Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Cole, Bjorn

Publications and source records attributed to Cole, Bjorn.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2016

Cloud-Based Orchestration of a Model-Based Power and Data Analysis Toolchain

The proposed Europa Mission concept contains many engineering and scientific instruments that consume varying amounts of power and produce varying amounts of data throughout the mission. System-level power and data usage must be well understood and analyzed to verify design requirements. Numerous cross-disciplinary tools and analysis models are used to simulate the system-level spacecraft power and data behavior. This paper addresses the problem of orchestrating a consistent set of models, tools, and data in a unified analysis toolchain when ownership is distributed among numerous domain experts. An analysis and simulation environment was developed as a way to manage the complexity of the power and data analysis toolchain and to reduce the simulation turnaround time. A system model data repository is used as the trusted store of high-level inputs and results while other remote servers are used for archival of larger data sets and for analysis tool execution. Simulation data passes through numerous domain-specific analysis tools and end-to-end simulation execution is enabled through a web-based tool. The use of a cloud-based service facilitates coordination among distributed developers and enables scalable computation and storage needs, and ensures a consistent execution environment. Configuration management is emphasized to maintain traceability between current and historical simulation runs and their corresponding versions of models, tools and data.

Post, Ethan↗
NASA NTRS2016

Multidisciplinary Model Transformation Through Simplified Intermediate Representations

There has long been a challenge of making engineering tools from multiple disciplines interoperate. This problem extends to system modeling practices. This challenge has been confronted with a wide variety of techniques. These techniques include attempting to interface tools together into combined suites, attempting to find underlying commonalities in mathematics, supporting connections through semantic encoding, various graph mappings and transformations, and code wrappers. All of these approaches have strengths and weaknesses. These are measured in multiple areas: relative freedom of action of individual domain engineers in developing their own tools, speed of execution, ease of creation, traceability, fidelity of information transfer, and degree of alignment between the concepts of different domains. This paper presents an approach to this interoperation problem currently being used in the World-Wide Web. The approach is to develop easy-to-parse formats that allow flexibility to both the file author and file interpreter. Many of the formats that are currently deployed sacrifice runtime performance for the ability of third parties to easily understand what to do with the data. XML became popular earlier as a de-facto standard format for many web applications, but is now being replaced by JSON to enhance human readability and provide a simpler data model. This is the basis for work in this paper. Our approach, which provides the key to interoperation, is a simplified “shrapnel” intermediate collection of objects and relationships that is the result of a breakdown of the system model into minimal pieces. It is then reassembled on the destination side, forming a two-step transformation. Previous efforts with single-step transformations have proven too difficult to create efficiently. In contrast, the use of this approach leads to an almost automatic procedure for transformation development. The Europa project is a large engineering project that must coordinate the efforts of many different teams with different specialties. The traditional form of exchanging engineering information has been documentation. The vision of model-based systems engineering is to make this information exchange much more digital. This paper presents the application of our simplified format to connecting two different engineering tools to the system model, with a focus on a dynamic mission simulation encoded in Modelica.

Cole, Bjorn↗
NASA NTRS2015

Model-Based Systems Engineering in Concurrent Engineering Centers

Concurrent Engineering Centers (CECs) are specialized facilities with a goal of generating and maturing engineering designs by enabling rapid design iterations. This is accomplished by co-locating a team of experts (either physically or virtually) in a room with a focused design goal and a limited timeline of a week or less. The systems engineer uses a model of the system to capture the relevant interfaces and manage the overall architecture. A single model that integrates other design information and modeling allows the entire team to visualize the concurrent activity and identify conflicts more efficiently, potentially resulting in a systems model that will continue to be used throughout the project lifecycle. Performing systems engineering using such a system model is the definition of model-based systems engineering (MBSE); therefore, CECs evolving their approach to incorporate advances in MBSE are more successful in reducing time and cost needed to meet study goals. This paper surveys space mission CECs that are in the middle of this evolution, and the authors share their experiences in order to promote discussion within the community.

systems engineering↗
NASA NTRS2015

Model-Based Systems Engineering in Concurrent Engineering Centers

Concurrent Engineering Centers (CECs) are specialized facilities with a goal of generating and maturing engineering designs by enabling rapid design iterations. This is accomplished by co-locating a team of experts (either physically or virtually) in a room with a narrow design goal and a limited timeline of a week or less. The systems engineer uses a model of the system to capture the relevant interfaces and manage the overall architecture. A single model that integrates other design information and modeling allows the entire team to visualize the concurrent activity and identify conflicts more efficiently, potentially resulting in a systems model that will continue to be used throughout the project lifecycle. Performing systems engineering using such a system model is the definition of model-based systems engineering (MBSE); therefore, CECs evolving their approach to incorporate advances in MBSE are more successful in reducing time and cost needed to meet study goals. This paper surveys space mission CECs that are in the middle of this evolution, and the authors share their experiences in order to promote discussion within the community.

