Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “robust estimation”

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.

906 records · Page 51
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2013

Multi-Dimensional Damage Detection for Surfaces and Structures

Current designs for inflatable or semi-rigidized structures for habitats and space applications use a multiple-layer construction, alternating thin layers with thicker, stronger layers, which produces a layered composite structure that is much better at resisting damage. Even though such composite structures or layered systems are robust, they can still be susceptible to penetration damage. The ability to detect damage to surfaces of inflatable or semi-rigid habitat structures is of great interest to NASA. Damage caused by impacts of foreign objects such as micrometeorites can rupture the shell of these structures, causing loss of critical hardware and/or the life of the crew. While not all impacts will have a catastrophic result, it will be very important to identify and locate areas of the exterior shell that have been damaged by impacts so that repairs (or other provisions) can be made to reduce the probability of shell wall rupture. This disclosure describes a system that will provide real-time data regarding the health of the inflatable shell or rigidized structures, and information related to the location and depth of impact damage. The innovation described here is a method of determining the size, location, and direction of damage in a multilayered structure. In the multi-dimensional damage detection system, layers of two-dimensional thin film detection layers are used to form a layered composite, with non-detection layers separating the detection layers. The non-detection layers may be either thicker or thinner than the detection layers. The thin-film damage detection layers are thin films of materials with a conductive grid or striped pattern. The conductive pattern may be applied by several methods, including printing, plating, sputtering, photolithography, and etching, and can include as many detection layers that are necessary for the structure construction or to afford the detection detail level required. The damage is detected using a detector or sensory system, which may include a time domain reflectometer, resistivity monitoring hardware, or other resistance-based systems. To begin, a layered composite consisting of thin-film damage detection layers separated by non-damage detection layers is fabricated. The damage detection layers are attached to a detector that provides details regarding the physical health of each detection layer individually. If damage occurs to any of the detection layers, a change in the electrical properties of the detection layers damaged occurs, and a response is generated. Real-time analysis of these responses will provide details regarding the depth, location, and size estimation of the damage. Multiple damages can be detected, and the extent (depth) of the damage can be used to generate prognostic information related to the expected lifetime of the layered composite system. The detection system can be fabricated very easily using off-the-shelf equipment, and the detection algorithms can be written and updated (as needed) to provide the level of detail needed based on the system being monitored. Connecting to the thin film detection layers is very easy as well. The truly unique feature of the system is its flexibility; the system can be designed to gather as much (or as little) information as the end user feels necessary. Individual detection layers can be turned on or off as necessary, and algorithms can be used to optimize performance. The system can be used to generate both diagnostic and prognostic information related to the health of layer composite structures, which will be essential if such systems are utilized for space exploration. The technology is also applicable to other in-situ health monitoring systems for structure integrity.

Williams, Martha↗
NASA NTRS1994

Control of flow separation in airfoil/wing design applications

Existing aerodynamic design methods have generally concentrated on the optimization of airfoil or wing shapes to produce a minimum drag while satisfying some basic constraints such as lift, pitching moment, or thickness. Since the minimization of drag almost always precludes the existence of separated flow, the evaluation and validation of these design methods for their robustness and accuracy when separated flow is present has not been aggressively pursued. However, two new applications for these design tools may be expected to include separated flow and the issues of aerodynamic design with this feature must be addressed. The first application of the aerodynamic design tools is the design of airfoils or wings to provide an optimal performance over a wide range of flight conditions (multipoint design). While the definition of 'optimal performance' in the multipoint setting is currently being hashed out, it is recognized that given a wide enough range of flight conditions, it will not be possible to ensure a minimum drag constraint at all conditions, and in fact some amount of separated flow (presumably small) may have to be allowed at the more demanding flight conditions. Thus a multipoint design method must be tolerant of the existence of separated flow and may include some controls upon its extent. The second application is in the design of wings with extended high speed buffet boundaries of their flight envelopes. Buffet occurs on a wing when regions of flow separation have grown to the extent that their time varying pressures induce possible destructive effects upon the wing structure or adversely effect either the aircraft controllability or the passenger comfort. A conservative approach to the expansion of the buffet flight boundary is to simply expand the flight envelope of nonseparated flow under the assumption that buffet will also thus be alleviated. However, having the ability to design a wing with separated flow and thus to control the location, extent, and severity of the separated flow regions may allow aircraft manufacturers to gain an advantage in the early design stages of an aircraft, when configuration changes are relatively inexpensive to make. Continuing the work begun last year, an airfoil design package has been modified to provide some control over the existence and extent of flow separation. This package consists of a 2-D Navier-Stokes flow solver which is coupled to the CDISC (constrained direct/iterative surface curvature) design method. The first modification is a prediction method for determining whether separation is likely based solely upon a given pressure distribution. If separation is predicted but is undesirable, the new routines will modify the pressure distribution to alleviate the problem. This new pressure distribution is then used in the design method to generate a new aerodynamic shape. Since separation may be acceptable in some cases, particularly if the separation does not extend to the trailing edge, another added logic estimates the extent of separation based upon a correlation with calculated separated flow cases. If the flow behind a shock induced separation is not predicted to reattach before the trailing edge, the logic weakens the shock strength and otherwise alters the pressure distribution in order to promote reattachment. This later addition is as yet unreliable due to secondary separation effects, but additional work is being pursued to improve the method.

