Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “software verification”

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.

At least 199 records · Page 11
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

Verification of the PERSENT Software

Ongoing commercial design activities require a thorough verification of the Argonne Reactor Computation codes be performed. DIF3D is central to this system and substantial work has been done to verify its accuracy on several identified commercial needs. This manuscript details the verification work done on PERSENT which relies upon the DIF3D code for its forward and adjoint flux solution. Previous work identified the PERSENT features required to be verified to support commercial design activities, features of which are generally applicable to hexagonal-Z fast reactor designs. The scope of this verification effort includes verifying PERSENT’s ability to correctly calculate four key quantities: perturbation worth distributions, kinetics parameters, sensitivity coefficients, and cross section uncertainty quantification. This manuscript provides the verification tasks and their results with respect to these quantities needed for commercial design activities. For the perturbation worth distributions, hand calculations are deployed to verify the PERSENT calculated results. Similarly, hand calculation of the PERSENT computed kinetics parameters is also used to verify the PERSENT results. In both of these, the input to PERSENT is manipulated to ensure the hand calculation exactly matches the equations PERSENT is calculating. The sensitivity coefficients involve calculating the derivatives of a parameter (such as reactivity worth), with respect to the cross section data. Direct finite difference calculations with DIF3D are used to verify the PERSENT calculated results. For the uncertainty quantification, manufactured input to PERSENT is used to allow an exact hand calculation to reproduce the PERSENT calculated results. The work detailed in this report verified that significant issues were identified for earlier versions of PERSENT for sensitivity coefficients which were corrected in this work and thus version 12.1.0 of PERSENT must be used to reproduce all of the verified work in this report.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
NASA NTRS2005

Application of Lightweight Formal Methods to Software Security

Formal specification and verification of security has proven a challenging task. There is no single method that has proven feasible. Instead, an integrated approach which combines several formal techniques can increase the confidence in the verification of software security properties. Such an approach which species security properties in a library that can be reused by 2 instruments and their methodologies developed for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) are described herein The Flexible Modeling Framework (FMF) is a model based verijkation instrument that uses Promela and the SPIN model checker. The Property Based Tester (PBT) uses TASPEC and a Text Execution Monitor (TEM). They are used to reduce vulnerabilities and unwanted exposures in software during the development and maintenance life cycles.

security↗
NASA NTRS1996

V&V Within Reuse-Based Software Engineering

Verification and Validation (V&V) is used to increase the level of assurance of critical software, particularly that of safety-critical and mission-critical software. V&V is a systems engineering discipline that evaluates the software in a systems context, and is currently applied during the development of a specific application system. In order to bring the effectiveness of V&V to bear within reuse-based software engineering, V&V must be incorporated within the domain engineering process.

Addy, Edward A.↗
NASA NTRS1996

V & V Within Reuse-Based Software Engineering

Verification and validation (V&V) is used to increase the level of assurance of critical software, particularly that of safety-critical and mission critical software. This paper describes the working group's success in identifying V&V tasks that could be performed in the domain engineering and transition levels of reuse-based software engineering. The primary motivation for V&V at the domain level is to provide assurance that the domain requirements are correct and that the domain artifacts correctly implement the domain requirements. A secondary motivation is the possible elimination of redundant V&V activities at the application level. The group also considered the criteria and motivation for performing V&V in domain engineering.

Addy, Edward A.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Providing an empirical basis for optimizing the verification and testing phases of software development

Applying equal testing and verification effort to all parts of a software system is not very efficient, especially when resources are limited and scheduling is tight. Therefore, one needs to be able to differentiate low/high fault density components so that the testing/verification effort can be concentrated where needed. Such a strategy is expected to detect more faults and thus improve the resulting reliability of the overall system. This paper presents an alternative approach for constructing such models that is intended to fulfill specific software engineering needs (i.e. dealing with partial/incomplete information and creating models that are easy to interpret). Our approach to classification is as follows: (1) to measure the software system to be considered; and (2) to build multivariate stochastic models for prediction. We present experimental results obtained by classifying FORTRAN components developed at the NASA/GSFC into two fault density classes: low and high. Also we evaluate the accuracy of the model and the insights it provides into the software process.

