Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Model-Based Design”

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 307 records · Page 17

A Structural Model Decomposition Framework for Systems Health Management

Systems health management (SHM) is an important set of technologies aimed at increasing system safety and reliability by detecting, isolating, and identifying faults; and predicting when the system reaches end of life (EOL), so that appropriate fault mitigation and recovery actions can be taken. Model-based SHM approaches typically make use of global, monolithic system models for online analysis, which results in a loss of scalability and efficiency for large-scale systems. Improvement in scalability and efficiency can be achieved by decomposing the system model into smaller local submodels and operating on these submodels instead. In this paper, the global system model is analyzed offline and structurally decomposed into local submodels. We define a common model decomposition framework for extracting submodels from the global model. This framework is then used to develop algorithms for solving model decomposition problems for the design of three separate SHM technologies, namely, estimation (which is useful for fault detection and identification), fault isolation, and EOL prediction. We solve these model decomposition problems using a three-tank system as a case study.

Roychoudhury, Indranil↗

A Cryogenic Fluid System Simulation in Support of Integrated Systems Health Management

Simulations serve as important tools throughout the design and operation of engineering systems. In the context of sys-tems health management, simulations serve many uses. For one, the underlying physical models can be used by model-based health management tools to develop diagnostic and prognostic models. These simulations should incorporate both nominal and faulty behavior with the ability to inject various faults into the system. Such simulations can there-fore be used for operator training, for both nominal and faulty situations, as well as for developing and prototyping health management algorithms. In this paper, we describe a methodology for building such simulations. We discuss the design decisions and tools used to build a simulation of a cryogenic fluid test bed, and how it serves as a core technology for systems health management development and maturation.

cryogenics↗

Model-Based Systems Engineering for Capturing Mission Architecture System Processes with an Application Case Study - Orion Flight Test 1

Model-based Systems Engineering (MBSE) is an emerging methodology that can be leveraged to enhance many system development processes. MBSE allows for the centralization of an architecture description that would otherwise be stored in various locations and formats, thus simplifying communication among the project stakeholders, inducing commonality in representation, and expediting report generation. This paper outlines the MBSE approach taken to capture the processes of two different, but related, architectures by employing the Systems Modeling Language (SysML) as a standard for architecture description and the modeling tool MagicDraw. The overarching goal of this study was to demonstrate the effectiveness of MBSE as a means of capturing and designing a mission systems architecture. The first portion of the project focused on capturing the necessary system engineering activities that occur when designing, developing, and deploying a mission systems architecture for a space mission. The second part applies activities from the first to an application problem - the system engineering of the Orion Flight Test 1 (OFT-1) End-to-End Information System (EEIS). By modeling the activities required to create a space mission architecture and then implementing those activities in an application problem, the utility of MBSE as an approach to systems engineering can be demonstrated.

Orion Flight Test 1 (OFT-1)↗

Automated Generation of Fault Management Artifacts from a Simple System Model

Our understanding of off-nominal behavior - failure modes and fault propagation - in complex systems is often based purely on engineering intuition; specific cases are assessed in an ad hoc fashion as a (fallible) fault management engineer sees fit. This work is an attempt to provide a more rigorous approach to this understanding and assessment by automating the creation of a fault management artifact, the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) through querying a representation of the system in a SysML model. This work builds off the previous development of an off-nominal behavior model for the upcoming Soil Moisture Active-Passive (SMAP) mission at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. We further developed the previous system model to more fully incorporate the ideas of State Analysis, and it was restructured in an organizational hierarchy that models the system as layers of control systems while also incorporating the concept of "design authority". We present software that was developed to traverse the elements and relationships in this model to automatically construct an FMEA spreadsheet. We further discuss extending this model to automatically generate other typical fault management artifacts, such as Fault Trees, to efficiently portray system behavior, and depend less on the intuition of fault management engineers to ensure complete examination of off-nominal behavior.