Gally, Thomas A.↗
NASA NTRS2006

Single- and Multiple-Objective Optimization with Differential Evolution and Neural Networks

Genetic and evolutionary algorithms have been applied to solve numerous problems in engineering design where they have been used primarily as optimization procedures. These methods have an advantage over conventional gradient-based search procedures became they are capable of finding global optima of multi-modal functions and searching design spaces with disjoint feasible regions. They are also robust in the presence of noisy data. Another desirable feature of these methods is that they can efficiently use distributed and parallel computing resources since multiple function evaluations (flow simulations in aerodynamics design) can be performed simultaneously and independently on ultiple processors. For these reasons genetic and evolutionary algorithms are being used more frequently in design optimization. Examples include airfoil and wing design and compressor and turbine airfoil design. They are also finding increasing use in multiple-objective and multidisciplinary optimization. This lecture will focus on an evolutionary method that is a relatively new member to the general class of evolutionary methods called differential evolution (DE). This method is easy to use and program and it requires relatively few user-specified constants. These constants are easily determined for a wide class of problems. Fine-tuning the constants will off course yield the solution to the optimization problem at hand more rapidly. DE can be efficiently implemented on parallel computers and can be used for continuous, discrete and mixed discrete/continuous optimization problems. It does not require the objective function to be continuous and is noise tolerant. DE and applications to single and multiple-objective optimization will be included in the presentation and lecture notes. A method for aerodynamic design optimization that is based on neural networks will also be included as a part of this lecture. The method offers advantages over traditional optimization methods. It is more flexible than other methods in dealing with design in the context of both steady and unsteady flows, partial and complete data sets, combined experimental and numerical data, inclusion of various constraints and rules of thumb, and other issues that characterize the aerodynamic design process. Neural networks provide a natural framework within which a succession of numerical solutions of increasing fidelity, incorporating more realistic flow physics, can be represented and utilized for optimization. Neural networks also offer an excellent framework for multiple-objective and multi-disciplinary design optimization. Simulation tools from various disciplines can be integrated within this framework and rapid trade-off studies involving one or many disciplines can be performed. The prospect of combining neural network based optimization methods and evolutionary algorithms to obtain a hybrid method with the best properties of both methods will be included in this presentation. Achieving solution diversity and accurate convergence to the exact Pareto front in multiple objective optimization usually requires a significant computational effort with evolutionary algorithms. In this lecture we will also explore the possibility of using neural networks to obtain estimates of the Pareto optimal front using non-dominated solutions generated by DE as training data. Neural network estimators have the potential advantage of reducing the number of function evaluations required to obtain solution accuracy and diversity, thus reducing cost to design.

