SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Requirements”

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 163 records · Page 9

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2015

Closed Loop Requirements and Analysis Management

Effective systems engineering involves the use of analysis in the derivation of requirements and verification of designs against those requirements. The initial development of requirements often depends on analysis for the technical definition of specific aspects of a product. Following the allocation of system-level requirements to a product's components, the closure of those requirements often involves analytical approaches to verify that the requirement criteria have been satisfied. Meanwhile, changes that occur in between these two processes need to be managed in order to achieve a closed-loop requirement derivation/verification process. Herein are presented concepts for employing emerging Team center capabilities to jointly manage requirements and analysis data such that analytical techniques are utilized to effectively derive and allocate requirements, analyses are consulted and updated during the change evaluation processes, and analyses are leveraged during the design verification process. Recommendations on concept validation case studies are also discussed.

Lamoreaux, Michael↗

NASA NTRS2016

Integrating MBSE into Ongoing Projects: Requirements Validation and Test Planning for the ISS SAFER

The International Space Station (ISS) Simplified Aid for Extra Vehicular Activity (EVA) Rescue (SAFER) is the spacewalking astronaut's final safety measure against separating from the ISS and being unable to return safely. Since the late 1990s, the SAFER has been a standard element of the spacewalking astronaut's equipment. The ISS SAFER project was chartered to develop a new block of SAFER units using a highly similar design to the legacy SAFER (known as the USA SAFER). An on-orbit test module was also included in the project to enable periodic maintenance/propulsion system checkout on the ISS SAFER. On the ISS SAFER project, model-based systems engineering (MBSE) was not the initial systems engineering (SE) approach, given the volume of heritage systems engineering and integration (SE&I) products. The initial emphasis was ensuring traceability to ISS program standards as well as to legacy USA SAFER requirements. The requirements management capabilities of the Cradle systems engineering tool were to be utilized to that end. During development, however, MBSE approaches were applied selectively to address specific challenges in requirements validation and test and verification (T&V) planning, which provided measurable efficiencies to the project. From an MBSE perspective, ISS SAFER development presented a challenge and an opportunity. Addressing the challenge first, the project was tasked to use the original USA SAFER operational and design requirements baseline, with a number of additional ISS program requirements to address evolving certification expectations for systems operating on the ISS. Additionally, a need to redesign the ISS SAFER avionics architecture resulted in a set of changes to the design requirements baseline. Finally, the project added an entirely new functionality for on-orbit maintenance. After initial requirements integration, the system requirements count was approaching 1000, which represented a growth of 4x over the original USA SAFER system. This presented the challenge - How to confirm that this new set of requirements set would result in the creation of the desired capability.

Anderson, Herbert A.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

CLINICAL DECISION SUPPORT: PATH TO FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS

Long-duration, deep-space exploration missions present significant challenges to crew health and performance. These challenges include the individual and combined effects of microgravity, radiation exposure, isolation, limited resources (mass, volume, power, data and crew time), limited options for evacuation and those associated with delayed or constrained communications, all of which demand greater crew autonomy. Specifically, as the communication delays intensify the further we explore space, the unqualified need for Earth-independent medical operations focused on autonomous diagnosis, treatment and prevention will be key to mission continuation and success. To augment the requisite knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) of a time-constrained crew operating under stressful conditions, combatting fatigue, and facing a potential medical crisis, a robust clinical decision support system (CDSS) is a probable solution that would facilitate, guide and inform Earth-independent medical operations, while assisting crewmembers through various clinical presentations. The Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) Element of the Human Research Program (HRP) is expanding the boundaries of space medical systems to advance the care of astronauts on future exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit. ExMC is actively identifying and testing next-generation medical care and crew health maintenance technologies. The Clinical Decision Support (CDS) project addresses gap Medical-701 within the Inflight Medical Conditions risk: “Enhance medical capabilities within an exploration medical system.” Though mass, volume, and power will face increasing constraints, the projected computational capabilities of spacecraft systems will increase exponentially as information technology continues to advance this decade and beyond. Hence, data, software and computational resources will play an essential and synergistic role in maintaining crew health, wellness and performance in deep space missions. The focus of the CDS project is to develop recommended requirements for an in-vehicle CDSS that acts as a ‘virtual assistant’ for delivering optimal health, performance and medical care during exploration missions. The CDSS is envisioned as an integrated, software-based tool deployed on a laptop computer or handheld device. The CDSS will assist the crew and ground support when interacting with knowledge/databases (e.g. records, pharmacy, schedule), instrumentation (e.g. imaging, physiological monitoring devices), and habitat (e.g. wellness system, task performance system) and vehicle systems (e.g. environmental system, communication system). In addition, the human interface will employ a context-based approach that accounts for the crew’s situation. Thus, extraneous and clinically/operationally non-relevant information are reduced to avoid an increase in cognitive load. The framework of an ideal spaceflight CDSS is to include core and advanced analytical features that incorporate work from collaborators yet maintain a flexible platform for integrating new technology in the future. In fiscal year 2021 (FY21), the CDS project identified requirements through two primary mechanisms: (i) the development of software implementation prototypes and (ii) the application of systems engineering processes. The CDS project developed and tested a series of increasingly complex system prototypes that were based on use cases derived from the CDSS concept of operations (ConOps). These software implementations yielded insights on CDSS functionality as well as lessons learned that provided the initial requirements for CDSS capability. By applying a systems engineering (SE) approach, medical scenarios provided in the ConOps and the use cases for software implementation underwent functional decomposition to identify CDSS functionality. Also, systems-based modeling language (SysML) tools such as activity diagrams were developed from the same ConOps and use cases to identify CDSS functionality. The lessons learned from software implementation defined both specific requirements and broad areas of requirements. Within these defined broad requirement areas, further analysis of the SE products identified specific capability that resulted in the final functional requirements. In summary, the software prototypes, functional decomposition of the ConOps and use cases, and SysML diagrams provided the basis for the CDSS requirements developed in FY21. In the upcoming year, these requirements will be refined for their final ExMC baseline review in latter FY22.

clinical decision support↗

DOE OSTI2015

Environmental Requirements Management

CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company (CH2M HILL) is the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) prime contractor responsible for the environmental cleanup of the Hanford Site Central Plateau. As part of this responsibility, the CH2M HILL is faced with the task of complying with thousands of environmental requirements which originate from over 200 federal, state, and local laws and regulations, DOE Orders, waste management and effluent discharge permits, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) response and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action documents, and official regulatory agency correspondence. The challenge is to manage this vast number of requirements to ensure they are appropriately and effectively integrated into CH2M HILL operations. Ensuring compliance with a large number of environmental requirements relies on an organization’s ability to identify, evaluate, communicate, and verify those requirements. To ensure that compliance is maintained, all changes need to be tracked. The CH2M HILL identified that the existing system used to manage environmental requirements was difficult to maintain and that improvements should be made to increase functionality. CH2M HILL established an environmental requirements management procedure and tools to assure that all environmental requirements are effectively and efficiently managed. Having a complete and accurate set of environmental requirements applicable to CH2M HILL operations will promote a more efficient approach to: • Communicating requirements • Planning work • Maintaining work controls • Maintaining compliance

Cusack, Laura J.↗

DOE OSTI2015

Environmental requirements management: Maintaining an effective compliance program is key to a robust environmental management system - 15184

CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company (CH2M HILL) is the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) prime contractor responsible for the environmental cleanup of the Hanford Site Central Plateau. As part of this responsibility, the CH2M HILL is faced with the task of complying with thousands of environmental requirements which originate from over 200 federal, state, and local laws and regulations, DOE Orders, waste management and effluent discharge permits, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) response and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action documents, and official regulatory agency correspondence. The challenge is to manage this vast number of requirements to ensure they are appropriately and effectively integrated into CH2M HILL operations. Ensuring compliance with a large number of environmental requirements relies on an organisation's ability to identify, evaluate, communicate, and verify those requirements. To ensure that compliance is maintained, all changes need to be tracked. The CH2M HILL identified that the existing system used to manage environmental requirements was difficult to maintain and that improvements should be made to increase functionality. CH2M HILL established an environmental requirements management procedure and tools to assure that all environmental requirements are effectively and efficiently managed. Having a complete and accurate set of environmental requirements applicable to CH2M HILL operations will promote a more efficient approach to: - Communicating requirements- Planning work - Maintaining work controls - Maintaining compliance. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2014

Challenges of Achieving 2012 IECC Air Sealing Requirements in Multifamily Dwellings

While previous versions of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) have included provisions to improve the air tightness of dwellings, for the first time, the 2012 IECC mandates compliance verification through blower door testing. Simply completing the Air Barrier and Insulation Installation checklist through visual inspection is no longer sufficient by itself. In addition, the 2012 IECC mandates a significantly stricter air sealing requirement. In Climate Zones 3 through 8, air leakage may not exceed 3 ACH50, which is a significant reduction from the 2009 IECC requirement of 7 ACH50. This requirement is for all residential buildings, which includes low-rise multifamily dwellings. While this air leakage rate requirement is an important component to achieving an efficient building thermal envelope, currently, the code language doesn't explicitly address differences between single family and multifamily applications. In addition, the 2012 IECC does not provide an option to sample dwellings for larger multifamily buildings, so compliance would have to be verified on every unit. With compliance with the 2012 IECC air leakage requirements on the horizon, several of CARB's multifamily builder partners are evaluating how best to comply with this requirement. Builders are not sure whether it is more practical or beneficial to simply pay for guarded testing or to revise their air sealing strategies to improve compartmentalization to comply with code requirements based on unguarded blower door testing. This report summarizes CARB's research that was conducted to assess the feasibility of meeting the 2012 IECC air leakage requirements in 3 multifamily buildings.

&#8203↗

DOE OSTI2014

Challenges of Achieving 2012 IECC Air Sealing Requirements in Multifamily Dwellings

While previous versions of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) have included provisions to improve the air tightness of dwellings, for the first time, the 2012 IECC mandates compliance verification through blower door testing. Simply completing the Air Barrier and Insulation Installation checklist through visual inspection is no longer sufficient by itself. In addition, the 2012 IECC mandates a significantly stricter air sealing requirement. In Climate Zones 3 through 8, air leakage may not exceed 3 ACH50, which is a significant reduction from the 2009 IECC requirement of 7 ACH50. This requirement is for all residential buildings, which includes low-rise multifamily dwellings. While this air leakage rate requirement is an important component to achieving an efficient building thermal envelope, currently, the code language doesn't explicitly address differences between single family and multifamily applications. In addition, the 2012 IECC does not provide an option to sample dwellings for larger multifamily buildings, so compliance would have to be verified on every unit. With compliance with the 2012 IECC air leakage requirements on the horizon, several of Consortium for Advanced Residential Building's (CARB’s) multifamily builder partners are evaluating how best to comply with this requirement. Builders are not sure whether it is more practical or beneficial to simply pay for guarded testing or to revise their air sealing strategies to improve compartmentalization to comply with code requirements based on unguarded blower door testing. This report summarizes CARB's research that was conducted to assess the feasibility of meeting the 2012 IECC air leakage requirements in 3 multifamily buildings.