Briand, Lionel C.↗
NASA NTRS2016

NASA Operational Simulator for Small Satellites: Tools for Software Based Validation and Verification of Small Satellites

The NASA Operational Simulator for Small Satellites (NOS3) is a suite of tools to aid in areas such as software development, integration test (IT), mission operations training, verification and validation (VV), and software systems check-out. NOS3 provides a software development environment, a multi-target build system, an operator interface-ground station, dynamics and environment simulations, and software-based hardware models. NOS3 enables the development of flight software (FSW) early in the project life cycle, when access to hardware is typically not available. For small satellites there are extensive lead times on many of the commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) components as well as limited funding for engineering test units (ETU). Considering the difficulty of providing a hardware test-bed to each developer tester, hardware models are modeled based upon characteristic data or manufacturers data sheets for each individual component. The fidelity of each hardware models is such that FSW executes unaware that physical hardware is not present. This allows binaries to be compiled for both the simulation environment, and the flight computer, without changing the FSW source code. For hardware models that provide data dependent on the environment, such as a GPS receiver or magnetometer, an open-source tool from NASA GSFC (42 Spacecraft Simulation) is used to provide the necessary data. The underlying infrastructure used to transfer messages between FSW and the hardware models can also be used to monitor, intercept, and inject messages, which has proven to be beneficial for VV of larger missions such as James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). As hardware is procured, drivers can be added to the environment to enable hardware-in-the-loop (HWIL) testing. When strict time synchronization is not vital, any number of combinations of hardware components and software-based models can be tested. The open-source operator interface used in NOS3 is COSMOS from Ball Aerospace. For testing, plug-ins are implemented in COSMOS to control the NOS3 simulations, while the command and telemetry tools available in COSMOS are used to communicate with FSW. NOS3 is actively being used for FSW development and component testing of the Simulation-to-Flight 1 (STF-1) CubeSat. As NOS3 matures, hardware models have been added for common CubeSat components such as Novatel GPS receivers, ClydeSpace electrical power systems and batteries, ISISpace antenna systems, etc. In the future, NASA IVV plans to distribute NOS3 to other CubeSat developers and release the suite to the open-source community.

Verification↗
DOE OSTI2024

A Formalization of Core Why3 in Coq

Intermediate verification languages like Why3 and Boogie have made it much easier to build program verifiers, transforming the process into a logic compilation problem rather than a proof automation one. Why3 in particular implements a rich logic for program specification with polymorphism, algebraic data types, recursive functions and predicates, and inductive predicates; it translates this logic to over a dozen solvers and proof assistants. Accordingly, it serves as a backend for many tools, including Frama-C, EasyCrypt, and GNATProve for Ada SPARK. But how can we be sure that these tools are correct? The alternate foundational approach, taken by tools like VST and CakeML, provides strong guarantees by implementing the entire toolchain in a proof assistant, but these tools are harder to build and cannot directly take advantage of SMT solver automation. As a first step toward enabling automated tools with similar foundational guarantees, we give a formal semantics in Coq for the logic fragment of Why3. We show that our semantics are useful by giving a correct-by-construction natural deduction proof system for this logic, using this proof system to verify parts of Why3's standard library, and proving sound two of Why3's transformations used to convert terms and formulas into the simpler logics supported by the backend solvers.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
NASA NTRS1991

Rule groupings: A software engineering approach towards verification of expert systems

Currently, most expert system shells do not address software engineering issues for developing or maintaining expert systems. As a result, large expert systems tend to be incomprehensible, difficult to debug or modify and almost impossible to verify or validate. Partitioning rule based systems into rule groups which reflect the underlying subdomains of the problem should enhance the comprehensibility, maintainability, and reliability of expert system software. Attempts were made to semiautomatically structure a CLIPS rule base into groups of related rules that carry the same type of information. Different distance metrics that capture relevant information from the rules for grouping are discussed. Two clustering algorithms that partition the rule base into groups of related rules are given. Two independent evaluation criteria are developed to measure the effectiveness of the grouping strategies. Results of the experiment with three sample rule bases are presented.