Rai, Man Mohan↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Next Generation Thermal Protection System for Outer Planet Probes and Orbiter

Saturn Probe and Ice Giant Orbiter along with in-situ Probe Missions continue to be very high priority mis-sions. A result of the advocacy by OPAG and other Analysis Groups, the 3D Woven, Dual-Layer HEEET thermal protection system, mature at TRL 6, has closed the TPS gap for extreme environment missions. A mid density follow on to DL HEEET, developed to meet earth entry requirements, is a Single Layer vari-ant of the 3D woven TPS, which provides a mass effi-cient single layer 3D Mid-Density TPS (3MDCP) that has been baselined as the heatshield for MSR EEV. Continued development of 3MDCP will elevate it to TRL 6 by 2025. Conformal-PICA (C-PICA) devel-opment was pursued to establish a more efficient and robust alternate to PICA, and it is at TRL 4+. Our rationale for the next generation of TPS de-velopment is based on the on the missions needs of the next decade Outer Planet missions that are unique and more demanding than any other destinations. Taking advantage of the recent planned development of sev-eral materials, the next generation of TPS offers a much more mass efficient option for small, medium, and large class Outer Planet missions. Saturn Probes: While mission designers are gen-erally interested in shallow entry to maintain the g-load during entry around 50g, the heat-load for shallow entry can range between (100 kJ/cm2 – 300 kJ/cm2), two orders of magnitude higher than Venus or Sample Return missions. TPS must not only offer protection but must be mass efficient to perform reasonable sci-ence. TPS mass can quickly become 50% or more of the mass of the entire entry system. Recent analysis performed shows Saturn Probe missions could signifi-cantly benefit from the single layer HEEET (SL-HEEET/3MDCP). A DL-HEEET based heatshield mass could be ~ (40% -50%), SL-HEEET can provide additional (30% - 50%) mass savings. At the same time, C-PICA can provide (30% - 50%) mass savings on the backshell. The combined mass savings can be significant enough to carry an additional probe, if de-sired. Ice Giant Aerocapture Missions: Aerocapture mission architectures can provide significant ad-vantage over traditional propulsive insertion missions in multiple ways. 1) Reduced trip time ~ (4- 6) years (30% -40%), 2) Enables placing the orbiter, probe, and lander, all together and 3) Allows for greater science mass (probes and landers) due to mass efficiency. The delivery of a probe from orbit makes it easier and eliminates mission design constraints by HEEET for direct entry [4] of probes and allows for more targeted in-situ science once the Orbiter is able to collect data. In the past 20 years, progress made in GN&C for lift-guided entry missions (MSL, Orion EFT1, Mars 2020) and the expertise in blunt body aerodynamics at large scale (~ 5m) has led the EDL community to conclude that aerocapture is a “go do” engineering activity. An aerocapture mission that will deplete the excess energy of a fast arrival mission will require a mass efficient TPS that can handle extreme heat-load, ~ (100 kJ/cm2 – 500 kJ/cm2). Hence TPS, feasibility as well as mass efficiency requires assessment. Utilizing the recent developments, a comprehensive, bounding analysis was done to establish the potential for SOA (HEEET) system as well as emerging new TPS such as SL-HEEET and C-PICA. In this proposed poster, we will outline the process by which we establish bounding aerocapture trajecto-ries for hyperbolic excess velocities ranging from 27 km/s to 35 km/s, for low L/D (~ 0.4) configurations and determine conservative/bounding estimate of aer-othermal environment by using a combination of CFD simulations and stagnation point heating estimates [7]. This engineering approach allows us to assess the TPS need vs. TPS capability and determine the applicability of existing TPS. Once an applicable suite of TPS is determined, the TPS thickness and mass are comput-ed. We show that the TPS mass fraction can be as low as 5% to as high as 20%, depending on the use of ad-vanced TPS, while HEEET is sufficient but will require 50% of the entry mass.