2012 IECC↗

DOE OSTI2014

Building America Case Study: Challenges of Achieving 2012 IECC Air Sealing Requirements in Multifamily Dwellings, Upstate New York (Fact Sheet)

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2014

New Whole-House Solutions Case Study: Challenges of Achieving 2012 IECC Air Sealing Requirements in Multifamily Dwellings, Upstate New York

While previous versions of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) have included provisions to improve the air tightness of dwellings, for the first time, the 2012 IECC mandates compliance verification through blower door testing. Simply completing the Air Barrier and Insulation Installation checklist through visual inspection is no longer sufficient; the 2012 IECC mandates a significantly stricter air sealing requirement. In Climate Zones 3 through 8, air leakage may not exceed 3 ACH50, which is a significant reduction from the 2009 IECC requirement of 7 ACH50. This requirement is for all residential buildings, which includes low-rise multifamily dwellings. While this air leakage rate requirement is an important component to achieving an efficient building thermal envelope, currently, the code language doesn't explicitly address differences between single family and multifamily applications. In addition, the 2012 IECC does not provide an option to sample dwellings for larger multifamily buildings, so compliance would have to be verified on every unit. With compliance with the 2012 IECC air leakage requirements on the horizon, several of Building America team Consortium for Advanced Residential Building's (CARB) multifamily builder partners are evaluating how best to comply with this requirement. Builders are not sure whether it is more practical or beneficial to simply pay for guarded testing or to revise their air sealing strategies to improve compartmentalization to comply with code requirements based on unguarded blower door testing. This report summarizes CARB's research that was conducted to assess the feasibility of meeting the 2012 IECC air leakage requirements in three multifamily buildings.

air leakage↗

DOE OSTI2014

MO-F-16A-03: AAPM Online Learning Support of New ABR MOC Requirements

In 2002 the American Board of Radiology (ABR) discontinued issuing lifetime board certification. After that time diplomates received a timelimited certificate and must participate in the Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program in order to maintain their certification. Initially certificates were issued with a 10 year expiration period and the MOC had requirements to be met over that 10 year period. The goal was to demonstrate continuous maintenance of clinical competency, however some diplomates were attempting to fulfill most or all of the requirements near the end of the 10 year period. This failed to meet the continuous aspect of the goal and so the ABR changed to a sliding 3-year window. This was done to recognize that not every year would be the same, but that diplomates should be able to maintain a reasonable average over any 3 year period.A second significant change occurred in 2013. The initial requirements included 20 selfassessment modules (SAMs) over the original 10 year term. SAMs are a special type of continuing education (CE) credit that were an addition to the 250 standard CE credits required over the 10 year period. In 2013, however, the new requirement is 75 CE credits over the previous 3 years, of which 25 must include self-assessment. Effectively this raised the self-assessment requirement from 20 in 10 years to 25 in 3 years. Previously SAMs were an interactive presentation available in limited quantities at live meetings. However, the new requirement is not for SAMs but CE-SA which includes SAMs, but also includes the online quizzes provided at the AAPM online learning center. All credits earned at the AAPM online learning center fulfill the ABR SA requirement.This talk will be an interactive demonstration of the AAPM online learning center along with a discussion of the MOC requirements.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗

DOE OSTI2024

Estimating the Contributions to Human Error Probability from the Convolution of the Distribution of Time Available and Time Required

As part of their duties, Human Reliability Analysis must often evaluate if crews in nuclear power plants (NPPs) can complete tasks associated with a human-failure event within time limits. For example, the time required in NPP scenarios is determined by systematic and structured walkthroughs, feasibility studies, recorded times from training exercises, and interviews with experienced operators and experts. Typically, a point estimate is derived for the estimate (mean, maximum, or 95th percentile of time required). Using point-estimate values can mask the risk associated with variability among crews, plant conditions and set-up, environmental conditions, and other impact factors under which these actions are executed. While point estimates for time required and time available have served the industry well, without considering the uncertainty they could lead to biased understanding about the risk. The Integrated Human Event Analysis System - General Methodology (IDHEAS-G) model (developed by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC) for human error probability calculates human error probability by summing two probabilities: insufficient time and cognitive error. As such, the model takes a more holistic approach by considering the full distributions for time required and time available to calculate the human error probability because the time available to complete the task is insufficient. In this study, we expand on the work of the NRC and discuss methods for estimating these time considerations. For example, for the time required, the impact of Performance Influencing Factors (PIFs) on the distribution was divided into impacts that are aleatory in nature, such as crew-to-crew variability, and those that are epistemic (i.e., the PIFs). Starting with the factors that introduce aleatory uncertainty, a first-order distribution was developed from a large set of time required (i.e., NPP task completion times) data for the range of operator actions that occur in the NPP control room under simulated accident conditions. The first-order distribution can then be adjusted to account for epistemic uncertainty using research associated with the impact of applicable PIFs on the time required. We also develop guidance for analysts to address the probability distributions for the time available. The guidance we developed on how to estimate time required and time available distributions is based on the identification of pertinent research and data, data analyses, and expert knowledge elicitation.

