SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Testing”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 973 records · Page 54

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2016

Additive Manufacturing, Design, Testing, and Fabrication: A Full Engineering Experience at JSC

I worked on several projects this term. While most projects involved additive manufacturing, I was also involved with two design projects, two testing projects, and a fabrication project. The primary mentor for these was Richard Hagen. Secondary mentors were Hai Nguyen, Khadijah Shariff, and fabrication training from James Brown. Overall, my experience at JSC has been successful and what I have learned will continue to help me in my engineering education and profession long after I leave. My 3D printing projects ranged from less than a 1 cubic centimeter to about 1 cubic foot and involved several printers using different printing technologies. It was exciting to become familiar with printing technologies such as industrial grade FDM (Fused Deposition Modeling), the relatively new SLA (Stereolithography), and PolyJet. My primary duty with the FDM printers was to model parts that came in from various sources to print effectively and efficiently. Using methods my mentor taught me and the Stratasys Insight software, I was able to minimize imperfections, hasten build time, improve strength for specific forces (tensile, shear, etc...), and reduce likelihood of a print-failure. Also using FDM, I learned how to repair a part after it was printed. This is done by using a special kind of glue that chemically melts the two faces of plastic parts together to form a fused interface. My first goal with SLA technology was to bring the printer back to operational readiness. In becoming familiar with the Pegasus SLA printer, I researched the leveling, laser settings, and different vats to hold liquid material. With this research, I was successfully able to bring the Pegasus back online and have successfully printed multiple sample parts as well as functional parts. My experience with PolyJet technology has been focused on an understanding of the abilities/limits, costs, and the maintenance for daily use. Still upcoming will be experience with using a composite printer that uses FDM technology to print plastic while laying an internal filament of Kevlar or carbon-fiber inside the printed material. It has been incredible being exposed to this range of technologies and I feel very fortunate to be ready for virtually any kind of printing technology I come across in the future. Design work played a part in my internship this term as well. Working with Hai Nguyen, I was able to design a set of testing tips and a test frame for use with an Arcjet. The testing tips will be made of several different materials that will possibly be used in the heat shield of the Orion space craft. These designs included technical drawings that were presented to the fabrication shop. The frame design was created from 80/20 (a popular brand of frame construction equipment) and included an order form with pricing for fabrication. An independent design was also done for the virtual reality lab. This design was to create a hand-controller based on a previous design. This final design was sent directly to a 3D printer without technical drawings. Overall, my design work has given me experience with using 80/20, helped improve my CAD (Computer Aided Design) proficiency, and increased my knowledge of how to set up technical drawings for fabrication. The final role I have played in this internship has been to assist with testing of the inflatable technology materials working Khadijah Shariff. I began the internship assisting with permeability testing with the initial plan to continue the testing independently after training. Unfortunately, the testing apparatus suffered a technical failure and had funding pulled which cancelled that portion of the project. Further testing with inflatable technology continued with tensile testing of various stitching methods. This testing took place over a two-days and concluded successfully. Final testing was to be more tensile testing but of straps used to connect various inflatable sections. Unfortunately, the needed grips for the tensile tests could not be located and put the testing on hold. It is possible this round of testing will still take place by the end of the internship if the grips can be found. Overall, this portion of the internship has helped me become familiar with one kind of permeability test as well as a popular tensile/compression testing machine. Finally, I also had the chance to be trained using a metal lathe for making very small tips for a soldering iron. These tips will be used to melt threaded brass inserts into 3D printed plastic. Working with James Brown, I was able to successfully machine a brass rod down to as little as 0.064 inches plus or minus 0.001 inches. It was very rewarding to learn how to best use the machine and become familiar with a skill that will undoubtedly be used again in the future. I have been told by several professional engineers that learning to use a lathe and mill will be invaluable skills in the field. This knocks 50 percent of that goal off and I look forward to learning the mill at some point in the future. As is apparent with this list of projects, my internship was not focused on a single over-arching goal. Instead, I was able to gain experience in a myriad of very different areas. I feel like my time here was spent bouncing from one project to the next. Though sometimes difficult to switch gears, it was very rewarding to be a part of so much in so little time. My career and education will be positively impacted by what I have learned at JSC. My experience with 3D printing has improved my ability to handle many issues that may come up in the future with multiple different technologies. The design work I took part in, especially creating technical drawings, will help me better present designs to any engineer or shop I will encounter. My testing experience has helped me become familiar with a popular kind of tensile test machine that will likely be similar to the kinds I will encounter in the future. Finally, my experience with fabrication has given me a rare opportunity, as an engineer, to take part in the fabrication of a part. This experience will help me better tailor my future designs for the manufacturing process and has given me an appreciation for detailed/delicate machining work. My experience at JSC has been successful and will continue to assist me for a long time within the engineering field.

