SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “consensus algorithm”

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.

112 records · Page 7

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2024

Recommendations on Evidence and Process for Certification of Learning-enabled Components in Aerospace Systems

This report primarily identifies a collection of relevant and necessary evidence for assurance of machine learnt components (MLCs)—also known as learning-enabled components—integrated into aircraft systems, and gives preliminary suggestions on the elements of a certification process that invoke the identified evidence. The main focus is on feedforward neural networks that are static and trained offline through supervised learning. A brief background on the generic elements of the lifecycle of an MLC is given to contextualize the assurance considerations and, consequently, the evidence that is relevant and necessary to support certification. At the level of an MLC, those considerations relate to: (i) the consistency and correctness of MLC contributions to system functions in the context of a validated functional intent; and (ii) the absence of MLC contributions to aircraft-level failure conditions. At an ML model level, confidence in model and data properties contribute to assurance of the containing MLC, in particular: (a) generalizability and robustness of models, in the presence of inputs not previously seen during training, disturbances to inputs, and unexpected inputs; and (b) valid data, i.e., data that are at least representative, relevant, complete, and accurate. Evidence for the above span the elements of the ML lifecycle, and includes, at a minimum, lifecycle artifacts that pertain to: (1) properties of requirements capturing functional intent, safety constraints, and aspects of the intended use and operating environment; (2) model performance, model complexity and design, and algorithm choice; (3) achievement of required performance at the levels of a trained model during model development, a trained model after model development is complete, and a trained model that is transformed into an executable equivalent; (4) model implementation aspects necessary for transforming a trained model into the executable equivalent; (5) integration of the executable trained model into the containing MLC, and eventually the larger system; and, (6) lastly, the verification and validation (V&V) of each of the above. Such V&V lifecycle artifacts themselves include: aspects of coverage, e.g., of various levels of requirements by the input space of the model and the data; traceability (where applicable); application of formal methods for property specification, analysis, and checking. Examples of evidence generation methods and tools further ground the discussion on what constitutes evidence, and the contribution to assurance during certification. The identified assurance considerations and supporting evidence is not a comprehensive set. Additionally, neither what should be considered as sufficient evidence relative to the assigned criticality of an MLC, nor how criticality ought to be determined and adjusted, have been considered in this report. However, suggestions are made for potential activities of the ML lifecycle that are aimed at providing confidence that an MLC can be relied upon when integrated into its containing (aircraft) system. Those activities are proposed as candidate elements of a certification process for MLCs. The main purpose of this report to inform regulatory guidance and consensus standards that may be used to meet the safety intent of the applicable regulations.

Aviation safety↗

DOE OSTI2022

Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning Technologies for Advanced Reactors (Workshop Summary Report)

A workshop on artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) for advanced reactors (AR) was held October 5-6, 2021. The workshop was to be attended in-person at ANL but COVID restrictions forced the workshop to go virtual. The objectives of the workshop were to identify the most promising AI/ML opportunities for improving advanced reactor design, optimizing plant performance, and enhancing economic competitiveness and to develop an understanding of the scientific, engineering and licensing challenges facing their application. The workshop planning committee included GAIN, EPRI and NEI and members of three national laboratories (ANL, INL, and ORNL). The workshop was attended by more than 200 individuals representing academic and scientific institutions and the nuclear power industry. The definition put forth for an AI/ML system was one that perceives its environment and takes actions that maximize its chance of achieving its goals. In this report AI/ML refers to next generation algorithms that include deep learning, statistical analysis and data analytics and associated scientific computing and their potential application to the design, licensing, operation and maintenance of ARs. These methods typically incorporate models built from process data and may also include data generated by simulations that represent the behavior of a system. The workshop was organized in response to the growing interest in application of AI/ML for improving the economic competitiveness of nuclear energy. Increasingly more resources are being allocated to investigating the benefits of AI/ML methods. The DOE created the Artificial Intelligence & Technology Office to promote their development. And within the Office of Nuclear Energy, resources have been allocated to explore and understand the potential benefits of AI/ML. Additionally, the national laboratories are strategically positioned with DOE computing facilities such as Summit, Perlmutter, Aurora and Frontier that support large-scale simulations, hybrid HPC models with AI surrogates, and the exploration of new types of generative models emerging from multi-model data streams and sources. The workshop was organized with members of the AR community to understand the effort and to identify the level of interest and progress in this emerging technology. The workshop discussions focused on identifying opportunities for AI/ML across diverse areas of the nuclear industry and identifying current scientific and engineering challenges for advanced reactors that might be addressed through transformational uses of AI/ML. Discussion panels focused on four high-interest technical domains for advanced reactors: design, maintenance and operations, energy storage, and materials. The results of those discussions are summarized in this report. This includes opportunities that were identified for exploiting AI techniques and methods to improve the efficacy and efficiency of reactor analysis and to improve the operation and optimization of advanced reactors. Advanced reactor developers expressed an interest in learning more about AI/ML methods and their application. This included understanding whether ML methods can provide an advantage over existing nonlinear data regression methods for collapsing high-fidelity simulation results into faster running models. A consensus emerged that AR advances planned for the next decade will benefit from the use of AI/ML tools. The need exists to understand and model complex systems across length scales and modalities. AI/ML is a tool for discovery that can yield a set of engineering principles for use by nuclear engineers, licensing bodies, and operators to solve problems in plant design, safety analyses, autonomous operation, and predictive maintenance. While AI/ML represents a new set of tools, an awareness by the nuclear community of the full potential is still in the early stages so there is a need to increase awareness. It appears that the wide-spread adoption of AI/ML tools for ARs would be facilitated by future educational workshops that describe foundational methods and capabilities and describe successful applications.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

