SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “failure”
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.
Failure progression in the solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) on silicon electrodes
Not provided.
Performance and failure modes of Si anodes patterned with thin-film Ni catalyst islands for water oxidation
Silicon photoanodes patterned with thin-film Ni catalyst islands exhibited stable sunlight-driven O 2 evolution for over 240 h of continuous operation in 1.0 M KOH.
Probing the failure mechanism of nanoscale LiFePO{sub 4} for Li-ion batteries
LiFePO{sub 4} is a high power rate cathode material for lithium ion battery and shows remarkable capacity retention, featuring a 91% capacity retention after 3300 cycles. In this work, we use high-resolution transmission electron microscopy and electron energy loss spectroscopy to study the gradual capacity fading mechanism of LiFePO{sub 4} materials. We found that upon prolonged electrochemical cycling of the battery, the LiFePO{sub 4} cathode shows surface amorphization and loss of oxygen species, which directly contribute to the gradual capacity fading of the battery. The finding can guide the design and improvement of LiFePO{sub 4} cathode for high-energy and high-power rechargeable battery for electric transportation.
CALIBRATION STRATEGIES AND MODELING APPROACHES FOR PREDICTING LOAD-DISPLACEMENT BEHAVIOR AND FAILURE FOR MULTIAXIAL LOADINGS IN THREADED FASTENERS.
Abstract not provided.
Failure of cap-rock seals as determined from mechanical stratigraphy, stress history, and tensile-failure analysis of exhumed analogs
In this study, the sedimentologic and tectonic histories of clastic cap rocks and their inherent mechanical properties control the nature of permeable fractures within them. The migration of fluid through mm- to cm-scale fracture networks can result in focused fluid flow allowing hydrocarbon production from unconventional reservoirs or compromising the seal integrity of fluid traps. To understand the nature and distribution of subsurface fluid-flow pathways through fracture networks in cap-rock seals we examine four exhumed Paleozoic and Mesozoic seal analogs in Utah. We combine these outcrop analyses with subsidence analysis, paleoloading histories, and rock-strength testing data in modified Mohr–Coulomb–Griffith analyses to evaluate the effects of differential stress and rock type on fracture mode.
Soft Failure Localization During Commissioning Testing and Lightpath Operation
Not provided.
Development of a Ductile Rupture Failure Surface for a High-Strength Steel Using the Xue-Wierzbicki Failure Model
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Energy Based Representations of Mechanical Shock for Failure Characterization.
Abstract not provided.
Modeling Empirical Size Relationships on Load-Displacement Behavior and Failure in Threaded Fasteners.
Abstract not provided.
Benchmarking Mixed Mode Failure in Progressive Damage and Failure Analysis Methods
The verification and validation of progressive-damage-analysis finite element methods are difficult but critical tasks to undertake during their development. Verification exercises assess whether a predictive analysis tool produces results that are consistent with the fundamental concepts and assumptions of the tool under evaluation. Ideally, closed-form analytical solutions can be derived for which method verification results can be compared. Problems selected for computational tool verification are often simple and isolate individual features of the tool. In the case of progressive damage finite element methods, verifications should be performed to evaluate the ability of the model to predict the initiation of damage and its growth through the finite element mesh under a variety of conditions. Mabson et al. proposed a test case of a unidirectional, fiber-reinforced plate with a center crack subjected to tensile loads to evaluate matrix crack propagation predictions. The problem was modeled using the Abaqus Hashin continuum damage mechanics (CDM) model for fiber-reinforced composites. Different combinations of matrix strengths and element sizes were used in the simulations, and the results were compared to a closed-form solution based on linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM). It was determined that the Abaqus CDM model could predict the LEFM solution of Mode I cracks only when the finite element mesh density met specific requirements based on the material properties. This paper presents closed-form LEFM solutions for a center notch mixed mode (CNMM) verification problem. Parametric finite element analyses were developed using progressive damage analysis methods of both the Discrete Damage Mechanics (DDM) and CDM classes. The progressive damage analysis methods applied in the analyses of the CNMM problem include CompDam and the Floating Node Method. Analyses were conducted with various mode mixities and element sizes to verify that the damage models were working as intended and to identify any limits of applicability.
Rigorous Approaches to Quantifying Cell Failure to Enable Large-Scale Failure Modeling - Materials Mechanics and Electrochemistry.
Abstract not provided.