Mehrotra, Mala↗
NASA NTRS2016

Simulation-To-Flight (STF-1): A Mission to Enable CubeSat Software-Based Validation and Verification

The Simulation-to-Flight 1 (STF-1) CubeSat mission aims to demonstrate how legacy simulation technologies may be adapted for flexible and effective use on missions using the CubeSat platform. These technologies, named NASA Operational Simulator (NOS), have demonstrated significant value on several missions such as James Webb Space Telescope, Global Precipitation Measurement, Juno, and Deep Space Climate Observatory in the areas of software development, mission operations/training, verification and validation (V&V), test procedure development and software systems check-out. STF-1 will demonstrate a highly portable simulation and test platform that allows seamless transition of mission development artifacts to flight products. This environment will decrease development time of future CubeSat missions by lessening the dependency on hardware resources. In addition, through a partnership between NASA GSFC, the West Virginia Space Grant Consortium and West Virginia University, the STF-1 CubeSat will hosts payloads for three secondary objectives that aim to advance engineering and physical-science research in the areas of navigation systems of small satellites, provide useful data for understanding magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling and space weather, and verify the performance and durability of III-V Nitride-based materials.

navigation↗
NASA NTRS1996

The Application of V&V within Reuse-Based Software Engineering

Verification and Validation (V&V) is performed during application development for many systems, especially safety-critical and mission-critical systems. The V&V process is intended to discover errors as early as possible during the development process. Early discovery is important in order to minimize the cost and other impacts of correcting these errors. In reuse-based software engineering, decisions on the requirements, design and even implementation of domain assets can can be made prior to beginning development of a specific system. in order to bring the effectiveness of V&V to bear within reuse-based software engineering. V&V must be incorporated within the domain engineering process.

Addy, Edward↗
DOE OSTI2020

Verification of the DIF3D Software to Support Fast Reactor Analysis

Ongoing design activities at Argonne National Laboratory are requiring a thorough verification of the Argonne Reactor Computation codes be performed. DIF3D is central to this system. The driver for this effort requires the 3D Cartesian, triangular-Z, and hexagonal-Z core geometry options of DIF3D be verified. Previous work identified the DIF3D features required to be verified to support current design activities, features of which are generally applicable to hexagonal-Z fast reactor designs. The scope of this verification effort includes verifying DIF3D’s ability to correctly translate the user’s model in to DIF3D’s preferred format, verifying that options planned for use have the desired effect, and verifying the correctness of the eigenvalue, fixed-source, forward, and adjoint solvers in DIF3D-FD and DIF3D-VARIANT. This manuscript provides the verification tasks and their results with respect to the features needed for current design activities. Since analytic solutions of the neutron diffusion and transport equations are either limited in scope or not possible, multiple tiers of problems unique to each solver and geometry type were implemented. Each of these tiers tests features independent and complementary arguments for why the separate testing of functionalities is acceptable. Finally, this separate testing was also supplemented with a high-level integral check of each the diffusion and transport capabilities and applicable geometries. To accommodate cases which an analytic solution is not feasible, MCNP6.2 was relied upon to provide a higher-order reference solution. This therefore required that the capabilities within MCNP6.2 which were relied upon for this work are also verified in this work. No MCNP discrepancies were noted in this effort. Note that the MCNP6.2 verification included in this work does not stand as a full verification of MCNP6.2, but merely verifies the features used in verifying DIF3D. The verification effort identified no issues that are debilitating or otherwise impactful to design usage of DIF3D, and thus DIF3D version 11.0, release 3012 is considered verified. The types of issues that were identified were predominantly in the areas of: unclear documentation, software bugs which were inconsequential to final results, editing options which were ignored in favor of printing more information than requested, bugs in the outputs of intermediate results, or secondary output binary file information which was not present. While not a bug, this verification report also identified that the algorithm used to evaluate the peak fast flux in a nodal transport solution can be quite unreliable due to the polynomial order used and the location of the peak within the mesh. The authors of the report therefore recommend the usage of the EvaluateFlux software (distributed with ARC) as a more robust alternative.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
NASA NTRS1996

