SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “verifications”

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 145 records · Page 8

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2017

The human factors verification at plant startup for the AP1000 Plant - 173

The Human Factors (HF) verification at plant startup is the final HF assessment for the AP1000{sup R} HF program and is performed using the as-built plant design. This HF verification has been implemented for the China AP1000 Standard Plant. The scope and objectives of the HF verification at plant startup met the requirements for Verification and Validation (V and V) as described in NUREG-0711, 'Human Factors Engineering Program Review Model'. The majority of the verifications have been completed. Overall, the results confirmed the adequacy of the China AP1000 Standard Plant operating procedures and operator training. A number of design issues were identified and were categorized as safety issues, operability and maintainability issues or minor issues. These issues are being addressed and tracked as site test deficiencies. Based on the current results, it can be concluded that the China AP1000 Standard Plant is safe, operable and maintainable, pending completion of the outstanding verifications and resolution of the identified issues. This paper will describe the overall strategy and discuss the lessons learned in respect to providing HF support to the startup activities for the AP1000 plant. (authors)

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

DOE OSTI2015

Nuclear Warhead Verification: A Review of Attribute and Template Systems

Verification of current nuclear arms control treaties between United States and Russia relies primarily on the verification of delivery vehicles. Warheads are counted indirectly via the delivery vehicles that they are associated with. As states move to lower numbers of nuclear weapons in their arsenals, verification will likely pose complex challenges. Most importantly, future nuclear disarmament treaties may place limits on the total number of nuclear weapons in the arsenals. Their verification would require inspections of individual nuclear warheads without revealing secret information. By confirming the authenticity of nuclear warheads and perhaps also of warhead components we show the verification challenge for future reductions in the nuclear arsenals. Our paper provides an overview of the development of verification systems, and highlights the challenges and the opportunities for future research in this area.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗

DOE OSTI2020

Improvements to the New CTH Code Verification & Validation Test Suite (FY2020)

The CTH multiphysics hydrocode, which is used for a wide range of important calculations, has undertaken in recent years to overhaul its software quality and testing processes. A key part of this effort entailed building a new, robust V&V test suite made up of traditional hydrocode verification problems, such as those listed in the ASC Tri-Lab Test Suite and the Enhanced Tri-Lab Test Suite, as well as validation problems for some of CTHs most frequently used equations of state, materials models, and other key capabilities. Substantial progress towards this goal was made in FY19. In FY20, this test suite has been expanded to include verification and validation tests of the Sesame and JWL equation of state models as well as the Mader verification problem from the Tri-Lab Test Suite and the Blake verification problem - a linear elastic analog to the Hunter problem from the Enhanced Tri-Lab Test Suite. This report documents CTH performance on the new test suite problems. Verification test results are compared to analytic solutions and, for most tests, convergence results are presented. Validation test results are compared to experimental data and mesh refinement studies are included. CTH performs well overall on the new test problems. Convergence rates for the Blake and Mader problems are comparable to those for similar ASC codes. The JWL and Sesame verification tests show good agreement with analytic solutions. Likewise, CTH simulation results show good agreement with experimental validation data for the Sesame and JWL equations of state for the materials tested. Future V&V work will focus on adding tests for other key capabilities like fracture and high explosive models.

71 CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS, GENERAL PHYSIC↗

DOE OSTI2024

Sierra/SD – Verification Test Manual – 5.22

Verification and validation (V&V) of scientific computing programs are important at Sandia National Labs due to the expanding role of computational simulation in managing the United States nuclear stockpile. The complexities of structural response calculations used to analyze physical problems, the varieties of codes applied to the calculations, and the importance of accurate predictions when assessing field conditions demand confidence in the consistency and accuracy of computer codes. Confidence in the accuracy of the predictions arising from computer simulations must ultimately be gained through verification and validation. The Sierra salinas structural dynamics analysis code, Sierra/SD, is used at the DOE Laboratories, and in several DOD projects. The roles of Sierra/SD in the qualification of weapon systems and components for normal and hostile environments throughout the Stockpile-to-Target Sequence include to, • Redesign weapon components. • Certify weapon components and systems for target environments such as hypersonic vehicles. • Certify that components will survive the thermal mechanical shock loads associated with hostile environments. • Evaluate current stockpile issues, including issues associated with uncertainty quantification. • Address many other problems that are encountered in stockpile management. The Sierra/SD verification plan is described, and an evolving set of key verification tests are described in detail. The verification tests ensure the correctness of the mathematics and numerical algorithms associated with functionality describing engineering phenomena. Development is in accordance with a set of tailored Software Quality Engineering (SQE) practices. SQE practices guide the overall verification and validation effort.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