Zusack, Steven↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Evaluation of Extended Reality Technologies for Use in Verification Testing at NASA 2024 HRP IWS Abstract

BACKGROUND At NASA, verification testing is the formal process of ensuring that a product conforms to requirements set by a project or program. Some verification methods, such as Demonstrations and Test, require either the end product or a mockup of the product with sufficient fidelity to stand-in for the product during the test. Traditionally, these mockups have been physical (e.g., foam-core and wood) but there is growing interest in exploring new methods for testing with these mockups. These methods include virtual reality (VR), mixed reality, and augmented reality which are collectively referred to as eXtended Reality (XR) technologies. VR has already been adopted and used by many in the aerospace industry as a tool for use in early design phases (e.g., developmental testing) and may have the most potential for use in verification tests. Benefits of using VR mockups offer cost effectiveness, ease of iteration, simulation of hazardous conditions (e.g., an egress through a hatch with smoke obscuring vision), and the ability to simulate microgravity conditions, which are challenging to do with physical mockups. However, the validity of test results obtained from VR mockup demonstrations or testing, compared to the current gold standard of physical mockups, remains uncertain. It is unlikely that there is one clean answer as there are many different types of verification outcomes and each XR technology must be evaluated on its own merits. This is not an issue during developmental testing as the design is still in flux and the total success of the design is not dependent upon the results of a developmental test. Verification tests, however, only happen once, assuming no change to the design, and the results are used to certify the product. Therefore, establishing the validity of XR mockup-based verification outcomes is essential before considering them for any use in verification tests. OBJECTIVE AND METHOD To address this concern, the Human Research Program has funded a project to explore and qualify how XR technologies might be used in verification demonstration and testing at NASA. Currently, we are conducting a review of the literature on the utilization of XR mockups for design activities, prototyping, and user testing. We are employing the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis method to identify the pros, cons, and barriers to adoption of XR technologies for verification testing at NASA. Additionally, we are developing a framework to guide the deployment of XR mockups for verification tests. Building upon available evidence from the literature and subject-matter expert feedback, our goal for the framework is to provide guidelines for which forms of XR mockups are suitable for a given verification test, when only physical mockups should be employed and to highlight areas for which more evidence is needed. To further refine our framework and to contribute to the body of evidence, we are planning a lab-based experiment comparing a VR mockup to a physical twin for a set of select verification outcomes. ANTICIPATED RESULTS In this presentation, we will present the work we conducted to evaluate XR technologies for use in verification tests at NASA. We will summarize and report our findings from the SWOT analysis and our lab-based study, and we will present the current state of the XR Technologies for Verification Testing framework. We will conclude by summarizing remaining work and future directions for the project. Technologies for Verification Testing framework. We will conclude by summarizing remaining work and future directions for the project.

Extended Reality↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Test and Simulation of a Fokker F28 Crash Landing

Test and Simulation of a Fokker F28 Crash Landing – Jacob B. Putnam 1, Justin D. Littell 1, Karen E. Jackson 2; 1 NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, 2 National Institute of Aerospace, Hampton, VA. In June of 2019, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Langley Research Center (LaRC) conducted a full-scale crash test of a Fokker F28 MK1000 aircraft. Aircraft crash-worthiness is typically evaluated through component level tests (i.e. vertical drops of fuselage subsections or isolated seat tests). Finite Element Models (FEMs) are also used to bridge the gap between component testing and full-scale crash prediction. The full-scale crash test performed in conjunction with previous subsection testing of a Fokker F28 fuselage provided the opportunity to evaluate differences in crash-worthiness predictions between full- and sub-scale testing and to quantify the predictive capability of FEMs in the aerospace crash environment. In this study vehicle crash-worthiness was quantified through anthropometric test devices (ATDs) included in both the full-scale crash test as well as fuselage section drop tests previously performed at NASA LaRC. A FEM of the Fokker F28 aircraft was developed and simulated within the tested environment. Vehicle and ATD response predictions were compared between test and simulation. The International Organization for Standardization ISO/TR 16250 curve comparison methodology was used to provide a quantitative assessment of predictive accuracy for both the vehicle and ATD FEMs. Determination of aircraft crash-worthiness made between the three evaluations methodologies (full-vehicle crash test, component test, and FEM simulation) were then compared. Structural differences as well as the more complex loading environment achieved within the full-vehicle test resulted in increased injury risk compared to that predicted within the component level tests. The FEM simulations were found to produce a more realistic prediction of injury risk within the full-vehicle crash environment than the component level testing. Limitations of both component testing and FEM simulation within aerospace crash environment were identified.

