Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “proof”

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 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1976

Optimal periodic proof test based on cost-effective and reliability criteria

An exploratory study for the optimization of periodic proof tests for fatigue-critical structures is presented. The optimal proof load level and the optimal number of periodic proof tests are determined by minimizing the total expected (statistical average) cost, while the constraint on the allowable level of structural reliability is satisfied. The total expected cost consists of the expected cost of proof tests, the expected cost of structures destroyed by proof tests, and the expected cost of structural failure in service. It is demonstrated by numerical examples that significant cost saving and reliability improvement for fatigue-critical structures can be achieved by the application of the optimal periodic proof test. The present study is relevant to the establishment of optimal maintenance procedures for fatigue-critical structures.

Yang, J.-N.↗
NASA NTRS1988

A comparison of single-cycle versus multi-cycle proof testing strategies

Proof testing was a useful supplement to conventional nondestructive evaluation (NDE) of space shuttle main engine (SSME) components. Since many of these components involve thin sections and high toughness materials, such as Inconel 718, conventional single-cycle proof test logic is not applicable due to the propensity for stable crack growth during the proof tests. Experience with five-cycle proof testing of SSME components is summarized and a framework is outlined for understanding multi-cycle proof testing using the fracture mechanics concept of a resistance curve. Extreme value statistics are also used to propose an empirical approach to compare the advantages and disadvantages of single- versus multi-cycle proof testing. The importance of the initial flaw size distribution and specimen thickness in such a comparison is also discussed.

Hudak, Stephen J., Jr.↗
DOE OSTI2021

Security proof of practical quantum key distribution with detection-efficiency mismatch

Quantum key distribution (QKD) protocols with threshold detectors are driving high-performance QKD demonstrations. The corresponding security proofs usually assume that all physical detectors have the same detection efficiency. However, the efficiencies of the detectors used in practice might show a mismatch depending on the manufacturing and setup of these detectors. A mismatch can also be induced as the different spatial-temporal modes of an incoming signal might couple differently to a detector. Here we develop a method that allows to provide security proofs without the usual assumption. Our method can take the detection-efficiency mismatch into account without having to restrict the attack strategy of the adversary. Especially, we do not rely on any photon-number cutoff of incoming signals such that our security proof is directly applicable to practical situations. We illustrate our method for a receiver that is designed for polarization encoding and is sensitive to a number of spatial-temporal modes. In our detector model, the absence of quantum interference between any pair of spatial-temporal modes is assumed. For a QKD protocol with this detector model, we can perform a security proof with characterized efficiency mismatch and without photon-number cutoff assumption. Our method also shows that in the absence of efficiency mismatch in our detector model, the key rate increases if the loss due to detection inefficiency is assumed to be outside of the adversary's control, as compared to the view where for a security proof this loss is attributed to the action of the adversary.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
NASA NTRS1981

Evaluation of proof testing as a means of assuring mission success for the Space Shuttle thermal protection system

The reliability analysis of a thermal protection system (TPS) incorporating low density, fibrous ceramic materials must take into account the time-dependency and variability of the system's strength. Fracture mechanics concepts can be used to estimate the allowable strength and expected lifetime, as well as to define a proof test scheme for assuring mission success of TPS. The aim of this study was to evaluate the proof testing scheme used on the TPS of the Space Shuttle with these fracture mechanics concepts. The analysis confirmed that proof testing was necessary for the undensified system and that proof testing should lead to adequate reliability with respect to the design stresses. For the undensified system, fracture mechanics predictions were confirmed by measuring the strength of samples that survived proof testing. It was also found that the time-dependent nature of the system's strength was controlled mainly by the ceramic and that this time-strength dependency is similar to that observed for bulk glasses that have compositions similar to the glass fibers present in the ceramic tiles.

Green, D. J.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Proof test methodology for composites

The special requirements for proof test of composites are identified based on the underlying failure process of composites. Two proof test methods are developed to eliminate the inevitable weak fiber sites without also causing flaw clustering which weakens the post-proof-test composite. Significant reliability enhancement by these proof test methods has been experimentally demonstrated for composite strength and composite life in tension. This basic proof test methodology is relevant to the certification and acceptance of critical composite structures. It can also be applied to the manufacturing process development to achieve zero-reject for very large composite structures.