NASA NTRS2016

Image Correlation Pattern Optimization for Micro-Scale In-Situ Strain Measurements

The accuracy and precision of digital image correlation (DIC) is a function of three primary ingredients: image acquisition, image analysis, and the subject of the image. Development of the first two (i.e. image acquisition techniques and image correlation algorithms) has led to widespread use of DIC; however, fewer developments have been focused on the third ingredient. Typically, subjects of DIC images are mechanical specimens with either a natural surface pattern or a pattern applied to the surface. Research in the area of DIC patterns has primarily been aimed at identifying which surface patterns are best suited for DIC, by comparing patterns to each other. Because the easiest and most widespread methods of applying patterns have a high degree of randomness associated with them (e.g., airbrush, spray paint, particle decoration, etc.), less effort has been spent on exact construction of ideal patterns. With the development of patterning techniques such as microstamping and lithography, patterns can be applied to a specimen pixel by pixel from a patterned image. In these cases, especially because the patterns are reused many times, an optimal pattern is sought such that error introduced into DIC from the pattern is minimized. DIC consists of tracking the motion of an array of nodes from a reference image to a deformed image. Every pixel in the images has an associated intensity (grayscale) value, with discretization depending on the bit depth of the image. Because individual pixel matching by intensity value yields a non-unique scale-dependent problem, subsets around each node are used for identification. A correlation criteria is used to find the best match of a particular subset of a reference image within a deformed image. The reader is referred to references for enumerations of typical correlation criteria. As illustrated by Schreier and Sutton and Lu and Cary systematic errors can be introduced by representing the underlying deformation with under-matched shape functions. An important implication, as discussed by Sutton et al., is that in the presence of highly localized deformations (e.g., crack fronts), error can be reduced by minimizing the subset size. In other words, smaller subsets allow the more accurate resolution of localized deformations. Contrarily, the choice of optimal subset size has been widely studied and a general consensus is that larger subsets with more information content are less prone to random error. Thus, an optimal subset size balances the systematic error from under matched deformations with random error from measurement noise. The alternative approach pursued in the current work is to choose a small subset size and optimize the information content within (i.e., optimizing an applied DIC pattern), rather than finding an optimal subset size. In the literature, many pattern quality metrics have been proposed, e.g., sum of square intensity gradient (SSSIG), mean subset fluctuation, gray level co-occurrence, autocorrelation-based metrics, and speckle-based metrics. The majority of these metrics were developed to quantify the quality of common pseudo-random patterns after they have been applied, and were not created with the intent of pattern generation. As such, it is found that none of the metrics examined in this study are fit to be the objective function of a pattern generation optimization. In some cases, such as with speckle-based metrics, application to pixel by pixel patterns is ill-conditioned and requires somewhat arbitrary extensions. In other cases, such as with the SSSIG, it is shown that trivial solutions exist for the optimum of the metric which are ill-suited for DIC (such as a checkerboard pattern). In the current work, a multi-metric optimization method is proposed whereby quality is viewed as a combination of individual quality metrics. Specifically, SSSIG and two auto-correlation metrics are used which have generally competitive objectives. Thus, each metric could be viewed as a constraint imposed upon the others, thereby precluding the achievement of their trivial solutions. In this way, optimization produces a pattern which balances the benefits of multiple quality metrics. The resulting pattern, along with randomly generated patterns, is subjected to numerical deformations and analyzed with DIC software. The optimal pattern is shown to outperform randomly generated patterns.