impact testing↗

NASA NTRS1992

Utilization of the graded universal testing system to increase the efficiency for assessing aerobic and anaerobic capacity

The in-flight exercise test performed by cosmonauts as part of the Russian Exercise Countermeasure Program is limited to 5 minutes due to communication restrictions. During a recent graded exercise test on a U.S. Shuttle flight, the test was terminated early due to an upcoming loss of signal (LOS) with the ground. This exercise test was a traditional test where the subject's exercise capacity dictates the length of the test. For example, one crew member may take 15 minutes to complete the test, while another may take 18 minutes. The traditional exercise test limits the flight schedulers to large blocks of space flight time in order to provide medical and research personnel information on the fitness capacity (maximal oxygen uptake: VO2max) of crew members during flight. A graded exercise test that would take a finite amount of time and a set preparation and recovery time would ease this problem by allowing flight schedulers to plan exercise tests in advance of LOS. The Graded Universal Testing System (GUTS) was designed to meet this goal. Fitness testing of astronauts before and after flight provides pertinent data on many variables. The Detailed Supplemental Objective (DSO608) protocol (6) is one of the graded exercise tests (GXT) currently used in astronaut testing before and after flight. Test times for this protocol have lasted from 11 to 18 minutes. Anaerobic capacity is an important variable that is currently not being evaluated before and after flight. Recent reports (1,2,5) from the literature have suggested that the oxygen deficit at supramaximal exercise is a measure of anaerobic capacity. We postulated that the oxygen deficit at maximal exercise would be an indication of anaerobic capacity. If this postulate can be accepted, then the efficiency of acquiring data from a graded exercise test would increase at least twofold. To examine this hypothesis anaerobic capacity was measured using a modified treadmill test (3,4) designed to exhaust the anaerobic systems in approximately 45 to 75 seconds. Lactate concentration in the blood was analyzed after all tests, since lactate is the end-product of anaerobic energy production. Therefore, the peak lactate response is an additional indication of anaerobic capacity. A preliminary comparison of the GUTS and the DSO608 suggests that the GUTS protocol would increase the efficiency of VO2max testing of astronauts before and after flight. Results for anaerobic capacity have not been tabulated.

Rodgers, Sandra L.↗

NASA NTRS1994

Test/score/report: Simulation techniques for automating the test process

A Test/Score/Report capability is currently being developed for the Transportable Payload Operations Control Center (TPOCC) Advanced Spacecraft Simulator (TASS) system which will automate testing of the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) Payload Operations Control Center (POCC) and Mission Operations Center (MOC) software in three areas: telemetry decommutation, spacecraft command processing, and spacecraft memory load and dump processing. Automated computer control of the acceptance test process is one of the primary goals of a test team. With the proper simulation tools and user interface, the task of acceptance testing, regression testing, and repeatability of specific test procedures of a ground data system can be a simpler task. Ideally, the goal for complete automation would be to plug the operational deliverable into the simulator, press the start button, execute the test procedure, accumulate and analyze the data, score the results, and report the results to the test team along with a go/no recommendation to the test team. In practice, this may not be possible because of inadequate test tools, pressures of schedules, limited resources, etc. Most tests are accomplished using a certain degree of automation and test procedures that are labor intensive. This paper discusses some simulation techniques that can improve the automation of the test process. The TASS system tests the POCC/MOC software and provides a score based on the test results. The TASS system displays statistics on the success of the POCC/MOC system processing in each of the three areas as well as event messages pertaining to the Test/Score/Report processing. The TASS system also provides formatted reports documenting each step performed during the tests and the results of each step. A prototype of the Test/Score/Report capability is available and currently being used to test some POCC/MOC software deliveries. When this capability is fully operational it should greatly reduce the time necessary to test a POCC/MOC software delivery, as well as improve the quality of the test process.