NASA NTRS1975

Simulation verification techniques study

Results are summarized of the simulation verification techniques study which consisted of two tasks: to develop techniques for simulator hardware checkout and to develop techniques for simulation performance verification (validation). The hardware verification task involved definition of simulation hardware (hardware units and integrated simulator configurations), survey of current hardware self-test techniques, and definition of hardware and software techniques for checkout of simulator subsystems. The performance verification task included definition of simulation performance parameters (and critical performance parameters), definition of methods for establishing standards of performance (sources of reference data or validation), and definition of methods for validating performance. Both major tasks included definition of verification software and assessment of verification data base impact. An annotated bibliography of all documents generated during this study is provided.

Schoonmaker, P. B.↗

NASA NTRS1986

Verification of post permanently manned configuration Space Station elements

An account is given of the techniques and ground systems designed to fulfill post permanently manned configuration (PMC) Space Station verification tasks. Consideration is given to analysis using computer math models and computer-aided interface verification systems, testing using simulators and interface mixtures, and special inspection. It is noted that an initial Space Station design that accommodates and facilitates verification is crucial to an effective verification program as well as proper instrumentation, built-in test capability, and a precise configuration management, control and record system. It is concluded that post PMC verification should be accounted for both in the initial Space Station design and in the subsequent development of initial assembly flight verification techniques and capabilities.

Scully, E. J.↗

NASA NTRS1993

Towards the formal verification of the requirements and design of a processor interface unit

The formal verification of the design and partial requirements for a Processor Interface Unit (PIU) using the Higher Order Logic (HOL) theorem-proving system is described. The processor interface unit is a single-chip subsystem within a fault-tolerant embedded system under development within the Boeing Defense and Space Group. It provides the opportunity to investigate the specification and verification of a real-world subsystem within a commercially-developed fault-tolerant computer. An overview of the PIU verification effort is given. The actual HOL listing from the verification effort are documented in a companion NASA contractor report entitled 'Towards the Formal Verification of the Requirements and Design of a Processor Interface Unit - HOL Listings' including the general-purpose HOL theories and definitions that support the PIU verification as well as tactics used in the proofs.

Fura, David A.↗

NASA NTRS2006

Evaluation of Mesoscale Model Phenomenological Verification Techniques

Forecasters at the Spaceflight Meteorology Group, 45th Weather Squadron, and National Weather Service in Melbourne, FL use mesoscale numerical weather prediction model output in creating their operational forecasts. These models aid in forecasting weather phenomena that could compromise the safety of launch, landing, and daily ground operations and must produce reasonable weather forecasts in order for their output to be useful in operations. Considering the importance of model forecasts to operations, their accuracy in forecasting critical weather phenomena must be verified to determine their usefulness. The currently-used traditional verification techniques involve an objective point-by-point comparison of model output and observations valid at the same time and location. The resulting statistics can unfairly penalize high-resolution models that make realistic forecasts of a certain phenomena, but are offset from the observations in small time and/or space increments. Manual subjective verification can provide a more valid representation of model performance, but is time-consuming and prone to personal biases. An objective technique that verifies specific meteorological phenomena, much in the way a human would in a subjective evaluation, would likely produce a more realistic assessment of model performance. Such techniques are being developed in the research community. The Applied Meteorology Unit (AMU) was tasked to conduct a literature search to identify phenomenological verification techniques being developed, determine if any are ready to use operationally, and outline the steps needed to implement any operationally-ready techniques into the Advanced Weather Information Processing System (AWIPS). The AMU conducted a search of all literature on the topic of phenomenological-based mesoscale model verification techniques and found 10 different techniques in various stages of development. Six of the techniques were developed to verify precipitation forecasts, one to verify sea breeze forecasts, and three were capable of verifying several phenomena. The AMU also determined the feasibility of transitioning each technique into operations and rated the operational capability of each technique on a subjective 1-10 scale: (1) 1 indicates that the technique is only in the initial stages of development, (2) 2-5 indicates that the technique is still undergoing modifications and is not ready for operations, (3) 6-8 indicates a higher probability of integrating the technique into AWIPS with code modifications, and (4) 9-10 indicates that the technique was created for AWIPS and is ready for implementation. Eight of the techniques were assigned a rating of 5 or below. The other two received ratings of 6 and 7, and none of the techniques a rating of 9-10. At the current time, there are no phenomenological model verification techniques ready for operational use. However, several of the techniques described in this report may become viable techniques in the future and should be monitored for updates in the literature. The desire to use a phenomenological verification technique is widespread in the modeling community, and it is likely that other techniques besides those described herein are being developed, but the work has not yet been published. Therefore, the AMIU recommends that the literature continue to be monitored for updates to the techniques described in this report and for new techniques being developed whose results have not yet been published. 111