Iwata, Curtis↗
NASA NTRS2015

Model-Based Systems Engineering in Concurrent Engineering Centers

Concurrent Engineering Centers (CECs) are specialized facilities with a goal of generating and maturing engineering designs by enabling rapid design iterations. This is accomplished by co-locating a team of experts (either physically or virtually) in a room with a narrow design goal and a limited timeline of a week or less. The systems engineer uses a model of the system to capture the relevant interfaces and manage the overall architecture. A single model that integrates other design information and modeling allows the entire team to visualize the concurrent activity and identify conflicts more efficiently, potentially resulting in a systems model that will continue to be used throughout the project lifecycle. Performing systems engineering using such a system model is the definition of model-based systems engineering (MBSE); therefore, CECs evolving their approach to incorporate advances in MBSE are more successful in reducing time and cost needed to meet study goals. This paper surveys space mission CECs that are in the middle of this evolution, and the authors share their experiences in order to promote discussion within the community.

MODEL↗
NASA NTRS2013

Analyses Made to Order: Using Transformation to Rapidly Configure a Multidisciplinary Environment

Aerospace problems are highly multidisciplinary. Four or more major disciplines are involved in analyzing any particular vehicle. Moreover, the choice of implementation technology of various subsystems can lead to a change of leading domain or reformation of the driving equations. An excellent example is the change of expertise required to consider aircraft built from composite or metallic structures, or those propelled by chemical or electrical thrusters. Another example is in the major reconfiguration of handling and stability equations with different control surface configuration (e.g., canards, t-tail v four-post tail). Combinatorial problems are also commonplace anytime that a major system is to be designed. If there are only 5 attributes of a design to consider with 4 different options, this is already 1024 options. Adding just 5 more dimensions to the study explodes the space to over one million. Even generous assumptions like the idea that only 10% of the combinations are physically feasible can only contain the problem for so long. To make matters worse, the simple number of combinations is only the beginning. Combining the issue of trade space size with the need to reformulate the design problem for many of the possibilities makes life exponentially more difficult. Advances in software modeling approaches have led to the development of model-driven architecture. This approach uses the transformation of models into inferred models (e.g. inferred execution traces from state machines) or the skeletons for code generation. When the emphasis on transformation is applied to aerospace, it becomes possible to exploit redundancy in the information specified in multiple domain models into a unified system model. F1urther, it becomes possible to overcome the combinatorial nature of specifying integrated system behavior by manually combining the equations governing a given component technology. Transformations from a system specification combined with a system-analysis mapping specification enable one-click combination of domain analyses. This is a flexibility that has been missing from many engineering codes, which often entangle design specification and physical examination much more than is required to conduct the analysis. This capability has been investigated and cultivated within the DARPA F6 program by a team of JPL and Phoenix Integration engineers building the Adapatable Systems Design and Analysis (ASDA) framework. By embracing system modeling with SysML and the Query-View-Transformation (QVT) language, the ASDA team has been able to build a flexible, easily reconfigurable framework for building up and solving large tradespaces. Examples of application and lessons learned in building the framework will be described in this paper. In addition, the motivation will be laid for various tool vendors to develop open model description standards while being able to maintain competitive advantage through proprietary algorithms and approaches. These standards will also be compared to the underpinnings of model-driven architecture and the OMG standards of the Meta-Object Facility (MOF), SysML, and QVT.