Bomarito, G. F.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Flow Characterization of the NASA Langley Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel, Test Section 2: Computational Results

This is an abstract for an invited paper at the AIAA Aviation Conference, June 2021. The work described here is part of an effort of coordinated experiments in the Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel (UPWT) facility at the NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) and matching CFD simulations. The primary goal of the work is to assess the productivity and true predictive accuracy of CFD, absent any guidance from experiment, in the high supersonic speed range as compared to experiments performed at the NASA LaRC’s UPWT facility. This report concerns CFD simulation of the primary flow-path in the empty wind tunnel, including the settling chamber, nozzle, test section, and some of the tunnel downstream of the test section. The Mach number in the test section ranges from M~2.4 to M~4.6, and the required area ratio variation is achieved by translation of a nozzle block which constricts the area of a loosely S-shaped throat. Flow past protuberances in the settling chamber and into this S-bend throat are predicted by CFD to generate streamwise vorticity that may, or may not, persist through the throat and into the test section as coherent vortices. Some flow conditions are notably unsteady at frequencies well below those of turbulence, due to unsteady separated flow ahead of the nozzle block. The bulk flow moves at velocities ranging from 'walking speed' in the settling chamber to M~4.6 in the test section. Heat transfer to the settling chamber walls and buoyancy are significant at high Mach number. Subtle variations in surface curvature in the nozzle generate Mach waves that propagate into the test section. CFD of the empty tunnel serves two purposes. Firstly, the full-tunnel simulations are used to provide upstream boundary conditions for CFD of vehicle aerodynamics which are generally performed in a domain confined to the wind tunnel test section; these companion studies are addressed in other papers. Secondly, it is a challenging test for CFD to resolve all of the empty tunnel flow phenomena relevant to flow in the test section. It requires a more complete definition of geometry than was originally anticipated. In addition, it requires good spatial and temporal accuracy, and turbulence modeling that performs well on specific phenomena such as corner flows. The boundary conditions and solution algorithms must perform well from incompressible to almost hypersonic speeds. The final state of the pre-test CFD was a product of an iterative self-improvement process. The initial simulations of the empty tunnel were deficient in many respects, but hints to those deficiencies were recognized in the solutions, and remedies were implemented. Possible further improvements will be studied in the post-test phase when comparisons with experimental data are possible. The CFD was performed by five separate collaborative teams using four different flow solvers: FUN3D, Overflow, Star-CCM+ and USM3D. The level of effort of these teams varied significantly, but each made important contributions to the goals of the work. A concerted effort to use uncertainty quantification methods (UQ) in CFD is also a goal of this work. To this end, variations in CFD results due to grid refinement, turbulence modeling, and boundary conditions have been characterized. Code-to-code variation is another means of assessing CFD uncertainty. All CFD solvers predict similarity among the primary flow features; these include the variation of Mach number due to changes in Reynolds number, and the bulk flow angularity due to tunnel-wall curvature. All CFD solvers also predict similar trends in secondary flows, such as the downwash in the side-wall boundary layers. Three of the high-spatial resolution simulations give similar predictions of a complex secondary flow phenomena, streamwise vortices generated in the S-bend throat that persist into the side-wall boundary layers of the test section. Two of the highest-resolution simulations, run with the same turbulence model in different CFD solvers, gave encouragingly similar predictions of a complex tertiary flow phenomenon, small transient "sprites" of upwash flows, resulting from vortices that presumably originate in the separated flow near the leading edge of the nozzle block. While the CFD was done in a "blind pre-test" mode, requests from the experimental team for CFD results pertaining to unsteadiness and total temperature variations in the test section resulted in CFD runs that included a cooled wall in settling chamber. This then led to a change in the standard practice for running the Overflow results, which would not have occurred without this "release" of this experimental information. CFD was also used to guide some measurements. The paper will focus on establishing the consensus among CFD results and understanding differences among those results. Initial findings from the efforts to characterize CFD uncertainty have been done and will be included in the paper.

Robert Edward Childs↗