Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “worksheet”

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.

118 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2020

The Spaceport Command and Control System Security Assessor Project

This Summer, I worked as a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Internships and Fellowships (NIF) intern under my mentor, Jill Giles within the Software Engineering Branch. Within this project, I worked alongside the Cyber Security branch to identify a list of Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) software to analyze, research, and gain insight about potential vulnerabilities within the software that could become a threat of attack. After identifying the list of COTS software, my team and I used Microsoft Excel to create a worksheet to easily organize and design a questionnaire about the software. Security reports weregiven to us to identify the software used on the machines in the firing rooms. With these reports, we created a script that would populate the database with the software information to identify potential security weaknesses of COTS software.The goal of the project was to produce a final report, summarizing the most vulnerable launch control system servers and configurations and document vulnerabilities, residual risk, likelihood, and consequence. This project is important for the Cyber Security and Information Technology branches because it will identify security weaknesses and help to mitigate risk. From the Spaceport Command and Control System Security Assessor Project, I learned how to properly identify weaknesses and vulnerabilities within software and how to mitigate the risks within the software. This project also taught me how to create databases using scripts and input files.

Destani Satora Van Arsdalen↗
NASA NTRS2022

X-57 Mod II Avionics Power Analysis

The X-57 Mod II Avionics Power Analysis was developed to provide the design requirements for the X-57 Avionics Power System. In the Mod II configuration, the two stock Tecnam P2006T Rotax engines are replaced with two electric motors. A high voltage traction battery (460 VDC nominal) supplies power for the motors. The Mod II avionics power design uses the stock Tecnam avionics power architecture as a baseline. The stock Tecnam power system utilizes three 12 VDC power sources, a battery and two alternators, to provided redundant avionics power. This redundancy was preserved in the X-57 avionics power architecture. A block diagram of the X-57 avionics system can be found in the “Mod II Architecture” worksheet of this documents. Since the X-57 electric motors do not have alternators or generators, two 13.8V DC Converters were added to replace the stock Tecnam alternators. Input power to these DC Converters is provide by the high voltage traction battery. The Tecnam stock lead acid battery was replaced with a Lithium Iron Phosphate (LiFePO4) battery. The Mod II Avionics Power Analysis provided the power requirements for the two 13.8V DC converters and the Lithium Iron Phosphate battery. Power requirement estimates for each subsystem used in this analysis were provided by manufacturer specifications, measured in the laboratory or provided by the subsystem design engineer. Typical power requirements and maximum power requirements were provided for each subsystem. The Mod II Avionics Power Systems consists of seven 13.8 VDC buses, two 28 VDC Buses and two 23 VDC buses. The avionics power requirements for Mod III configuration are the same as Mod II. The Mod III configuration replaces the stock Tecnam wing with a carbon fiber wing that is optimized for cruise conditions. The motors are located on the wingtips. The Mod IV Avionics Power Analysis is a separate analysis and is document number ANLYS-CEPT-032.

Keith Harris↗
DOE OSTI2014

Energy Management in Small Commercial Buildings: A Look at How HVAC Contractors Can Deliver Energy Efficiency to this Segment

While buildings smaller than 50,000 sq ft account for nearly half of the energy used in US commercial buildings, energy efficiency programs to-date have primarily focused on larger buildings. Interviews with stakeholders and a review of the literature indicate interest in energy efficiency from the small commercial building sector, provided solutions are simple and low-cost. An approach to deliver energy management to small commercial buildings via HVAC contractors and preliminary demonstration findings are presented. The energy management package (EMP) developed includes five technical elements: benchmarking and analysis of monthly energy use; analysis of interval electricity data (if available), a one-hour onsite walkthrough, communication with the building owner, and checking of results. This data-driven approach tracks performance and identifies low-cost opportunities, using guidelines and worksheets for each element to streamline the delivery process and minimize the formal training required. This energy management approach is unique from, but often complementary to conventional quality maintenance or retrofit-focused programs targeting the small commercial segment. Because HVAC contractors already serve these clients, the transaction cost to market and deliver energy management services can be reduced to the order of hundreds of dollars per year. This business model, outlined briefly in this report, enables the offering to benefit the contractor and client even at the modest expected energy savings in small buildings. Results from a small-scale pilot of this approach validated that the EMP could be delivered by contractors in 4-8 hours per building per year, and that energy savings of 3-5percent are feasible through this approach.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Islands Energy Playbook