Lambert, Winifred↗

NASA NTRS2014

Turbulence Modeling Verification and Validation

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software that solves the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations has been in routine use for more than a quarter of a century. It is currently employed not only for basic research in fluid dynamics, but also for the analysis and design processes in many industries worldwide, including aerospace, automotive, power generation, chemical manufacturing, polymer processing, and petroleum exploration. A key feature of RANS CFD is the turbulence model. Because the RANS equations are unclosed, a model is necessary to describe the effects of the turbulence on the mean flow, through the Reynolds stress terms. The turbulence model is one of the largest sources of uncertainty in RANS CFD, and most models are known to be flawed in one way or another. Alternative methods such as direct numerical simulations (DNS) and large eddy simulations (LES) rely less on modeling and hence include more physics than RANS. In DNS all turbulent scales are resolved, and in LES the large scales are resolved and the effects of the smallest turbulence scales are modeled. However, both DNS and LES are too expensive for most routine industrial usage on today's computers. Hybrid RANS-LES, which blends RANS near walls with LES away from walls, helps to moderate the cost while still retaining some of the scale-resolving capability of LES, but for some applications it can still be too expensive. Even considering its associated uncertainties, RANS turbulence modeling has proved to be very useful for a wide variety of applications. For example, in the aerospace field, many RANS models are considered to be reliable for computing attached flows. However, existing turbulence models are known to be inaccurate for many flows involving separation. Research has been ongoing for decades in an attempt to improve turbulence models for separated and other nonequilibrium flows. When developing or improving turbulence models, both verification and validation are important steps in the process. Verification insures that the CFD code is solving the equations as intended (no errors in the implementation). This is typically done either through the method of manufactured solutions (MMS) or through careful step-by-step comparisons with other verified codes. After the verification step is concluded, validation is performed to document the ability of the turbulence model to represent different types of flow physics. Validation can involve a large number of test case comparisons with experiments, theory, or DNS. Organized workshops have proved to be valuable resources for the turbulence modeling community in its pursuit of turbulence modeling verification and validation. Workshop contributors using different CFD codes run the same cases, often according to strict guidelines, and compare results. Through these comparisons, it is often possible to (1) identify codes that have likely implementation errors, and (2) gain insight into the capabilities and shortcomings of different turbulence models to predict the flow physics associated with particular types of flows. These are valuable lessons because they help bring consistency to CFD codes by encouraging the correction of faulty programming and facilitating the adoption of better models. They also sometimes point to specific areas needed for improvement in the models. In this paper, several recent workshops are summarized primarily from the point of view of turbulence modeling verification and validation. Furthermore, the NASA Langley Turbulence Modeling Resource website is described. The purpose of this site is to provide a central location where RANS turbulence models are documented, and test cases, grids, and data are provided. The goal of this paper is to provide an abbreviated survey of turbulence modeling verification and validation efforts, summarize some of the outcomes, and give some ideas for future endeavors in this area.