Spinup and Orient↗

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↗

A Generalized Timeline Representation, Services, and Interface for Automating Space Mission Operations

Numerous automated and semi-automated planning & scheduling systems have been developed for space applications. Most of these systems are model-based in that they encode domain knowledge necessary to predict spacecraft state and resources based on initial conditions and a proposed activity plan. The spacecraft state and resources as often modeled as a series of timelines, with a timeline or set of timelines to represent a state or resource key in the operations of the spacecraft. In this paper, we first describe a basic timeline representation that can represent a set of state, resource, timing, and transition constraints. We describe a number of planning and scheduling systems designed for space applications (and in many cases deployed for use of ongoing missions) and describe how they do and do not map onto this timeline model.

Chien, Steve A.↗

Principles to Products: Toward Realizing MOS 2.0

This is a report on the Operations Revitalization Initiative, part of the ongoing NASA-funded Advanced Multi-Mission Operations Systems (AMMOS) program. We are implementing products that significantly improve efficiency and effectiveness of Mission Operations Systems (MOS) for deep-space missions. We take a multi-mission approach, in keeping with our organization's charter to "provide multi-mission tools and services that enable mission customers to operate at a lower total cost to NASA." Focusing first on architectural fundamentals of the MOS, we review the effort's progress. In particular, we note the use of stakeholder interactions and consideration of past lessons learned to motivate a set of Principles that guide the evolution of the AMMOS. Thus guided, we have created essential patterns and connections (detailed in companion papers) that are explicitly modeled and support elaboration at multiple levels of detail (system, sub-system, element...) throughout a MOS. This architecture is realized in design and implementation products that provide lifecycle support to a Mission at the system and subsystem level. The products include adaptable multi-mission engineering documentation that describes essentials such as operational concepts and scenarios, requirements, interfaces and agreements, information models, and mission operations processes. Because we have adopted a model-based system engineering method, these documents and their contents are meaningfully related to one another and to the system model. This means they are both more rigorous and reusable (from mission to mission) than standard system engineering products. The use of models also enables detailed, early (e.g., formulation phase) insight into the impact of changes (e.g., to interfaces or to software) that is rigorous and complete, allowing better decisions on cost or technical trades. Finally, our work provides clear and rigorous specification of operations needs to software developers, further enabling significant gains in productivity.

AMMOS↗

Interface Management for a NASA Flight Project Using Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE)

The goal of interface management is to identify, define, control, and verify interfaces; ensure compatibility; provide an efficient system development; be on time and within budget; while meeting stakeholder requirements. This paper will present a successful seven-step approach to interface management used in several NASA flight projects. The seven-step approach using Model Based Systems Engineering will be illustrated by interface examples from the Materials International Space Station Experiment-X (MISSE-X) project. The MISSE-X was being developed as an International Space Station (ISS) external platform for space environmental studies, designed to advance the technology readiness of materials and devices critical for future space exploration. Emphasis will be given to best practices covering key areas such as interface definition, writing good interface requirements, utilizing interface working groups, developing and controlling interface documents, handling interface agreements, the use of shadow documents, the importance of interface requirement ownership, interface verification, and product transition.