human error probability, human performance, time e↗

DOE OSTI2016

Contingency Contractor Optimization Phase 3 Sustainment Requirements Document Contingency Contractor Optimization Tool - Prototype

This requirements document serves as an addendum to the Contingency Contractor Optimization Phase 2, Requirements Document [1] and Phase 3 Requirements Document [2]. The Phase 2 Requirements document focused on the high-level requirements for the tool. The Phase 3 Requirements document provided more detailed requirements to which the engineering prototype was built in Phase 3. This document will provide detailed requirements for features and enhancements being added to the production pilot in the Phase 3 Sustainment.

42 ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2020

Clause-by-Clause Summary of Requirements in IEEE Standard 1547-2018

The revised IEEE 1547 standard (IEEE Std 1547-2018) contains eleven chapters (clauses) and eight annexes that comprise 136 pages. Each clause specifies information or requirements that apply to certain aspects important to the interconnection of distributed energy resources to the electric power system. Implementation of the requirements needs a careful study of the underlying technical concept and also needs the appropriate information that may be required to calculate various settings and configurations. This document aims to provide an introductory text to assist users of IEEE Std 1547-2018 in identifying the following questions: what is the primary audience of the clause/subclause? What knowledge is required to understand the technical subject matter? What information is required to apply/implement the requirements specified? What level of fluency with the subject matter is required to apply/implement the requirements?

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

DOE OSTI2022

Requirements for Cataloging Hanford Geophysical Datasets

Environmental management activities at the Hanford Site produce extensive data about site conditions, contaminants, cleanup, and more. Managing and archiving that data requires a high degree of collaboration among site contractors and a high level of awareness by project managers and staff. Part of that effort is developing a Hanford Environmental Information and Data Index (HEIDI) to organize the data and maximize its value by making it findable and available for reuse. The objective is to catalog the disparate data sets collected to address the evolving needs of planning, executing, and documenting cleanup over several decades up to the present day, including links to active data sources when available. A properly implemented data catalog makes finding environmental datasets related to an area or theme a routine, reliable process, without requiring the searcher to have special knowledge that a data set exists and where it may be stored. In this project, a working group, including the U.S. Department of Energy, the Hanford Site contractors, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory staff, identified needs and requirements for handling complex site data. Geophysical data was chosen as a test case because it can be large and complex and often involves multiple processing steps to extract the information incorporated into deliverables. The ability to document those steps was one of the requirements identified for the catalog. In addition to developing requirements, other activities included selecting a metadata schema and initial testing with the objective of determining whether the workflow and capabilities of selected data catalog software platforms were sufficient to implement and impose the identified requirements. This initial testing involved running the default catalog instance using the software platform of interest and altering the configuration to achieve each requirement, if possible. Where configuration alone was insufficient, the possibility of modifying the software by changing the code was examined, but not implemented. A follow-on task is planned to reprogram the code as necessary to implement requirements in a prototype catalog.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

NASA NTRS1980

Technology requirements and readiness for very large aircraft

The technology requirements for designing, manufacturing and operating any vehicle depend largely on the configuration of that vehicle. Under the general heading of Very Large Aircraft (VLA), configurations are many and varied, so, therefore, are the technology requirements. The present work is limited to technology requirements of particular interest to VLA. While many are of common interest, a few technology requirements critical to specific VLA types are also covered. Addressed in turn are common VLA concerns and how they influence configurations and technology; the methodology followed in selecting requirements and assessing readiness; the resultant technology requirements and readiness; and some overall observations regarding technology areas judged to be particularly critical. Over 50 technology requirements are identified as unique or particularly critical to VLA. However, none of the requirements is considered to have an excellent state of technology readiness.