COMPARISON OF VALVE FAILURE RATES ESTIMATED FROM FIELD FAILURE DATA TO THOSE PREDICTED BY CALIBRATED FMEDA
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Development of a Ductile Rupture Failure Surface for a High-Strength Steel Using the Xue-Wierzbicki Failure Model
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Common Cause Failures Dominate and Defeat Redundancy
Common cause failures occur when several malfunctions are produced by a single event or process. They are especially damaging when they eliminate an entire set of redundant systems and disable their intended function. Redundancy is used when the individual system failure probability is unacceptably high. Redundancy can improve the overall system failure probability if the failures are independent, but the reliability gain is limited if there are dependent failures having a common cause. No amount of redundancy can reduce the total failure probability below the common cause failure probability. Common cause failures defeat redundancy. Systems with high reliability requirements often use extensive redundancy. These highly redundant systems rarely fail unless all the redundant components providing a particular function fail. Complete failures of such highly redundant systems are then usually common cause failures. Common cause failures are prevalent in highly redundant, high reliability systems. Common cause failures dominate redundancy. Redundant systems may fail due to specification, design, manufacturing, operations, or maintenance problems that disable all the identical redundant systems. Common cause failures typically account for one tenth of all failures. If the failure probability is relatively low and common cause failures are significant, adding more than two or three redundant identical units usually gives little added reliability improvement. Common cause failures can be reduced by using diverse components with different technologies and manufacturers, by separating and shielding subsystems, and by avoiding shared control, power, or location. External events and shared vulnerabilities may still cause common cause failures.
Common Cause Failures Dominate and Defeat Redundancy
Common cause failures occur when several malfunctions are produced by a single event or process. They are especially damaging when they eliminate an entire set of redundant systems and disable their intended function. Redundancy is used when the individual system failure probability is unacceptably high. Redundancy can improve the overall system failure probability if the failures are independent, but the reliability gain is limited if there are dependent failures having a common cause. No amount of redundancy can reduce the total failure probability below the common cause failure probability. Common cause failures defeat redundancy. Systems with high reliability requirements often use extensive redundancy. These highly redundant systems rarely fail unless all the redundant components providing a particular function fail. Complete failures of such highly redundant systems are then usually common cause failures. Common cause failures are prevalent in highly redundant, high reliability systems. Common cause failures dominate redundancy. Redundant systems may fail due to specification, design, manufacturing, operations, or maintenance problems that disable all the identical redundant systems. Common cause failures typically account for one tenth of all failures. If the failure probability is relatively low and common cause failures are significant, adding more than two or three redundant identical units usually gives little added reliability improvement. Common cause failures can be reduced by using diverse components with different technologies and manufacturers, by separating and shielding subsystems, and by avoiding shared control, power, or location. External events and shared vulnerabilities may still cause common cause failures.
Failure Patterns After Hemithoracic Pleural Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma
Purpose: We previously reported our technique for delivering intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to the entire pleura while attempting to spare the lung in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Herein, we report a detailed pattern-of-failure analysis in patients with MPM who were unresectable or underwent pleurectomy/decortication (P/D), uniformly treated with hemithoracic pleural IMRT. Methods and Materials: Sixty-seven patients with MPM were treated with definitive or adjuvant hemithoracic pleural IMRT between November 2004 and May 2013. Pretreatment imaging, treatment plans, and posttreatment imaging were retrospectively reviewed to determine failure location(s). Failures were categorized as in-field (within the 90% isodose line), marginal (<90% and ≥50% isodose lines), out-of-field (outside the 50% isodose line), or distant. Results: The median follow-up was 24 months from diagnosis and the median time to in-field local failure from the end of RT was 10 months. Forty-three in-field local failures (64%) were found with a 1- and 2-year actuarial failure rate of 56% and 74%, respectively. For patients who underwent P/D versus those who received a partial pleurectomy or were deemed unresectable, the median time to in-field local failure was 14 months versus 6 months, respectively, with 1- and 2-year actuarial in-field local failure rates of 43% and 60% versus 66% and 83%, respectively (P=.03). There were 13 marginal failures (19%). Five of the marginal failures (38%) were located within the costomediastinal recess. Marginal failures decreased with increasing institutional experience (P=.04). Twenty-five patients (37%) had out-of-field failures. Distant failures occurred in 32 patients (48%). Conclusions: After hemithoracic pleural IMRT, local failure remains the dominant form of failure pattern. Patients treated with adjuvant hemithoracic pleural IMRT after P/D experience a significantly longer time to local and distant failure than patients treated with definitive pleural IMRT. Increasing experience and improvement in target delineation minimize the incidence of avoidable marginal failures.