Hageman, Barbara H.↗

NASA NTRS2005

NASA GRC and MSFC Space-Plasma Arc Testing Procedures

Tests of arcing and current collection in simulated space plasma conditions have been performed at the NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) in Cleveland, Ohio, for over 30 years and at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama, for almost as long. During this period, proper test conditions for accurate and meaningful space simulation have been worked out, comparisons with actual space performance in spaceflight tests and with real operational satellites have been made, and NASA has achieved our own internal standards for test protocols. It is the purpose of this paper to communicate the test conditions, test procedures, and types of analysis used at NASA GRC and MSFC to the space environmental testing community at large, to help with international space-plasma arcing-testing standardization. To be discussed are: 1.Neutral pressures, neutral gases, and vacuum chamber sizes. 2. Electron and ion densities, plasma uniformity, sample sizes, and Debuy lengths. 3. Biasing samples versus self-generated voltages. Floating samples versus grounded. 4. Power supplies and current limits. Isolation of samples from power supplies during arcs. 5. Arc circuits. Capacitance during biased arc-threshold tests. Capacitance during sustained arcing and damage tests. Arc detection. Prevention sustained discharges during testing. 6. Real array or structure samples versus idealized samples. 7. Validity of LEO tests for GEO samples. 8. Extracting arc threshold information from arc rate versus voltage tests. 9. Snapover and current collection at positive sample bias. Glows at positive bias. Kapon (R) pyrolisis. 10. Trigger arc thresholds. Sustained arc thresholds. Paschen discharge during sustained arcing. 11. Testing for Paschen discharge threshold. Testing for dielectric breakdown thresholds. Testing for tether arcing. 12. Testing in very dense plasmas (ie thruster plumes). 13. Arc mitigation strategies. Charging mitigation strategies. Models. 14. Analysis of test results. Finally, the necessity of testing will be emphasized, not to the exclusion of modeling, but as part of a complete strategy for determining when and if arcs will occur, and preventing them from occurring in space.

Ferguson, Dale C.↗

NASA NTRS2005

NASA GRC and MSFC Space-Plasma Arc Testing Procedures

Tests of arcing and current collection in simulated space plasma conditions have been performed at the NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) in Cleveland, Ohio, for over 30 years and at the Marshall Space flight Center (MSFC) for almost as long. During this period, proper test conditions for accurate and meaningful space simulation have been worked out, comparisons with actual space performance in spaceflight tests and with real operational satellites have been made, and NASA has achieved our own internal standards for test protocols. It is the purpose of this paper to communicate the test conditions, test procedures, and types of analysis used at NASA GRC and MSFC to the space environmental testing community at large, to help with international space-plasma arcing testing standardization. To be discussed are: 1. Neutral pressures, neutral gases, and vacuum chamber sizes. 2. Electron and ion densities, plasma uniformity, sample sizes, and Debye lengths. 3. Biasing samples versus self-generated voltages. Floating samples versus grounded. 4. Power supplies and current limits. Isolation of samples from power supplies during arcs. Arc circuits. Capacitance during biased arc-threshold tests. Capacitance during sustained arcing and damage tests. Arc detection. Preventing sustained discharges during testing. 5. Real array or structure samples versus idealized samples. 6. Validity of LEO tests for GEO samples. 7. Extracting arc threshold information from arc rate versus voltage tests. 8 . Snapover and current collection at positive sample bias. Glows at positive bias. Kapton pyrolization. 9. Trigger arc thresholds. Sustained arc thresholds. Paschen discharge during sustained arcing. 10. Testing for Paschen discharge thresholds. Testing for dielectric breakdown thresholds. Testing for tether arcing. 11. Testing in very dense plasmas (ie thruster plumes). 12. Arc mitigation strategies. Charging mitigation strategies. Models. 13. Analysis of test results. Finally, the necessity of testing will be emphasized, not to the exclusion of modeling, but as part of a complete strategy for determining when and if arcs will occur, and preventing them from occurring in space.

Ferguson, Dale C.a↗

NASA NTRS2017

Board Level Proton Testing Book of Knowledge for NASA Electronic Parts and Packaging Program