Rumsey, Christopher L.↗

NASA NTRS2012

Cognitive Bias in the Verification and Validation of Space Flight Systems

Cognitive bias is generally recognized as playing a significant role in virtually all domains of human decision making. Insight into this role is informally built into many of the system engineering practices employed in the aerospace industry. The review process, for example, typically has features that help to counteract the effect of bias. This paper presents a discussion of how commonly recognized biases may affect the verification and validation process. Verifying and validating a system is arguably more challenging than development, both technically and cognitively. Whereas there may be a relatively limited number of options available for the design of a particular aspect of a system, there is a virtually unlimited number of potential verification scenarios that may be explored. The probability of any particular scenario occurring in operations is typically very difficult to estimate, which increases reliance on judgment that may be affected by bias. Implementing a verification activity often presents technical challenges that, if they can be overcome at all, often result in a departure from actual flight conditions (e.g., 1-g testing, simulation, time compression, artificial fault injection) that may raise additional questions about the meaningfulness of the results, and create opportunities for the introduction of additional biases. In addition to mitigating the biases it can introduce directly, the verification and validation process must also overcome the cumulative effect of biases introduced during all previous stages of development. A variety of cognitive biases will be described, with research results for illustration. A handful of case studies will be presented that show how cognitive bias may have affected the verification and validation process on recent JPL flight projects, identify areas of strength and weakness, and identify potential changes or additions to commonly used techniques that could provide a more robust verification and validation of future systems.

Larson, Steve↗

NASA NTRS2016

Z-2 Architecture Description and Requirements Verification Results

The Z-2 Prototype Planetary Extravehicular Space Suit Assembly is a continuation of NASA's Z series of spacesuits. The Z-2 is another step in NASA's technology development roadmap leading to human exploration of the Martian surface. The suit was designed for maximum mobility at 8.3 psid, reduced mass, and to have high fidelity life support interfaces. As Z-2 will be man-tested at full vacuum in NASA JSC's Chamber B, it was manufactured as Class II, making it the most flight-like planetary walking suit produced to date. The Z-2 suit architecture is an evolution of previous EVA suits, namely the ISS EMU, Mark III, Rear Entry I-Suit and Z-1 spacesuits. The suit is a hybrid hard and soft multi-bearing, rear entry spacesuit. The hard upper torso (HUT) is an all-composite structure and includes a 2-bearing rolling convolute shoulder with Vernier sizing mechanism, removable suit port interface plate (SIP), elliptical hemispherical helmet and self-don/doff shoulder harness. The hatch is a hybrid aluminum and composite construction with Apollo style gas connectors, custom water pass-thru, removable hatch cage and interfaces to primary and auxiliary life support feed water bags. The suit includes Z-1 style lower arms with cam brackets for Vernier sizing and government furnished equipment (GFE) Phase VI gloves. The lower torso includes a telescopic waist sizing system, waist bearing, rolling convolute waist joint, hard brief, 2 bearing soft hip thigh, Z-1 style legs with ISS EMU style cam brackets for sizing, and conformal walking boots with ankle bearings. The Z-2 Requirements Verification Plan includes the verification of more than 200 individual requirements. The verification methods include test, analysis, inspection, demonstration or a combination of methods. Examples of unmanned requirements include suit leakage, proof pressure testing, operational life, mass, isometric man-loads, sizing adjustment ranges, internal and external interfaces such as in-suit drink bag, partial pressure relief valve, purge valve, donning stand and ISS Body Restraint Tether (BRT). Examples of manned requirements include verification of anthropometric range, suit self-don/doff, secondary suit exit method, donning stand self-ingress/egress and manned mobility covering eight functional tasks. The eight functional tasks include kneeling with object pick-up, standing toe touch, cross-body reach, walking, reach to the SIP and helmet visor. This paper will provide an overview of the Z-2 design. Z-2 requirements verification testing was performed with NASA at the ILC Houston test facility. This paper will also discuss pre-delivery manned and unmanned test results as well as analysis performed in support of requirements verification.

Graziosi, Dave↗

NASA NTRS2018

Space System Verification Approach Based on MEAL and Mission Risk Posture

There is no "one size fits all" solution for verifying space avionics systems to ensure safety and mission success. This paper presents a verification approach based on MEAL and risk posture for space systems. MEAL refers to Mission, mission Environment, Application, and Lifetime of the application. In addition to the description of the verification approach, the paper also provides the awareness of the different levels of risks associated with verification tests and inspections when performed at part-, board- and box-level, and discusses the applications of the approach for flight heritage verification, commercial off the shelf (COTS) verification and radiation-effects verification.