Wu, Edward M.↗
NASA NTRS2010

A Machine-Checked Proof of A State-Space Construction Algorithm

This paper presents the correctness proof of Saturation, an algorithm for generating state spaces of concurrent systems, implemented in the SMART tool. Unlike the Breadth First Search exploration algorithm, which is easy to understand and formalise, Saturation is a complex algorithm, employing a mutually-recursive pair of procedures that compute a series of non-trivial, nested local fixed points, corresponding to a chaotic fixed point strategy. A pencil-and-paper proof of Saturation exists, but a machine checked proof had never been attempted. The key element of the proof is the characterisation theorem of saturated nodes in decision diagrams, stating that a saturated node represents a set of states encoding a local fixed-point with respect to firing all events affecting only the node s level and levels below. For our purpose, we have employed the Prototype Verification System (PVS) for formalising the Saturation algorithm, its data structures, and for conducting the proofs.

Catano, Nestor↗
NASA NTRS2009

Deriving Safety Cases from Machine-Generated Proofs

Proofs provide detailed justification for the validity of claims and are widely used in formal software development methods. However, they are often complex and difficult to understand, because they use machine-oriented formalisms; they may also be based on assumptions that are not justified. This causes concerns about the trustworthiness of using formal proofs as arguments in safety-critical applications. Here, we present an approach to develop safety cases that correspond to formal proofs found by automated theorem provers and reveal the underlying argumentation structure and top-level assumptions. We concentrate on natural deduction proofs and show how to construct the safety cases by covering the proof tree with corresponding safety case fragments.

Basir, Nurlida↗
NASA NTRS2009

Deriving Safety Cases from Machine-Generated Proofs

Proofs provide detailed justification for the validity of claims and are widely used in formal software development methods. However, they are often complex and difficult to understand, because they use machine-oriented formalisms; they may also be based on assumptions that are not justified. This causes concerns about the trustworthiness of using formal proofs as arguments in safety-critical applications. Here, we present an approach to develop safety cases that correspond to formal proofs found by automated theorem provers and reveal the underlying argumentation structure and top-level assumptions. We concentrate on natural deduction proofs and show how to construct the safety cases by covering the proof tree with corresponding safety case fragments.

Basir, Nurlida↗
NASA NTRS2009

Assurance Cases for Proofs as Evidence

Proof-carrying code (PCC) provides a 'gold standard' for establishing formal and objective confidence in program behavior. However, in order to extend the benefits of PCC - and other formal certification techniques - to realistic systems, we must establish the correspondence of a mathematical proof of a program's semantics and its actual behavior. In this paper, we argue that assurance cases are an effective means of establishing such a correspondence. To this end, we present an assurance case pattern for arguing that a proof is free from various proof hazards. We also instantiate this pattern for a proof-based mechanism to provide evidence about a generic medical device software.

Chaki, Sagar↗
NASA NTRS2018

ORION - Crew Module Side Hatch: Proof Pressure Test Anomaly Investigation

The Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle program was performing a proof pressure test on an engineering development unit (EDU) of the Orion Crew Module Side Hatch (CMSH) assembly. The purpose of the proof test was to demonstrate structural capability, with margin, at 1.5 times the maximum design pressure, before integrating the CMSH to the Orion Crew Module structural test article for subsequent pressure testing. The pressure test was performed at lower pressures of 3 psig, 10 psig and 15.75 psig with no apparent abnormal behavior or leaking. During pressurization to proof pressure of 23.32 psig, a loud 'pop' was heard at ~21.3 psig. Upon review into the test cell, it was noted that the hatch had prematurely separated from the proof test fixture, thus immediately ending the test. The proof pressure test was expected be a simple verification but has since evolved into a significant joint failure investigation from both Lockheed Martin and NASA.

Evernden, Brent A.↗
NASA NTRS1976

Reliability analysis of structures under periodic proof tests in service

A reliability analysis of structures subjected to random service loads and periodic proof tests treats gust loads and maneuver loads as random processes. Crack initiation, crack propagation, and strength degradation are treated as the fatigue process. The time to fatigue crack initiation and ultimate strength are random variables. Residual strength decreases during crack propagation, so that failure rate increases with time. When a structure fails under periodic proof testing, a new structure is built and proof-tested. The probability of structural failure in service is derived from treatment of all the random variables, strength degradations, service loads, proof tests, and the renewal of failed structures. Some numerical examples are worked out.