This book of knowledge (BoK) provides a critical review of the benefits and difficulties associated with using proton irradiation as a means of exploring the radiation hardness of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) systems. This work was developed for the NASA Electronic Parts and Packaging (NEPP) Board Level Testing for the COTS task. The fundamental findings of this BoK are the following. The board-level test method can reduce the worst case estimate for a board's single-event effect (SEE) sensitivity compared to the case of no test data, but only by a factor of ten. The estimated worst case rate of failure for untested boards is about 0.1 SEE/board-day. By employing the use of protons with energies near or above 200 MeV, this rate can be safely reduced to 0.01 SEE/board-day, with only those SEEs with deep charge collection mechanisms rising this high. For general SEEs, such as static random-access memory (SRAM) upsets, single-event transients (SETs), single-event gate ruptures (SEGRs), and similar cases where the relevant charge collection depth is less than 10 μm, the worst case rate for SEE is below 0.001 SEE/board-day. Note that these bounds assume that no SEEs are observed during testing. When SEEs are observed during testing, the board-level test method can establish a reliable event rate in some orbits, though all established rates will be at or above 0.001 SEE/board-day. The board-level test approach we explore has picked up support as a radiation hardness assurance technique over the last twenty years. The approach originally was used to provide a very limited verification of the suitability of low cost assemblies to be used in the very benign environment of the International Space Station (ISS), in limited reliability applications. Recently the method has been gaining popularity as a way to establish a minimum level of SEE performance of systems that require somewhat higher reliability performance than previous applications. This sort of application of the method suggests a critical analysis of the method is in order. This is also of current consideration because the primary facility used for this type of work, the Indiana University Cyclotron Facility (IUCF) (also known as the Integrated Science and Technology (ISAT) hall), has closed permanently, and the future selection of alternate test facilities is critically important. This document reviews the main theoretical work on proton testing of assemblies over the last twenty years. It augments this with review of reported data generated from the method and other data that applies to the limitations of the proton board-level test approach. When protons are incident on a system for test they can produce spallation reactions. From these reactions, secondary particles with linear energy transfers (LETs) significantly higher than the incident protons can be produced. These secondary particles, together with the protons, can simulate a subset of the space environment for particles capable of inducing single event effects (SEEs). The proton board-level test approach has been used to bound SEE rates, establishing a maximum possible SEE rate that a test article may exhibit in space. This bound is not particularly useful in many cases because the bound is quite loose. We discuss the established limit that the proton board-level test approach leaves us with. The remaining possible SEE rates may be as high as one per ten years for most devices. The situation is actually more problematic for many SEE types with deep charge collection. In cases with these SEEs, the limits set by the proton board-level test can be on the order of one per 100 days. Because of the limited nature of the bounds established by proton testing alone, it is possible that tested devices will have actual SEE sensitivity that is very low (e.g., fewer than one event in 1 × 10(exp 4) years), but the test method will only be able to establish the limits indicated above. This BoK further examines other benefits of proton board-level testing besides hardness assurance. The primary alternate use is the injection of errors. Error injection, or fault injection, is something that is often done in a simulation environment. But the proton beam has the benefit of injecting the majority of actual SEEs without risk of something being missed, and without the risk of simulation artifacts misleading the SEE investigation.

Guertin, Steven M.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Dynamic Characterization of NASA Armstrong Test Facility Mechanical Vibration Facility

In preparation for Sierra Nevada Corporation’s (SNC) Dream Chaser spacecraft vibration test campaign at NASA Armstrong Test Facility (ATF) in Sandusky, Ohio, a dynamic characterization of the Mechanical Vibration Facility (MVF) is currently ongoing. The Mechanical Vibration Facility is comprised of an 18 ft diameter annulus table that is driven with sixteen hydraulic vertical actuator assemblies and four hydraulic horizontal actuator assemblies. During a test campaign this allows for single axis vibration testing in the vertical axis and in each of the two orthogonal horizontal axes without the need for reconfiguring the test article. The dynamic characterization of the facility was defined to follow a building-block approach requiring three vibration test configurations: (1) MVF bare table (2) MVF table and head expander (3) MVF table, head expander, and a dummy test article. Following the completion of the facility dynamic characterization, a facility finite element model (FEM) will be test-verified allowing for more accurate pretest analysis used for determining response limits and abort levels. To date two of the three test configurations have been completed. Test results have been used to verify the facility FEM that includes both the 18 ft diameter annulus table and the aluminum head expander that fills in the center opening of the annulus to provide a continuous flat mounting surface. Both the MVF table and the head expander models were previously correlated using test results from free-free boundary condition modal tests so model updates to the facility FEM focused on the uncorrelated vertical actuator assemblies and horizontal actuator assemblies. The accuracy of the test-verified facility FEM will be further determined based on comparison of analytical and test results from the vibration test of the dummy test article. Efforts will also be made to determine fixed base modes of the test article attached to the flexible vibration table using fixed base correction techniques. This paper will discuss test and analytical results from the MVF dynamic characterization test sequence and corresponding model updating effort.