Conner, D. W.↗

NASA NTRS2003

Requirements: The More the Better?

Nothing ever, ever, becomes a requirement until two things happen: (1) there is a solid understanding and acceptance of the requirement's cost and schedule implications; and (2) knowledgeable technical people are so confident that the program can meet the requirement within the cost and schedule that they are willing to bet their jobs on it. Yikes!! Does this mean that we never undertake high-risk projects? No. what it does mean is that when you undertake high-risk activities, you agree on an expectation or requirement that includes failure, or falling short, as a real possibility, and your cost and schedule reflect the risk. The other thing that it means is that you may have to start a project with some requirements open until after the work progresses to a point where the requirement meets the two criteria above. The process is also flawed because there are usually too many requirements. Something about the engineering or designer mentality seems to demand hosts of requirements as an input to the technical process.

Little, Terry↗

NASA NTRS2002

Remote Sensing Requirements Development: A Simulation-Based Approach

Earth science research and application requirements for multispectral data have often been driven by currently available remote sensing technology. Few parametric studies exist that specify data required for certain applications. Consequently, data requirements are often defined based on the best data available or on what has worked successfully in the past. Since properties such as spatial resolution, swath width, spectral bands, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), data quantization and band-to-band registration drive sensor platform and spacecraft system architecture and cost, analysis of these criteria is important to optimize system design objectively. Remote sensing data requirements are also linked to calibration and characterization methods. Parameters such as spatial resolution, radiometric accuracy and geopositional accuracy affect the complexity and cost of calibration methods. However, few studies have quantified the true accuracies required for specific problems. As calibration methods and standards are proposed, it is important that they be tied to well-known data requirements. The Application Research Toolbox (ART) developed at the John C. Stennis Space Center provides a simulation-based method for multispectral data requirements development. The ART produces simulated datasets from hyperspectral data through band synthesis. Parameters such as spectral band shape and width, SNR, data quantization, spatial resolution and band-to-band registration can be varied to create many different simulated data products. Simulated data utility can then be assessed for different applications so that requirements can be better understood.

Zanoni, Vicki↗

NASA NTRS2004

Robust Requirements Tracing via Internet Search Technology: Improving an IV and V Technique

There are three major objectives to this phase of the work. (1) Improvement of Information Retrieval (IR) methods for Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) requirements tracing. Information Retrieval methods are typically developed for very large (order of millions - tens of millions and more documents) document collections and therefore, most successfully used methods somewhat sacrifice precision and recall in order to achieve efficiency. At the same time typical IR systems treat all user queries as independent of each other and assume that relevance of documents to queries is subjective for each user. The IV&V requirements tracing problem has a much smaller data set to operate on, even for large software development projects; the set of queries is predetermined by the high-level specification document and individual requirements considered as query input to IR methods are not necessarily independent from each other. Namely, knowledge about the links for one requirement may be helpful in determining the links of another requirement. Finally, while the final decision on the exact form of the traceability matrix still belongs to the IV&V analyst, his/her decisions are much less arbitrary than those of an Internet search engine user. All this suggests that the information available to us in the framework of the IV&V tracing problem can be successfully leveraged to enhance standard IR techniques, which in turn would lead to increased recall and precision. We developed several new methods during Phase II; (2) IV&V requirements tracing IR toolkit. Based on the methods developed in Phase I and their improvements developed in Phase II, we built a toolkit of IR methods for IV&V requirements tracing. The toolkit has been integrated, at the data level, with SAIC's SuperTracePlus (STP) tool; (3) Toolkit testing. We tested the methods included in the IV&V requirements tracing IR toolkit on a number of projects.

Hayes, Jane↗