Vipavetz, Kevin↗

Mars 2020 Model Based Systems Engineering Pilot

The pilot study is led by the Integration Engineering group in NASA's Launch Services Program (LSP). The Integration Engineering (IE) group is responsible for managing the interfaces between the spacecraft and launch vehicle. This pilot investigates the utility of Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) with respect to managing and verifying interface requirements. The main objectives of the pilot are to model several key aspects of the Mars 2020 integrated operations and interface requirements based on the design and verification artifacts from Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) and to demonstrate how MBSE could be used by LSP to gain further insight on the interface between the spacecraft and launch vehicle as well as to enhance how LSP manages the launch service. The method used to accomplish this pilot started through familiarization of SysML, MagicDraw, and the Mars 2020 and MSL systems through books, tutorials, and NASA documentation. MSL was chosen as the focus of the model since its processes and verifications translate easily to the Mars 2020 mission. The study was further focused by modeling specialized systems and processes within MSL in order to demonstrate the utility of MBSE for the rest of the mission. The systems chosen were the In-Flight Disconnect (IFD) system and the Mass Properties process. The IFD was chosen as a system of focus since it is an interface between the spacecraft and launch vehicle which can demonstrate the usefulness of MBSE from a system perspective. The Mass Properties process was chosen as a process of focus since the verifications for mass properties occur throughout the lifecycle and can demonstrate the usefulness of MBSE from a multi-discipline perspective. Several iterations of both perspectives have been modeled and evaluated. While the pilot study will continue for another 2 weeks, pros and cons of using MBSE for LSP IE have been identified. A pro of using MBSE includes an integrated view of the disciplines, requirements, and verifications leading up to launch. The model allows IE to understand the relationships between disciplines throughout test activities and verifications. Additionally, the relationships between disciplines and integration tasks are generally consistent. The model allows for the generic relationships and tasks to be captured and used throughout multiple mission models should LSP further pursue MBSE. A con of MBSE is the amount of time it takes upfront to understand MBSE and create a useful model. The upfront time it takes to create a useful model is heavily discussed in MBSE literature and is a consistent con throughout the known applications of MBSE. The need to understand SysML and the software chosen also poses the possibility of a "bottleneck" or one person being the sole MBSE user for the working group. The utility of MBSE will continue to be evaluated through the remainder of the study. In conclusion, the original objectives of the pilot study were to use artifacts from MSL to model key aspects of Mars 2020 and demonstrate how MBSE could be used by LSP to gain insight into the spacecraft and launch vehicle interfaces. Progress has been made in modeling and identifying the utility of MBSE to LSP IE and will continue to be made until the pilot study's conclusion in mid-August. The results of this study will produce initial models, modeling instructions and examples, and a summary of MBSE's utility for future use by LSP.

Dukes, Alexandra Marie↗

The Use of UML for Software Requirements Expression and Management

It is common practice to write English-language "shall" statements to embody detailed software requirements in aerospace software applications. This paper explores the use of the UML language as a replacement for the English language for this purpose. Among the advantages offered by the Unified Modeling Language (UML) is a high degree of clarity and precision in the expression of domain concepts as well as architecture and design. Can this quality of UML be exploited for the definition of software requirements? While expressing logical behavior, interface characteristics, timeliness constraints, and other constraints on software using UML is commonly done and relatively straight-forward, achieving the additional aspects of the expression and management of software requirements that stakeholders expect, especially traceability, is far less so. These other characteristics, concerned with auditing and quality control, include the ability to trace a requirement to a parent requirement (which may well be an English "shall" statement), to trace a requirement to verification activities or scenarios which verify that requirement, and to trace a requirement to elements of the software design which implement that requirement. UML Use Cases, designed for capturing requirements, have not always been satisfactory. Some applications of them simply use the Use Case model element as a repository for English requirement statements. Other applications of Use Cases, in which Use Cases are incorporated into behavioral diagrams that successfully communicate the behaviors and constraints required of the software, do indeed take advantage of UML's clarity, but not in ways that support the traceability features mentioned above. Our approach uses the Stereotype construct of UML to precisely identify elements of UML constructs, especially behaviors such as State Machines and Activities, as requirements, and also to achieve the necessary mapping capabilities. We describe this approach in the context of a space-based software application currently under development at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

model-based engineering↗

A Representative Application of a Layered Interface Modeling Pattern

Model-based systems engineering (MBSE) is intended to improve how systems engineering is performed compared with a more traditional document-based approach by effectively using models to analyze, specify, design, and verify systems. The OMG Systems Modeling Language (OMG SysML™) enables the practice of MBSE by providing a robust and expressive language for representing systems.

Shames, Peter M.↗

Application of Model-Based Systems Engineering for the Development of the Asteroid Redirect Robotic Mission

Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) can augment existing Systems Engineering (SE) processes to more efficiently deliver enhanced products over the project life cycle. Using a multi-user accessible System Model, MBSE has been successfully deployed for the conceptual and preliminary design development of the Asteroid Redirect Robotic Mission (ARRM). The paper provides an overview and examples of the targeted MBSE deployment for development of the mission operational concept, system description, and functional requirements. The paper also includes description of the challenges and lessons learned.