Mission Environment Application and Lifetime (MEAL↗

NASA NTRS2018

Space System Verification Approach Based on MEAL and Mission Risk Posture

Mission Environment Application and Lifetime (MEAL↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Adding a Verification View for Autonomous Real-Time Architecture

Spacecraft software systems continue to increase in complexity and must frequently operate autonomously for extended periods. Thus, the consequences of software flaws are increasing and it is necessary to improve development methods to minimize the risk of latent flaws in the operational software. Traditional software architectures place verification as one element in the development architectural view and treat verification as a later lifecycle activity that is considered complete when the system is certified for flight. The Gateway Vehicle System Manager team, recognizing the importance of verification throughout the system lifecycle, is treating verification as an additional architectural view that receives continuous attention from the requirements analysis phase and continuing for the life of the operational system. The verification view consists of two viewpoints: development and operational. We present background on the verification view and discuss the approaches the Vehicle System Manager team is taking.

James B Dabney↗

NASA NTRS2017

Runtime Verification Logics A Language Design Perspective

Runtime Verification is a light-weight approach to systems verification, where actual executions of a system are processed and analyzed using rigorous techniques. In this paper we shall narrow the term’s definition to represent the commonly studied variant consisting of verifying that a single system execution conforms to a specification written in a formal specification language. Runtime verification (in this sense) can be used for writing test oracles during testing when the system is too complex for full formal verification, or it can be used during deployment of the system as part of a fault protection strategy, where corrective actions may be taken in case the specification is violated. Specification languages for runtime verification appear to differ from for example temporal logics applied in model checking, in part due to the focus on monitoring of events that carry data, and specifically due to the desire to relate data values existing at different time points, resulting in new challenges in both the complexity of the monitoring approach and the expressiveness of languages. Over the recent years, numerous runtime verification specification languages have emerged, each with its different features and levels of expressiveness and usability. This paper presents an overview and a discussion of this design space.

Reger, Giles↗

DOE OSTI2024

Reusable Verification Components for High-Energy Physics readout ASICs

Verification is a critical aspect of designing front-end (FE) readout ASICs for High-Energy Physics (HEP) experiments. These ASICs share several similar functional features, resulting in similar verification objectives, which can be addressed using comparable verification strategies. This contribution presents a set of re-usable verification components for addressing common verification tasks, such as clock generation, reset handling, configuration, as well as hit and fault injections. The components were developed as part of the CHIPS initiative and they have been successfully used in the verification of multiple HEP ASICs.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗

DOE OSTI2014

Verification as a Foundation for Validation of a Nuclear Fuel Performance Code

Complex multiphysics simulations such as nuclear fuel performance analysis are composed of many submodels used to describe specific phenomena. These phenomena include, as examples, the relationship between stress and strain, heat transfer across a gas gap, and mechanical contact. These submodels work in concert to simulate real-world events, like the behavior of a fuel rod in a reactor. If a simulation tool is able to represent real-world behavior, the tool is said to be validated. While much emphasis is rightly placed on validation, model verification may be undervalued. Verification involves showing that a model performs as intended, that it computes results consistent with its mathematical description. This paper explains the differences between verification and validation and shows how validation should be preceded by verification. Specific verification problems, including several specific to nuclear fuel analysis, are given. Validation results are also presented.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2023

Verification and benchmarking relativistic electron beam transport through a background gas

It is necessary to establish confidence in high-consequence codes containing an extensive suite of physics algorithms in the regimes of interest. Verification problems allow code developers to assess numerical accuracy and increase confidence that specific sets of model physics were implemented correctly in the code. The two main verification techniques are code verification and solution verification. In this work, we present verification problems that can be used in other codes to increase confidence in simulations of relativistic beam transport. Specifically, we use the general plasma code EMPIRE to model and compare with the analytical solution to the evolution of the outer radial envelope of a relativistic charged particle beam. Additionally, we also outline a benchmark test of a relativistic beam propagating through a vacuum and pressurized gas cell, and present the results between EMPIRE and the hybrid code GAZEL. Further, we discuss the subtle errors that were caught with these problems and detail lessons learned.

71 CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS, GENERAL PHYSIC↗