This publication provides information and resources to help island nations and states initiate, plan, and complete an energy transition that relies on local resources and eliminates dependence on imported fuels. The publication provides an introduction to each phase of the energy transition, templates and blank worksheets to help organize an ongoing discussion about an island community's energy future, and lessons learned from other island communities who have reached their goals by implementing renewable energy and energy efficiency.

islands, eti, playbook, energy↗
DOE OSTI2017

Determination of a Generic Human Error Probability Distribution, Part 1: A Dynamic Formulation of SPAR-H

In almost all major nuclear power plants (NPP) events include a significant human error component. As an example, in Fukushima Daiichi (2011) nuclear meltdown, the human actions related to the high-pressure injection cooling strongly affected accident evolution. Furthermore, in the Three Mile Island accident (1979) (which was initiated by a stuck open valve and thus was triggered a loss of coolant accident) the unit operators made decisions based upon false assumptions that contributed negatively to the accident. Given these premises, the ability to accurately model human interactions with plant evolution and, in particular, dynamically calculate human error probability (HEP) plays a major role in a probabilistic risk analysis (PRA). Human reliability analysis (HRA) identifies and models the causes of human errors, and quantifies HEP by applying different methodologies. HRA methods identify errors and reflect on the understanding of error-prone people and systems. There are a number of HRA methods available that assist in identifying the vulnerabilities in the system and provide guidance in determining the HEP. HEP is the probability of a human failure event (HFE), and quantification of HEPs under various situations is utilized in PRA of large complex systems. One of the more prominent HRA methods is the Standardized Plant Analysis Risk-Human Reliability Analysis (SPAR-H) method that was developed to estimate HEPs for the use in the Standardized Plant Analysis Risk (SPAR) PRA models employed in U.S. NPPs. SPAR-H is implemented in U.S. NPPs by regulators at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to determine the HEP based on expert estimation through the use of calculation worksheets. In SPAR-H, the nominal HEPs (NHEPs) are multiplied by performance shaping factors (PSF) multiplier values to obtain the overall error probability. PSFs encompass the human components, individual characteristics, their environment, and aspects of the task. With PSFs, the goal is to capture all factors that can affect human performance. In SPAR-H there are eight PSFs used, each having respective levels corresponding to multipliers: Available Time, Stress/Stressors, Complexity, Experience/Training, Procedures, Ergonomics/Human Machine Interface, Fitness for Duty, and Work Processes. The PSF multipliers indicate enhanced, nominal, or degraded human performance. The SPAR-H method estimates the HEP through multiplying a NHEP with PSFs. Hence, SPAR-H is a traditional HRA method that assesses human performance at a fixed, or static, point in time. In a dynamic HRA framework, human performance is assessed on a continuous time basis. SPAR-H can be used within a dynamic PRA framework through the use of simulation and stochastic models. The goal of dynamic HRA is to build a more realistic model of the human-system interaction to enhance calculation of reliability, risk and safety analysis. The progression of events in dynamic SPAR-H considers that some PSFs may experience gradual change, while other change can be sudden due to individualistic differences or rapid plant status changes. The PSF changes are caused by contextual changes in the scenario. For example, as more time passes, the realization that a task should be completed sooner may cause the operator more stress. In another example, a sudden relay of information about sickness of a family member may alter the operator's general stress level and fitness for duty. Each PSF has a different dynamic nature; PSFs like stress and complexity change more quickly over the course of a task than experience and training. While the experience of an operator changes over the course of attaining the objective, the amount that this added experience changes the HEP is very minimal. In contrast, the stress, complexity, and procedures PSFs may change quite a bit over the course of task completion.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2024