Sindiy, Oleg V.↗

Exposing Hidden Parts of the SE Process: MBSE Patterns and Tools for Tracking and Traceability

An interesting benefit of applying Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) is that the rigor and coordination intrinsic to MBSE forces us to apply Systems Engineering to our own traditional activities, processes, and products, which results in richer, more expressive models, more powerful reasoning, and a clearer and more effective Systems Engineering (SE) process. Our MBSE frameworks and languages contain semantic richness sufficient to describe our systems at any particular point in time, often with an emphasis on the description of the system at major milestones. This is unarguably a real asset. However, when we apply MBSE in service of missions that are in development, rapidly evolving, of a larger scale, and where interpersonal communication is a critical part of the design process, we discover that our frameworks and languages are still not quite rich enough to enable us to ask the kinds of questions and get the kinds of answers we want in order to address the concerns of day to day work. This paper will discuss some patterns and tools we have developed to help address some of the not-always-explicit SE concerns that we have identified through our MBSE work. Particularly, this paper will discuss flexible yet practical methods for defining and capturing maturity, workflow, and agreement traceability within our system models, extensible ways to perform and track model audits, and ways to report and interact with this knowledge in the context of MBSE applied to support NASA’s Europa Project.

Jackson, Maddalena↗

Exposing Hidden Parts of the SE Process: MBSE Patterns and Tools for Tracking and Traceability

An interesting benefit of applying Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) is that the rigor and coordination intrinsic to MBSE forces us to apply Systems Engineering to our own traditional activities, processes, and products, which results in richer, more expressive models, more powerful reasoning, and a clearer and more effective Systems Engineering (SE) process. Our MBSE frameworks and languages contain semantic richness sufficient to describe our systems at any particular point in time, often with an emphasis on the description of the system at major milestones. This is unarguably a real asset. However, when we apply MBSE in service of missions that are in development, rapidly evolving, of a larger scale, and where interpersonal communication is a critical part of the design process, we discover that our frameworks and languages are still not quite rich enough to enable us to ask the kinds of questions and get the kinds of answers we want in order to address the concerns of day to day work. This paper will discuss some patterns and tools we have developed to help address some of the not-always-explicit SE concerns that we have identified through our MBSE work. Particularly, this paper will discuss flexible yet practical methods for defining and capturing maturity, workflow, and agreement traceability within our system models, extensible ways to perform and track model audits, and ways to report and interact with this knowledge in the context of MBSE applied to support NASA’s Europa Project

Jackson, Maddalena↗

AUTOMATIC GENERATION OF EVENT TREES AND FAULT TREES: A MODEL-BASED APPROACH

In the past few decades, increasing complexity in modern engineering systems has been driven by the integration of a large number of components and by the fact that the system operations involve many disciplines (e.g., thermal-hydraulics, plant operations, cyber-security). Current safety/reliability modeling approaches to such systems are labor intensive, difficult to learn, and rely heavily on simplistic Boolean logic to depict failure propagation and accident progression. While these methods serve well for simple systems (i.e., linear causal systems with limited small inter- and intra-system interactions), their results are difficult to verify when modeling complex systems (typically performed through the extensive use of modeling assumptions). The development of new methods is addressed to meet these challenges through a model-based system engineering (MBSE) lens. Under MBSE philosophy, every aspect of the system (form or function) is represented by a model that completely characterizes its architecture or behavior. MBSE approach greatly improves the management of design, analysis and verification of complex systems. An integration of Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment (DPRA) methods with MBSE models is proposed to perform safety/reliability analyses of engineering systems. In particular, MBSE representation of the system (performed using Systems Modeling Language [SysML]) is coupled with DPRA methods to automatically generate event trees and fault trees.

