectives of this work are: To improve risk assessment practices as used during the mission design process by JPL's concurrent engineering teams. (1) Developing effective ways to identify and assess mission risks (2) Providing a process for more effective dialog between stakeholders about the existence and severity of mission risks (3) Enabling the analysis of interactions of risks across concurrent engineering roles.

risk identification↗
NASA NTRS2015

Radioisotope Power Systems Reference Book for Mission Designers and Planners

The RPS Program's Program Planning and Assessment (PPA) Office commissioned the Mission Analysis team to develop the Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) Reference Book for Mission Planners and Designers to define a baseline of RPS technology capabilities with specific emphasis on performance parameters and technology readiness. The main objective of this book is to provide RPS technology information that could be utilized by future mission concept studies and concurrent engineering practices. A progress summary from the major branches of RPS technology research provides mission analysis teams with a vital tool for assessing the RPS trade space, and provides concurrent engineering centers with a consistent set of guidelines for RPS performance characteristics. This book will be iterated when substantial new information becomes available to ensure continued relevance, serving as one of the cornerstone products of the RPS PPA Office. This book updates the original 2011 internal document, using data from the relevant publicly released RPS technology references and consultations with RPS technologists. Each performance parameter and RPS product subsection has been reviewed and cleared by at least one subject matter representative. A virtual workshop was held to reach consensus on the scope and contents of the book, and the definitions and assumptions that should be used. The subject matter experts then reviewed and updated the appropriate sections of the book. The RPS Mission Analysis Team then performed further updates and crosschecked the book for consistency. Finally, a second virtual workshop was held to ensure all subject matter experts and stakeholders concurred on the contents.

Lee, Young↗
NASA NTRS2004

Advanced Technology Lifecycle Analysis System (ATLAS)

Developing credible mass and cost estimates for space exploration and development architectures require multidisciplinary analysis based on physics calculations, and parametric estimates derived from historical systems. Within the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), concurrent engineering environment (CEE) activities integrate discipline oriented analysis tools through a computer network and accumulate the results of a multidisciplinary analysis team via a centralized database or spreadsheet Each minute of a design and analysis study within a concurrent engineering environment is expensive due the size of the team and supporting equipment The Advanced Technology Lifecycle Analysis System (ATLAS) reduces the cost of architecture analysis by capturing the knowledge of discipline experts into system oriented spreadsheet models. A framework with a user interface presents a library of system models to an architecture analyst. The analyst selects models of launchers, in-space transportation systems, and excursion vehicles, as well as space and surface infrastructure such as propellant depots, habitats, and solar power satellites. After assembling the architecture from the selected models, the analyst can create a campaign comprised of missions spanning several years. The ATLAS controller passes analyst specified parameters to the models and data among the models. An integrator workbook calls a history based parametric analysis cost model to determine the costs. Also, the integrator estimates the flight rates, launched masses, and architecture benefits over the years of the campaign. An accumulator workbook presents the analytical results in a series of bar graphs. In no way does ATLAS compete with a CEE; instead, ATLAS complements a CEE by ensuring that the time of the experts is well spent Using ATLAS, an architecture analyst can perform technology sensitivity analysis, study many scenarios, and see the impact of design decisions. When the analyst is satisfied with the system configurations, technology portfolios, and deployment strategies, he or she can present the concepts to a team, which will conduct a detailed, discipline-oriented analysis within a CEE. An analog to this approach is the music industry where a songwriter creates the lyrics and music before entering a recording studio.

O'Neil, Daniel A.↗
NASA NTRS2005

Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Concurrent, Conceptual Design of Space Missions

NASA is expanding its capability to perform PRA. This capability gives insight into the links of a suggested design and drives the refinement of the design by identifying optimal areas for investments. Clearly, it is more viable and less expensive to refine a design at the time that it is being conceived. Hence the utility of conducting PRA at the conceptual design phase. Concurrent engineering teams greatly reduce the design time and costs. However, there is currently no standardized means for building probabilistic risk models to assess risks associated with a design produced by such teams. The capability to produce a consistent and valid risk metric associated with such designs would greatly enhance the value of such design teams. This paper explains the experimental results obtained to date from building probabilistic risk models for sample studies conducted at the concurrent engineering design team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (TeamX).

conceptual designs↗
NASA NTRS1993

Integration of Design, Thermal, Structural, and Optical Analysis, Including Thermal Animation

In many industries there has recently been a concerted movement toward 'quality management' and the issue of how to accomplish work more efficiently. Part of this effort is focused on concurrent engineering; the idea of integrating the design and analysis processes so that they are not separate, sequential processes (often involving design rework due to analytical findings) but instead form an integrated system with smooth transfers of information. Presented herein are several specific examples of concurrent engineering methods being carried out at Langley Research Center (LaRC): integration of thermal, structural and optical analyses to predict changes in optical performance based on thermal and structural effects; integration of the CAD design process with thermal and structural analyses; and integration of analysis and presentation by animating the thermal response of a system as an active color map -- a highly effective visual indication of heat flow.