Emma L Pierson↗

NASA NTRS2017

Launch Control System Software Development System Automation Testing

The Spaceport Command and Control System (SCCS) is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) launch control system for the Orion capsule and Space Launch System, the next generation manned rocket currently in development. This system requires high quality testing that will measure and test the capabilities of the system. For the past two years, the Exploration and Operations Division at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) has assigned a group including interns and full-time engineers to develop automated tests to save the project time and money. The team worked on automating the testing process for the SCCS GUI that would use streamed simulated data from the testing servers to produce data, plots, statuses, etc. to the GUI. The software used to develop automated tests included an automated testing framework and an automation library. The automated testing framework has a tabular-style syntax, which means the functionality of a line of code must have the appropriate number of tabs for the line to function as intended. The header section contains either paths to custom resources or the names of libraries being used. The automation library contains functionality to automate anything that appears on a desired screen with the use of image recognition software to detect and control GUI components. The data section contains any data values strictly created for the current testing file. The body section holds the tests that are being run. The function section can include any number of functions that may be used by the current testing file or any other file that resources it. The resources and body section are required for all test files; the data and function sections can be left empty if the data values and functions being used are from a resourced library or another file. To help equip the automation team with better tools, the Project Lead of the Automated Testing Team, Jason Kapusta, assigned the task to install and train an optical character recognition (OCR) tool to Brandon Echols, a fellow intern, and I. The purpose of the OCR tool is to analyze an image and find the coordinates of any group of text. Some issues that arose while installing the OCR tool included the absence of certain libraries needed to train the tool and an outdated software version. We eventually resolved the issues and successfully installed the OCR tool. Training the tool required many images and different fonts and sizes, but in the end the tool learned to accurately decipher the text in the images and their coordinates. The OCR tool produced a file that contained significant metadata for each section of text, but only the text and coordinates of the text was required for our purpose. The team made a script to parse the information we wanted from the OCR file to a different file that would be used by automation functions within the automated framework. Since a majority of development and testing for the automated test cases for the GUI in question has been done using live simulated data on the workstations at the Launch Control Center (LCC), a large amount of progress has been made. As of this writing, about 60% of all of automated testing has been implemented. Additionally, the OCR tool will help make our automated tests more robust due to the tool's text recognition being highly scalable to different text fonts and text sizes. Soon we will have the whole test system automated, allowing for more full-time engineers working on development projects.

Automation↗

NASA NTRS2015

Model Generation to Support Model-Based Testing Applied on NASA DAT - An Experience Report

Model-based Testing (MBT), where a model of the system under tests (SUT) behavior is used to automatically generate executable test cases, is a promising and versatile testing technology. Nevertheless, adoption of MBT technologies in industry is slow and many testing tasks are performed via manually created executable test cases (i.e. test programs such as JUnit). In order to adopt MBT, testers must learn how to construct models and use these models to generate test cases, which might be a hurdle. An interesting observation in our previous work is that the existing manually created test cases often provided invaluable insights for the manual creation of the testing models of the system. In this paper we present an approach that allows the tester to first create and debug a set of test cases. When the tester is happy with the test cases, the next step is to automatically generate a model from the test cases. The generated model is derived from the test cases, which are actions that the system can perform (e.g. a button clicks) and their expected outputs in form of assert statements (e.g. assert data entered). The model is a Finite State Machine (FSM) model that can be employed with little or no manual changes to generate additional test cases for the SUT. We successfully applied the approach in a feasibility study to the NASA Data Access Toolkit (DAT), which is a web-based GUI. One compelling finding is that the test cases that were generated from the automatically generated models were able to detect issues that were not detected by the original set of manually created test cases. We present the findings from the case study and discuss best practices for incorporating model generation techniques into an existing testing process.

State Machines↗

NASA NTRS2020

Passive Aeroelastic Tailored Wing Modal Test Using the Fixed Base Correction Method

In modal testing and finite element model correlation, analysts desire modal results using free-free or rigid boundary conditions to ease comparisons of test versus analytical data. It is often expensive both in cost and schedule to build and test with boundary conditions that replicate the free-free or rigid boundaries. Static test fixtures for load testing are often large, heavy, and unyielding, but do not provide adequate boundaries for modal tests because they are dynamically too flexible and often contain natural frequencies within the frequency range of interest of the test article. Dynamic coupling between the test article and test fixture complicates the model updating process because significant effort is required to model the test fixture and boundary conditions in addition to the test article. If there were a way to correct the modal results for fixture coupling, then setups used for other structural testing could be adequate for modal testing. In the case described in this paper, a partial static loads testing setup was used, which allowed significant schedule and cost savings by eliminating a unique setup for a modal test. A fixed base correction technique was investigated during modal testing of a flexible wing cantilevered from part of a static test fixture. The technique was successfully used to measure the wing modes de-coupled from the dynamically active test fixture. The technique is promising for future aircraft applications, but more research is needed.