E Venkatapathy↗
NASA NTRS2021

AeroCom Phase III Multi-Model Evaluation of the Aerosol Life Cycle and Optical Properties Using Ground and Space-Based Remote Sensing as Well as Surface In Situ Observations

Within the framework of the AeroCom (Aerosol Comparisons between Observations and Models) initiative, the state-of-the-art modelling of aerosol optical properties is assessed from 14 global models participating in the phase III control experiment (AP3). The models are similar to CMIP6/AerChemMIP Earth System Models (ESMs) and provide a robust multi-model ensemble. Inter-model spread of aerosol species lifetimes and emissions appears to be similar to that of mass extinction coefficients (MECs), suggesting that aerosol optical depth (AOD) uncertainties are associated with a broad spectrum of parameterised aerosol processes. Total AOD is approximately the same as in AeroCom phase I (AP1) simulations. However, we find a 50 % decrease in the optical depth (OD) of black carbon (BC), attributable to a combination of decreased emissions and lifetimes. Relative contributions from sea salt (SS) and dust (DU) have shifted from being approximately equal in AP1 to SS contributing about 2∕3 of the natural AOD in AP3. This shift is linked with a decrease in DU mass burden, a lower DU MEC, and a slight decrease in DU lifetime, suggesting coarser DU particle sizes in AP3 compared to AP1. Relative to observations, the AP3 ensemble median and most of the participating models underestimate all aerosol optical properties investigated, that is, total AOD as well as fine and coarse AOD (AODf, AODc), Ångström exponent (AE), dry surface scattering (SCdry), and absorption (ACdry) coefficients. Compared to AERONET, the models underestimate total AOD by ca. 21 % ± 20 % (as inferred from the ensemble median and interquartile range). Against satellite data, the ensemble AOD biases range from −37 % (MODIS-Terra) to −16 % (MERGED-FMI, a multi-satellite AOD product), which we explain by differences between individual satellites and AERONET measurements themselves. Correlation coefficients (R) between model and observation AOD records are generally high (R>0.75), suggesting that the models are capable of capturing spatio-temporal variations in AOD. We find a much larger underestimate in coarse AODc (∼ −45 % ± 25 %) than in fine AODf (∼ −15 % ± 25 %) with slightly increased inter-model spread compared to total AOD. These results indicate problems in the modelling of DU and SS. The AODc bias is likely due to missing DU over continental land masses (particularly over the United States, SE Asia, and S. America), while marine AERONET sites and the AATSR SU satellite data suggest more moderate oceanic biases in AODc. Column AEs are underestimated by about 10 % ± 16 %. For situations in which measurements show AE > 2, models underestimate AERONET AE by ca. 35 %. In contrast, all models (but one) exhibit large overestimates in AE when coarse aerosol dominates (bias ca. +140 % if observed AE < 0.5). Simulated AE does not span the observed AE variability. These results indicate that models overestimate particle size (or underestimate the fine-mode fraction) for fine-dominated aerosol and underestimate size (or overestimate the fine-mode fraction) for coarse-dominated aerosol. This must have implications for lifetime, water uptake, scattering enhancement, and the aerosol radiative effect, which we can not quantify at this moment. Comparison against Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) in situ data results in mean bias and inter-model variations of −35 % ± 25 % and −20 % ± 18 % for SCdry and ACdry, respectively. The larger underestimate of SCdry than ACdry suggests the models will simulate an aerosol single scattering albedo that is too low. The larger underestimate of SCdry than ambient air AOD is consistent with recent findings that models overestimate scattering enhancement due to hygroscopic growth. The broadly consistent negative bias in AOD and surface scattering suggests an underestimate of aerosol radiative effects in current global aerosol models. Considerable inter-model diversity in the simulated optical properties is often found in regions that are, unfortunately, not or only sparsely covered by ground-based observations. This includes, for instance, the Sahara, Amazonia, central Australia, and the South Pacific. This highlights the need for a better site coverage in the observations, which would enable us to better assess the models, but also the performance of satellite products in these regions. Using fine-mode AOD as a proxy for present-day aerosol forcing estimates, our results suggest that models underestimate aerosol forcing by ca. −15 %, however, with a considerably large interquartile range, suggesting a spread between −35 % and +10 %.