An Approach to Dynamic Human Reliability Analysis and Its Data Collection Framework

Human reliability analysis (HRA) is a method for evaluating human errors in a variety of complex systems such as nuclear power plants, military systems, aircraft, and chemical plants. Most HRA methods currently used by regulatory institutes or utilities are called static HRA and are carried out by simple worksheets or simple calculators. To date, there are many unsolved or intrinsic challenges in static HRA. For example, existing static HRA does not realistically model and evaluate human actions as they would be performed at actual systems. There is no method with HRA to objectively estimate the time required for human actions despite being essential to HRA processes. In addition, many HRA methods still rely on a dataset generated prior to the 1980s, from unrelated industry experience or simply from expert judgment. Accordingly, this study attempted to research how to overcome the challenges of existing HRA via dynamic risk assessment (a.k.a., simulation-based or computation-based risk assessment) techniques. First, this study developed a dynamic HRA method, named as PRocedure-based Investigation Method of EMRALD Risk Assessment – HRA (PRIMERA-HRA). The PRIMERA-HRA mainly concentrates on providing HRA analysts with specific guidelines on how to reasonably model human actions, assign human reliability data and evaluate output of simulation within a dynamic probabilistic risk assessment tool, called as Event Modeling Risk Assessment using Linked Diagrams (EMRALD). Second, this study also developed a module for performance shaping factors (i.e., the key concept in HRA quantification) applicable to dynamic HRA, then implemented it based on PRIMERA-HRA within the EMRALD tool. Third, this study developed an HRA data collection framework to support dynamic HRA, called as Simplified Human Error Experimental Program (SHEEP). Originally, the SHEEP study aimed to support static HRA and its data collection, but recently extended the scope to the new technologies such as dynamic HRA or HRA for advanced reactors. SHEEP focuses on the use of data collected from simplified simulators to complement—but not replace—data collection studies using full-scope simulators and actual operators. To date, many experiments were conducted under the SHEEP framework. Multiple analyses, such as human performance analysis, human error analysis, task complexity analysis, learning effect analysis and time distribution analysis, were also carried out using the collected data. Then, based on the major insights, an approach to inferring full-scope data based on simplified simulator data was proposed. The PRIMERA-HRA and SHEEP research are expected to evaluate human actions more realistically than existing static HRA, provide an opportunity to collect more HRA data with reasonable cost and labor, then contribute to enhance the quality of HRA.

99 - GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2024

An Approach to Dynamic Human Reliability Analysis and Its Data Collection Framework

Human reliability analysis (HRA) is a method for evaluating human errors in a variety of complex systems such as nuclear power plants, military systems, aircraft, and chemical plants. Most HRA methods currently used by regulatory institutes or utilities are called static HRA and are carried out by simple worksheets or simple calculators. To date, there are many unsolved or intrinsic challenges in static HRA. For example, existing static HRA does not realistically model and evaluate human actions as they would be performed at actual systems. There is no method with HRA to objectively estimate the time required for human actions despite being essential to HRA processes. In addition, many HRA methods still rely on a dataset generated prior to the 1980s, from unrelated industry experience or simply from expert judgment. Accordingly, this study attempted to research how to overcome the challenges of existing HRA via dynamic risk assessment (a.k.a., simulation-based or computation-based risk assessment) techniques. First, this study developed a dynamic HRA method, named as PRocedure-based Investigation Method of EMRALD Risk Assessment – HRA (PRIMERA-HRA). The PRIMERA-HRA mainly concentrates on providing HRA analysts with specific guidelines on how to reasonably model human actions, assign human reliability data and evaluate output of simulation within a dynamic probabilistic risk assessment tool, called as Event Modeling Risk Assessment using Linked Diagrams (EMRALD). Second, this study also developed a module for performance shaping factors (i.e., the key concept in HRA quantification) applicable to dynamic HRA, then implemented it based on PRIMERA-HRA within the EMRALD tool. Third, this study developed an HRA data collection framework to support dynamic HRA, called as Simplified Human Error Experimental Program (SHEEP). Originally, the SHEEP study aimed to support static HRA and its data collection, but recently extended the scope to the new technologies such as dynamic HRA or HRA for advanced reactors. SHEEP focuses on the use of data collected from simplified simulators to complement—but not replace—data collection studies using full-scope simulators and actual operators. To date, many experiments were conducted under the SHEEP framework. Multiple analyses, such as human performance analysis, human error analysis, task complexity analysis, learning effect analysis and time distribution analysis, were also carried out using the collected data. Then, based on the major insights, an approach to inferring full-scope data based on simplified simulator data was proposed. The PRIMERA-HRA and SHEEP research are expected to evaluate human actions more realistically than existing static HRA, provide an opportunity to collect more HRA data with reasonable cost and labor, then contribute to enhance the quality of HRA.