Amundsen, Ruth M.↗
NASA NTRS1991

Lessons learned for composite structures

Lessons learned for composite structures are presented in three technology areas: materials, manufacturing, and design. In addition, future challenges for composite structures are presented. Composite materials have long gestation periods from the developmental stage to fully matured production status. Many examples exist of unsuccessful attempts to accelerate this gestation period. Experience has shown that technology transition of a new material system to fully matured production status is time consuming, involves risk, is expensive and should not be undertaken lightly. The future challenges for composite materials require an intensification of the science based approach to material development, extension of the vendor/customer interaction process to include all engineering disciplines of the end user, reduced material costs because they are a significant factor in overall part cost, and improved batch-to-batch pre-preg physical property control. Historical manufacturing lessons learned are presented using current in-service production structure as examples. Most producibility problems for these structures can be traced to their sequential engineering design. This caused an excessive emphasis on design-to-weight and schedule at the expense of design-to-cost. This resulted in expensive performance originated designs, which required costly tooling and led to non-producible parts. Historically these problems have been allowed to persist throughout the production run. The current/future approach for the production of affordable composite structures mandates concurrent engineering design where equal emphasis is placed on product and process design. Design for simplified assembly is also emphasized, since assembly costs account for a major portion of total airframe costs. The future challenge for composite manufacturing is, therefore, to utilize concurrent engineering in conjunction with automated manufacturing techniques to build affordable composite structures. Composite design experience has shown that significant weight savings have been achieved, outstanding fatigue and corrosion resistance have been demonstrated, and in-service performance has been very successful. Currently no structural design show stoppers exist for composite structures. A major lesson learned is that the full scale static test is the key test for composites, since it is the primary structural 'hot spot' indicator. The major durability issue is supportability of thin skinned structure. Impact damage has been identified as the most significant issue for the damage tolerance control of composite structures. However, delaminations induced during assembly operations have demonstrated a significant nuisance value. The future challenges for composite structures are threefold. Firstly, composite airframe weight fraction should increase to 60 percent. At the same time, the cost of composite structures must be reduced by 50 percent to attain the goal of affordability. To support these challenges it is essential to develop lower cost materials and processes.

Whitehead, R. S.↗
NASA NTRS2005

System Software Framework for System of Systems Avionics

Project Constellation implements NASA's vision for space exploration to expand human presence in our solar system. The engineering focus of this project is developing a system of systems architecture. This architecture allows for the incremental development of the overall program. Systems can be built and connected in a "Lego style" manner to generate configurations supporting various mission objectives. The development of the avionics or control systems of such a massive project will result in concurrent engineering. Also, each system will have software and the need to communicate with other (possibly heterogeneous) systems. Fortunately, this design problem has already been solved during the creation and evolution of systems such as the Internet and the Department of Defense's successful effort to standardize distributed simulation (now IEEE 1516). The solution relies on the use of a standard layered software framework and a communication protocol. A standard framework and communication protocol is suggested for the development and maintenance of Project Constellation systems. The ARINC 653 standard is a great start for such a common software framework. This paper proposes a common system software framework that uses the Real Time Publish/Subscribe protocol for framework-to-framework communication to extend ARINC 653. It is highly recommended that such a framework be established before development. This is important for the success of concurrent engineering. The framework provides an infrastructure for general system services and is designed for flexibility to support a spiral development effort.

Ferguson, Roscoe C.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Concurrent and Collaborative Engineering Implementation in an R and D Organization

Concurrent Engineering (CE), and Collaborative Engineering (or Collaborative Product Development - CPD) have emerged as new paradigms with significant impact in the development of new products and processes. With documented and substantiated success in the automotive and technology industries CE and, most recently, CPD are being touted as innovative management philosophies for many other business sectors including Research and De- velopment. This paper introduces two independent research initiatives conducted at the NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) in Cleveland, Ohio investigating the application of CE and CPD in an RdiD environment. Since little research has been conducted in the use of CE and CPD in sectors other than the high mass production manufacturing, the objective of these independent studies is to provide a systematic evaluation of the applicability of these paradigms (concur- rent and collaborative) in a low/no production, service environment, in particular R&D.

DelRosario, Ruben↗