space-based remote sensing↗
NASA NTRS2016

Investigating the Simulink Auto-Coding Process

Model based program design is the most clear and direct way to develop algorithms and programs for interfacing with hardware. While coding "by hand" results in a more tailored product, the ever-growing size and complexity of modern-day applications can cause the project work load to quickly become unreasonable for one programmer. This has generally been addressed by splitting the product into separate modules to allow multiple developers to work in parallel on the same project, however this introduces new potentials for errors in the process. The fluidity, reliability and robustness of the code relies on the abilities of the programmers to communicate their methods to one another; furthermore, multiple programmers invites multiple potentially differing coding styles into the same product, which can cause a loss of readability or even module incompatibility. Fortunately, Mathworks has implemented an auto-coding feature that allows programmers to design their algorithms through the use of models and diagrams in the graphical programming environment Simulink, allowing the designer to visually determine what the hardware is to do. From here, the auto-coding feature handles converting the project into another programming language. This type of approach allows the designer to clearly see how the software will be directing the hardware without the need to try and interpret large amounts of code. In addition, it speeds up the programming process, minimizing the amount of man-hours spent on a single project, thus reducing the chance of human error as well as project turnover time. One such project that has benefited from the auto-coding procedure is Ramses, a portion of the GNC flight software on-board Orion that has been implemented primarily in Simulink. Currently, however, auto-coding Ramses into C++ requires 5 hours of code generation time. This causes issues if the tool ever needs to be debugged, as this code generation will need to occur with each edit to any part of the program; additionally, this is lost time that could be spent testing and analyzing the code. This is one of the more prominent issues with the auto-coding process, and while much information is available with regard to optimizing Simulink designs to produce efficient and reliable C++ code, not much research has been made public on how to reduce the code generation time. It is of interest to develop some insight as to what causes code generation times to be so significant, and determine if there are architecture guidelines or a desirable auto-coding configuration set to assist in streamlining this step of the design process for particular applications. To address the issue at hand, the Simulink coder was studied at a foundational level. For each different component type made available by the software, the features, auto-code generation time, and the format of the generated code were analyzed and documented. Tools were developed and documented to expedite these studies, particularly in the area of automating sequential builds to ensure accurate data was obtained. Next, the Ramses model was examined in an attempt to determine the composition and the types of technologies used in the model. This enabled the development of a model that uses similar technologies, but takes a fraction of the time to auto-code to reduce the turnaround time for experimentation. Lastly, the model was used to run a wide array of experiments and collect data to obtain knowledge about where to search for bottlenecks in the Ramses model. The resulting contributions of the overall effort consist of an experimental model for further investigation into the subject, as well as several automation tools to assist in analyzing the model, and a reference document offering insight to the auto-coding process, including documentation of the tools used in the model analysis, data illustrating some potential problem areas in the auto-coding process, and recommendations on areas or practices in the current Ramses model that should be further investigated. Several skills were required to be built up over the course of the internship project. First and foremost, my Simulink skills have improved drastically, as much of my experience had been modeling electronic circuits as opposed to software models. Furthermore, I am now comfortable working with the Simulink Auto-coder, a tool I had never used until this summer; this tool also tested my critical thinking and C++ knowledge as I had to interpret the C++ code it was generating and attempt to understand how the Simulink model affected the generated code. I had come into the internship with a solid understanding of Matlab code, but had done very little in using it to automate tasks, particularly Simulink tasks; along the same lines, I had rarely used shell script to automate and interface with programs, which I gained a fair amount of experience with this summer, including how to use regular expression. Lastly, soft-skills are an area everyone can continuously improve on; having never worked with NASA engineers, which to me seem to be a completely different breed than what I am used to (commercial electronic engineers), I learned to utilize the wealth of knowledge present at JSC. I wish I had come into the internship knowing exactly how helpful everyone in my branch would be, as I would have picked up on this sooner. I hope that having gained such a strong foundation in Simulink over this summer will open the opportunity to return to work on this project, or potentially other opportunities within the division. The idea of leaving a project I devoted ten weeks to is a hard one to cope with, so having the chance to pick up where I left off sounds appealing; alternatively, I am interested to see if there are any opening in the future that would allow me to work on a project that is more in-line with my research in estimation algorithms. Regardless, this summer has been a milestone in my professional career, and I hope this has started a long-term relationship between JSC and myself. I really enjoy the thought of building on my experience here over future summers while I work to complete my PhD at Missouri University of Science and Technology.

Gualdoni, Matthew J.↗