99 - GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2017

GeoRePORT Input Spreadsheet

The Geothermal Resource Portfolio Optimization and Reporting Tool (GeoRePORT) was developed as a way to distill large amounts of geothermal project data into an objective, reportable data set that can be used to communicate with experts and non-experts. GeoRePORT summarizes (1) resource grade and certainty and (2) project readiness. This Excel file allows users to easily navigate through the resource grade attributes, using drop-down menus to pick grades and project readiness, and then easily print and share the summary with others. This spreadsheet is the first draft, for which we are soliciting expert feedback. The spreadsheet will be updated based on this feedback to increase usability of the tool. If you have any comments, please feel free to contact us.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2019

GeoRePORT Case Studies - Coso, WSMR, Dixie Valley, and Chena Hot Springs

The Geothermal Resource Portfolio Optimization and Reporting Technique (GeoRePORT) was developed with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal Technologies Office to assist in identifying and pursuing long-term investment strategies through the development of a resource reporting protocol. GeoRePORT provides scientists and nonscientists a comprehensive and quantitative means of reporting: (1) features intrinsic to geothermal sites (project grade) and (2) maturity of the development (project readiness). Because geothermal feasibility is not determined by any single factor (e.g., temperature, permeability, permitting), a site?s project grade and readiness are evaluated on 12 attributes pertaining to geological, technical, or socio-economic feasibility. In this paper, we present case studies showing how GeoRePORT can be used to compare geological, technical, and socio-economic attributes between geothermal systems. The consistent and objective assessment protocols used in GeoRePORT allow for comparison of project attributes across unique locations and geological settings. GeoRePORT case studies presented here outline the geological, socio-economic, and technical features of four individual geothermal sites: Coso, Chena, Dixie Valley, and White Sands Missile Range. The case studies illustrate the usefulness of GeoRePORT in evaluating project risk and return, identifying gaps in reported data, evaluating R&D impact, and gathering insights on successes and failures as applicable to future projects.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2019

GeoRePORT Protocol and Spreadsheet Template

The Geothermal Resource Portfolio Optimization and Reporting Technique (GeoRePORT) was developed with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal Technologies Office to assist in identifying and pursuing long-term investment strategies through the development of a resource reporting protocol. GeoRePORT provides scientists and nonscientists a comprehensive and quantitative means of reporting: (1) features intrinsic to geothermal sites (project grade) and (2) maturity of the development (project readiness). Because geothermal feasibility is not determined by any single factor (e.g., temperature, permeability, permitting), a site?s project grade and readiness are evaluated on 12 attributes pertaining to geological, technical, or socio-economic feasibility. In this submission, we present the geological, socio-economic, and technical protocols as well as the spreadsheet template for easy data entry and reporting of the GeoRePORT protocol.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