structural dynamics↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

High-Enthalpy Testing to Validate Simulation of an Aerosol Capture Probe

AERACEPT (Aerosol Rapid Analysis Combined Entry Probe/sonde Technology) is a developing technology enabling in-situ aerosol particle sampling and analysis in a small spacecraft mission envelope. It integrates a passive aerosol sample collection system into a probe’s thermal protection system (TPS) to remove the need for heat shield separation and active descent control (parachutes, gliders, etc.). AERACEPT is being validated against the requirements of the Nephele mission concept, which targets the middle and lower Venus cloud layers. The proposed technology employs 3D Carbon-Carbon (3D-CC) at the probe’s nose to withstand the extreme environments encountered in a Venus entry without producing pyrolysis gases that would contaminate the mission sample collection. Any shape change of this 3D-CC sample inlet will affect airflow through the sampling system, thereby impacting aerosol sample collection bias and efficiency. Accurate prediction of the nose’s material response during entry is there-fore of fundamental importance to the development and practical use of this technology. As a result, the AERACEPT project is planning a test campaign in the newly built PlasmatronX facility with a novel “Open Iso-Q” test article to validate state-of-the-art material response tools for a simulated Venus entry. The PlasmatronX is a 350 kW inductively-coupled plasma facility developed and run by the Center for Hypersonics and Entry Systems Studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The facility can support ground testing for a variety of planetary destinations by simulating entry conditions in Nitrogen, Air, and Carbon Dioxide. To best simulate the Venus atmosphere and match flight-like recession, the planned AERACEPT test campaign will use Carbon Dioxide as its test gas. AERACEPT has designed two test articles for this campaign: 1) a standard test article whose curved surface approximates a constant applied heat flux (“Closed Iso-Q” model) and 2) a novel inlet test article with a through-hole at the stagnation point (“Open Iso-Q” model). Both article types consist of a 3D-CC sample bonded to a graphite fixture. All articles will be laser scanned before and after testing to estimate shape change and recession, and the “Closed Iso-Q” articles will be instrumented with thermocouples to provide temperature histories. The test article temperatures and inlet shape change will be compared against simulations run with the Porous material Analysis Toolbox based on OpenFOAM (PATO) to validate the AERACEPT 3D-CC material response model. Due to the high thermal conductivity of 3D-CC, multidimensional effects have a large influence on the test article temperature and the standard 1-D material response tools are not sufficient for test planning. The test campaign features (e.g. article design, run duration, heat fluxes) are therefore informed by a series of 3-D simulations using state-of-the-art material response tools such as PATO. The test campaign is scheduled for spring of 2024. Expected results include 1) Key drivers of selected test conditions (e.g. matching mission flight atmosphere & recession), 2) Simulation results that informed test article design, 3) Acquired test data such as recession measurements, temperature histories, and photos, and 4) Comparisons between test results and simulation predictions.

AERACEPT↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

High-Enthalpy Testing to Validate Simulation of an Aerosol Capture Probe

AERACEPT↗

NASA NTRS2005

Finite Element Analysis and Test Correlation of a 10-Meter Inflation-Deployed Solar Sail

Under the direction of the NASA In-Space Propulsion Technology Office, the team of L Garde, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Ball Aerospace, and NASA Langley Research Center has been developing a scalable solar sail configuration to address NASA's future space propulsion needs. Prior to a flight experiment of a full-scale solar sail, a comprehensive phased test plan is currently being implemented to advance the technology readiness level of the solar sail design. These tests consist of solar sail component, subsystem, and sub-scale system ground tests that simulate the vacuum and thermal conditions of the space environment. Recently, two solar sail test articles, a 7.4-m beam assembly subsystem test article and a 10-m four-quadrant solar sail system test article, were tested in vacuum conditions with a gravity-offload system to mitigate the effects of gravity. This paper presents the structural analyses simulating the ground tests and the correlation of the analyses with the test results. For programmatic risk reduction, a two-prong analysis approach was undertaken in which two separate teams independently developed computational models of the solar sail test articles using the finite element analysis software packages: NEiNastran and ABAQUS. This paper compares the pre-test and post-test analysis predictions from both software packages with the test data including load-deflection curves from static load tests, and vibration frequencies and mode shapes from vibration tests. The analysis predictions were in reasonable agreement with the test data. Factors that precluded better correlation of the analyses and the tests were uncertainties in the material properties, test conditions, and modeling assumptions used in the analyses.