A Framework for Performing V&V within Reuse-Based Software Engineering

Verification and validation (V&V) is performed during application development for many systems, especially safety-critical and mission-critical systems. The V&V process is intended to discover errors, especially errors related to critical processing, as early as possible during the development process. Early discovery is important in order to minimize the cost and other impacts of correcting these errors. In order to provide early detection of errors, V&V is conducted in parallel with system development, often beginning with the concept phase. In reuse-based software engineering, however, decisions on the requirements, design and even implementation of domain assets can be made prior to beginning development of a specific system. In this case, V&V must be performed during domain engineering in order to have an impact on system development. This paper describes a framework for performing V&V within architecture-centric, reuse-based software engineering. This framework includes the activities of traditional application-level V&V, and extends these activities into domain engineering and into the transition between domain engineering and application engineering. The framework includes descriptions of the types of activities to be performed during each of the life-cycle phases, and provides motivation for the activities.

Addy, Edward A.↗
DOE OSTI2022

Verification of the DIF3D Software to Support Fast Reactor Analysis

Ongoing design activities at Argonne National Laboratory are requiring a thorough verification of the Argonne Reactor Computation codes be performed. DIF3D is central to this system. The driver for this effort requires the 3D Cartesian, triangular-Z, and hexagonal-Z core geometry options of DIF3D be verified. Previous work identified the DIF3D features required to be verified to support current design activities, features of which are generally applicable to hexagonal-Z fast reactor designs. The scope of this verification effort includes verifying DIF3D’s ability to correctly translate the user’s model in to DIF3D’s preferred format, verifying that options planned for use have the desired effect, and verifying the correctness of the eigenvalue, fixed-source, forward, and adjoint solvers in DIF3D-FD and DIF3D-VARIANT. This manuscript provides the verification tasks and their results with respect to the features needed for current design activities. Since analytic solutions of the neutron diffusion and transport equations are either limited in scope or not possible, multiple tiers of problems unique to each solver and geometry type were implemented. Each of these tiers tests features independent and complementary arguments for why the separate testing of functionalities is acceptable. Finally, this separate testing was also supplemented with a high-level integral check of each the diffusion and transport capabilities and applicable geometries. To accommodate cases which an analytic solution is not feasible, MCNP6.2 was relied upon to provide a higher-order reference solution. This therefore required that the capabilities within MCNP6.2 which were relied upon for this work are also verified in this work. No MCNP discrepancies were noted in this effort. Note that the MCNP6.2 verification included in this work does not stand as a full verification of MCNP6.2, but merely verifies the features used in verifying DIF3D. The verification effort identified no issues that are debilitating or otherwise impactful to design usage of DIF3D, and thus DIF3D version 11.0, release 3012 is considered verified. As some additional changes have been made to the ARC software since this point all versions between release 3012 and 3266 can be considered verified as version 3253 was used for all updates in this revision. The types of issues that were identified were predominantly in the areas of: unclear documentation, software bugs which were inconsequential to final results, editing options which were ignored in favor of printing more information than requested, bugs in the outputs of intermediate results, or secondary output binary file information which was not present. While not a bug, this verification report also identified that the algorithm used to evaluate the peak fast flux in a nodal transport solution can be quite unreliable due to the methodology used and the location of the peak within the mesh. The authors of the report therefore recommend the usage of the EvaluateFlux software (distributed with ARC) as a more robust alternative noting that DIF3D will properly notify the user when the peaking values it is providing are potentially incorrect.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
NASA NTRS2001

Using Automation to Improve the Flight Software Testing Process

One of the critical phases in the development of a spacecraft attitude control system (ACS) is the testing of its flight software. The testing (and test verification) of ACS flight software requires a mix of skills involving software, knowledge of attitude control, and attitude control hardware, data manipulation, and analysis. The process of analyzing and verifying flight software test results often creates a bottleneck which dictates the speed at which flight software verification can be conducted. In the development of the Microwave Anisotropy Probe (MAP) spacecraft ACS subsystem, an integrated design environment was used that included a MAP high fidelity (HiFi) simulation, a central database of spacecraft parameters, a script language for numeric and string processing, and plotting capability. In this integrated environment, it was possible to automate many of the steps involved in flight software testing, making the entire process more efficient and thorough than on previous missions. In this paper, we will compare the testing process used on MAP to that used on other missions. The software tools that were developed to automate testing and test verification will be discussed, including the ability to import and process test data, synchronize test data and automatically generate HiFi script files used for test verification, and an automated capability for generating comparison plots. A summary of the benefits of applying these test methods on MAP will be given. Finally, the paper will conclude with a discussion of re-use of the tools and techniques presented, and the ongoing effort to apply them to flight software testing of the Triana spacecraft ACS subsystem.