Cole, Bjorn↗
NASA NTRS2013

Domain-Specific Languages and Diagram Customization for a Concurrent Engineering Environment

A major open question for advocates of Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) is the question of how system and subsystem engineers will work together. The Systems Modeling Language (SysML), like any language intended for a large audience, is in tension between the desires for simplicity and for expressiveness. In order to be more expressive, many specialized language elements may be introduced, which will unfortunately make a complete understanding of the language a more daunting task. While this may be acceptable for systems modelers, it will increase the challenge of including subsystem engineers in the modeling effort. One possible answer to this situation is the use of Domain-Specific Languages (DSL), which are fully supported by the Unified Modeling Language (UML). SysML is in fact a DSL for systems engineering. The expressive power of a DSL can be enhanced through the use of diagram customization. Various domains have already developed their own schematic vocabularies. Within the space engineering community, two excellent examples are the propulsion and telecommunication subsystems. A return to simple box-and-line diagrams (e.g., the SysML Internal Block Diagram) are in many ways a step backward. In order allow subsystem engineers to contribute directly to the model, it is necessary to make a system modeling tool at least approximate in accessibility to drawing tools like Microsoft PowerPoint and Visio. The challenge is made more extreme in a concurrent engineering environment, where designs must often be drafted in an hour or two. In the case of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's Team X concurrent design team, a subsystem is specified using a combination of PowerPoint for drawing and Excel for calculation. A pilot has been undertaken in order to meld the drawing portion and the production of master equipment lists (MELs) via a SysML authoring tool, MagicDraw. Team X currently interacts with its customers in a process of sharing presentations. There are several inefficiencies that arise from this situation. The first is that a customer team must wait two weeks to a month (which is 2-4 times the duration of most Team X studies themselves) for a finalized, detailed design description. Another is that this information must be re-entered by hand into the set of engineering artifacts and design tools that the mission concept team uses after a study is complete. Further, there is no persistent connection to Team X or institutionally shared formulation design tools and data after a given study, again reducing the direct reuse of designs created in a Team X study. This paper presents the underpinnings of subsystem DSLs as they were developed for this pilot. This includes specialized semantics for different domains as well as the process by which major categories of objects were derived in support of defining the DSLs. The feedback given to us by the domain experts on usability, along with a pilot study with the partial inclusion of these tools is also discussed.

Cole, Bjorn↗
NASA NTRS2012

Model-Based Systems Engineering Approach to Managing Mass Margin

When designing a flight system from concept through implementation, one of the fundamental systems engineering tasks ismanaging the mass margin and a mass equipment list (MEL) of the flight system. While generating a MEL and computing a mass margin is conceptually a trivial task, maintaining consistent and correct MELs and mass margins can be challenging due to the current practices of maintaining duplicate information in various forms, such as diagrams and tables, and in various media, such as files and emails. We have overcome this challenge through a model-based systems engineering (MBSE) approach within which we allow only a single-source-of-truth. In this paper we describe the modeling patternsused to capture the single-source-of-truth and the views that have been developed for the Europa Habitability Mission (EHM) project, a mission concept study, at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL).

cloud comu↗
NASA NTRS2012

Early Formulation Model-centric Engineering on NASA's Europa Mission Concept Study

The proposed Jupiter Europa Orbiter and Jupiter Ganymede Orbiter missions were formulated using current state-of-the-art MBSE facilities: - JPL's TeamX, Rapid Mission Architecting - ESA's Concurrent Design Facility - APL's ACE Concurrent Engineering Facility. When JEO became an official "pre-project" in Sep 2010, we had already developed a strong partnership with JPL's Integrated Model Centric Engineering (IMCE) initiative; decided to apply Architecting and SysML-based MBSE from the beginning, begun laying these foundations to support work in Phase A. Release of Planetary Science Decadal Survey and FY12 President's Budget in March 2011 changed the landscape. JEO reverted to being a pre-phase A study. A conscious choice was made to continue application of MBSE on the Europa Study, refocused for early formulation. This presentation describes the approach, results, and lessons.

early formulation↗
NASA NTRS2012

Early Formulation Model-centric Engineering on Nasa's Europa Mission Concept Study

By leveraging the existing Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) infrastructure at JPL and adding a modest investment, the Europa Mission Concept Study made striking advances in mission concept capture and analysis. This effort has reaffirmed the importance of architecting and successfully harnessed the synergistic relationship of system modeling to mission architecting. It clearly demonstrated that MBSE can provide greater agility than traditional systems engineering methods. This paper will describe the successful application of MBSE in the dynamic environment of early mission formulation, the significant results produced and lessons learned in the process.

science mission afforability↗