Sleight, David W.↗

NASA NTRS2005

Validation of NHB 8060.1C, Test 18 Arc Tracking, September 30, 1991

A test project was conducted to validate Test 18 of NASA Handbook (NHB) 8060.1C and, if necessary, identify and recommend improvements in the procedures or criteria of the test. The NHB 8060.1C, Test 18 test system was modified to produce better discrimination of test results. Changes, and their effects on test results, in the graphite immersion-depth, test timing sequence, and atmospheric conditions were investigated for the wire-insulation constructions tested. Based on the test results, the graphite immersion-depths (between 0.8 mm and 1.6 mm), the timing sequence, and the change in the test conditions from ambient to three environments common in manned spaceflight did not significantly affect test results. The criteria used in Test 18 of NHB 8060.1C was found to be appropriate for qualifying arc-tracking and arc-propagation characteristics of wire-insulation materials, Using the Test 18 criteria, Kapton and ETFE were considered inappropriate for use, while PTFE was considered appropriate. Recommendations from this test project for Test 18 of NHB 8060.1C include changing the experimental setup and configurational tests and performing qualification testing in air rather than in the three environments common in manned spaceflight.

Linley, Larry↗

NASA NTRS2011

Ground Vibration Testing Options for Space Launch Vehicles

New NASA launch vehicles will require development of robust systems in a fiscally-constrained environment. NASA, Department of Defense (DoD), and commercial space companies routinely conduct ground vibration tests as an essential part of math model validation and launch vehicle certification. Although ground vibration testing must be a part of the integrated test planning process, more affordable approaches must also be considered. A study evaluated several ground vibration test options for the NASA Constellation Program flight test vehicles, Orion-1 and Orion-2, which concluded that more affordable ground vibration test options are available. The motivation for ground vibration testing is supported by historical examples from NASA and DoD. The approach used in the present study employed surveys of ground vibration test subject-matter experts that provided data to qualitatively rank six test options. Twenty-five experts from NASA, DoD, and industry provided scoring and comments for this study. The current study determined that both element-level modal tests and integrated vehicle modal tests have technical merits. Both have been successful in validating structural dynamic math models of launch vehicles. However, element-level testing has less overall cost and schedule risk as compared to integrated vehicle testing. Future NASA launch vehicle development programs should anticipate that some structural dynamics testing will be necessary. Analysis alone will be inadequate to certify a crew-capable launch vehicle. At a minimum, component and element structural dynamic tests are recommended for new vehicle elements. Three viable structural dynamic test options were identified. Modal testing of the new vehicle elements and an integrated vehicle test on the mobile launcher provided the optimal trade between technical, cost, and schedule.

Patterson, Alan↗

NASA NTRS2009

Acoustically Induced Vibration of Structures: Reverberant Vs. Direct Acoustic Testing

Large reverberant chambers have been used for several decades in the aerospace industry to test larger structures such as solar arrays and reflectors to qualify and to detect faults in the design and fabrication of spacecraft and satellites. In the past decade some companies have begun using direct near field acoustic testing, employing speakers, for qualifying larger structures. A limited test data set obtained from recent acoustic tests of the same hardware exposed to both direct and reverberant acoustic field testing has indicated some differences in the resulting structural responses. In reverberant acoustic testing, higher vibration responses were observed at lower frequencies when compared with the direct acoustic testing. In the case of direct near field acoustic testing higher vibration responses appeared to occur at higher frequencies as well. In reverberant chamber testing and direct acoustic testing, standing acoustic modes of the reverberant chamber or the speakers and spacecraft parallel surfaces can strongly couple with the fundamental structural modes of the test hardware. In this paper data from recent acoustic testing of flight hardware, that yielded evidence of acoustic standing wave coupling with structural responses, are discussed in some detail. Convincing evidence of the acoustic standing wave/structural coupling phenomenon will be discussed, citing observations from acoustic testing of a simple aluminum plate. The implications of such acoustic coupling to testing of sensitive flight hardware will be discussed. The results discussed in this paper reveal issues with over or under testing of flight hardware that could pose unanticipated structural and flight qualification issues. Therefore, it is of paramount importance to understand the structural modal coupling with standing acoustic waves that has been observed in both methods of acoustic testing. This study will assist the community to choose an appropriate testing method and test setup in the planning stages.

Reverberant acoustic field↗