ODonnell, James R., Jr.↗
NASA NTRS2001

Using Automation to Improve the Flight Software Testing Process

One of the critical phases in the development of a spacecraft attitude control system (ACS) is the testing of its flight software. The testing (and test verification) of ACS flight software requires a mix of skills involving software, attitude control, data manipulation, and analysis. The process of analyzing and verifying flight software test results often creates a bottleneck which dictates the speed at which flight software verification can be conducted. In the development of the Microwave Anisotropy Probe (MAP) spacecraft ACS subsystem, an integrated design environment was used that included a MAP high fidelity (HiFi) simulation, a central database of spacecraft parameters, a script language for numeric and string processing, and plotting capability. In this integrated environment, it was possible to automate many of the steps involved in flight software testing, making the entire process more efficient and thorough than on previous missions. In this paper, we will compare the testing process used on MAP to that used on previous missions. The software tools that were developed to automate testing and test verification will be discussed, including the ability to import and process test data, synchronize test data and automatically generate HiFi script files used for test verification, and an automated capability for generating comparison plots. A summary of the perceived benefits of applying these test methods on MAP will be given. Finally, the paper will conclude with a discussion of re-use of the tools and techniques presented, and the ongoing effort to apply them to flight software testing of the Triana spacecraft ACS subsystem.

ODonnell, James R., Jr.↗
DOE OSTI2023

Verification of the DIF3D Software to Support Fast Reactor Analysis (Rev. 3)

Ongoing design activities at Argonne National Laboratory are requiring a thorough verification of the Argonne Reactor Computation codes be performed. DIF3D is central to this system. The driver for this effort requires the 3D Cartesian, triangular-Z, and hexagonal-Z core geometry options of DIF3D be verified. Previous work identified the DIF3D features required to be verified to support current design activities, features of which are generally applicable to hexagonal-Z fast reactor designs. The scope of this verification effort includes verifying DIF3D’s ability to correctly translate the user’s model in to DIF3D’s preferred format, verifying that options planned for use have the desired effect, and verifying the correctness of the eigenvalue, fixed-source, forward, and adjoint solvers in DIF3D-FD and DIF3D-VARIANT. This manuscript provides the verification tasks and their results with respect to the features needed for current design activities. Since analytic solutions of the neutron diffusion and transport equations are either limited in scope or not possible, multiple tiers of problems unique to each solver and geometry type were implemented. Each of these tiers tests features independent and complementary arguments for why the separate testing of functionalities is acceptable. Finally, this separate testing was also supplemented with a high-level integral check of each the diffusion and transport capabilities and applicable geometries. To accommodate cases which an analytic solution is not feasible, MCNP6.2 was relied upon to provide a higher-order reference solution. This therefore required that the capabilities within MCNP6.2 which were relied upon for this work are also verified in this work. No MCNP discrepancies were noted in this effort. Note that the MCNP6.2 verification included in this work does not stand as a full verification of MCNP6.2, but merely verifies the features used in verifying DIF3D. The verification effort identified no issues that are debilitating or otherwise impactful to design usage of DIF3D, and thus DIF3D version 11.0, release 3012 is considered verified. As some additional changes have been made to the ARC software since this point all versions between release 3012 and 3266 can be considered verified as version 3253 was used for all updates in this revision. The types of issues that were identified were predominantly in the areas of: unclear documentation, software bugs which were inconsequential to final results, editing options which were ignored in favor of printing more information than requested, bugs in the outputs of intermediate results, or secondary output binary file information which was not present. While not a bug, this verification report also identified that the algorithm used to evaluate the peak fast flux in a nodal transport solution can be quite unreliable due to the methodology used and the location of the peak within the mesh. The authors of the report therefore recommend the usage of the EvaluateFlux software (distributed with ARC) as a more robust alternative noting that DIF3D will properly notify the user when the peaking values it is providing are potentially incorrect.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