97 - MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

From Machine Learning to Machine Reasoning: A Model-based Approach to Analyze Equipment Reliability Data

In current nuclear power plants (NPPs) a large amount of condition-based data which can be used to assess and monitor component health and performance. Assessing component health from such data can be performed with a large variety of methods. While the analysis of numeric data can be performed with several methods, the extraction of information from textual data remains a challenge. Currently employed natural language processing (NLP) methods do not really provide quantitative information that might be contained in IRs. In addition, the integration of numeric and textual data to identify possible causal relationships between data elements is still an unresolved challenge. This paper presents an approach to extract information from textual (e.g., incident or maintenance reports) and numeric data that relies on model based system engineer (MBSE) models. MBSE are diagrams designed to represent system and component dependencies (from both a form and functional point of view). In our approach, MBSE models emulate system engineer knowledge about component/system architecture. NLP methods are employed to perform syntactic and semantic analyses. Syntactic analysis analyzes the grammatical structure of a sentence while semantic analysis is designed to analyze the logic structure of a sentence. An innovative element of our approach is that semantic analysis uses MBSE models to identify links between textual elements. Similarly, numeric data is directly linked to elements of the MBSE models in order to map which functions are being monitored.

97 - MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

System Engineers and Decisions: It?s All about Knowledge

In order to guarantee that a system meets adequate levels of reliability and availability, system performances are continuously monitored and analyzed thanks to the technological advancements driving the Industry 4.0 revolution. An Industry 4.0 approach is typically based on advanced statistical, big data mining, machine learning, and internet-of-things methods designed to detect anomalies in the behavior of system, detect the most likely failure modes, and provide indications to system engineers on when maintenance activities should be performed before system performance are deemed unacceptable (which can be generated by diagnostic and prognostic methods). However, these analyses, which are designed to automatize and increase the efficacy of the system maintenance program, require large amount of data which can come in various forms: numeric, textual, images, sounds etc. Such data constitutes the historic knowledge benchmark to track system performances and support system engineer decisions. Here we claim that data is not sufficient to support this kind of analyses when applied to systems characterized by complex architectures and behaviors. Robust system engineer decisions require the ability to understand the system operational context that lies behind the observed data elements. In this respect, system models are in fact necessary to “put data in context” and capture relationships between data elements. Industry 4.0 methods require in fact contextual knowledge as a basis upon which hypotheses can be generated and assumptions tested. In our view, for complex systems, model-based system engineering (MBSE) models can afford this contextual knowledge, as they are typically used to describe systems architecture and dynamic behaviors. System knowledge is here intended as the blending of collected data and system architecture which takes the form of a “knowledge graph”. A knowledge graph is a database which consists of a large set of nodes (in our case an entity can be either a data or an MBSE element) which are linked to each other. The types of nodes and links follow a pre-defined topology, sometimes also refers as an ontology, that is designed to fit the actual decisions that needs to be performed. We show here how a knowledge graph can be defined to support system engineer maintenance decisions and how the same graph can be built based on system MBSE models and pre-processed data from numeric (through anomaly detections and diagnostic methods) and textual elements (through technical language processing TLP).

97 - MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

Capturing Historic Reliability Performance Through Graph Databases: A Model Based System Engineering Approach

With the goal of improving the performance and reliability of high dependable technological systems such as nuclear power plants, advanced monitoring and health management systems are employed to inform system engineers on observed degradation processes and anomalous behaviors of assets and components. This information is captured in the form of large amount of data which can be heterogenous in nature (e.g., numeric, textual). Such large data availability poses challenges when system engineers are required to parse and analyze them in order to track historic reliability performance of assets and components. This paper tackles directly this challenge by providing means to organize data in the form of a graph: a knowledge graph. The presented approach distinguish itself from current knowledge graph-based methods by the fact that model-based system engineering (MBSE) models are used to “put data into context”. In particular, MBSE models are used as skeleton of a knowledge graph; numeric and textual data elements, once processed, are associated to MBSE model elements. Thus, a knowledge graph captures both system architecture (though MBSE models) and health/performance data. Such feature opens the door to new data analytics methods designed to identify causal relations between observed phenomena.

97 - MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