Yang, J.-N.↗
NASA NTRS1979

Some theoretical considerations of a stall proof airplane

For the stall proof airplane there should be a stabilizing pitching moment below the stall angle of attack of sufficient amount to prevent the attainment of the stall angle of attack which cannot be over-ridden by control deflections. This paper presents (1) a development of the moment equations to show the theoretical considerations of a stall proof airplane and (2) the nonlinear moment characteristics that must be obtained to satisfy the stall proof requirements. In addition, it is shown that an aerodynamic spoiler located on the under surface of the horizontal tail can be designed to meet these requirements of a stall proof airplane. Wind tunnel results are shown to validate assumptions and predictions.

Chevalier, H. L.↗
NASA NTRS1985

Stress rate and proof-testing of silicon wafers

Fracture mechanics test methods were applied to evaluate the proof-test characteristics of single-crystal silicon wafers. The results indicate that the strength distribution of silicon wafers is truncated by proof-testing. No subcritical crack growth occurred during proof-loading, as inferred from the lack of a stress-rate effect on strength. Mechanical proof-testing appears to be an effective method for eliminating weak samples before cell processing.

Chen, C. P.↗
NASA NTRS1984

Mechanical proof testing in cell processing

Fracture mechanics test methods are applied to evaluate the proof test characteristics of silicon Cz wafers. The results indicate that the strength distribution of silicon wafers is truncated by proof testing and no subcritical crack growth in silicon is observed during proof loading. Mechanical proof testing appears to be an effective method to eliminate weak samples before cell processing.

Chen, C. P.↗
NASA NTRS1996

A Comparison of Single-Cycle Versus Multiple-Cycle Proof Testing Strategies

Single-cycle and multiple-cycle proof testing (SCPT and MCPT) strategies for reusable aerospace propulsion system components are critically evaluated and compared from a rigorous elastic-plastic fracture mechanics perspective. Earlier MCPT studies are briefly reviewed. New J-integral estimation methods for semi-elliptical surface cracks and cracks at notches are derived and validated. Engineering methods are developed to characterize crack growth rates during elastic-plastic fatigue crack growth (FCG) and the tear-fatigue interaction near instability. Surface crack growth experiments are conducted with Inconel 718 to characterize tearing resistance, FCG under small-scale yielding and elastic-plastic conditions, and crack growth during simulated MCPT. Fractography and acoustic emission studies provide additional insight. The relative merits of SCPT and MCPT are directly compared using a probabilistic analysis linked with an elastic-plastic crack growth computer code. The conditional probability of failure in service is computed for a population of components that have survived a previous proof test, based on an assumed distribution of initial crack depths. Parameter studies investigate the influence of proof factor, tearing resistance, crack shape, initial crack depth distribution, and notches on the MCPT vs. SCPT comparison. The parameter studies provide a rational basis to formulate conclusions about the relative advantages and disadvantages of SCPT and MCPT. Practical engineering guidelines are proposed to help select the optimum proof test protocol in a given application.

McClung, R. C.↗
NASA NTRS1996

A Comparison of Single-Cycle Versus Multiple-Cycle Proof Testing Strategies

Single-cycle and multiple-cycle proof testing (SCPT and MCPT) strategies for reusable aerospace propulsion system components are critically evaluated and compared from a rigorous elastic-plastic fracture mechanics perspective. Earlier MCPT studies are briefly reviewed. New J-integral estimation methods for semi-elliptical surface cracks and cracks at notches are derived and validated. Engineering methods are developed to characterize crack growth rates during elastic-plastic fatigue crack growth (FCG) and the tear-fatigue interaction near instability. Surface crack growth experiments are conducted with Inconel 718 to characterize tearing resistance, FCG under small-scale yielding and elastic-plastic conditions, and crack growth during simulated MCPT. Fractography and acoustic emission studies provide additional insight. The relative merits of SCPT and MCPT are directly compared using a probabilistic analysis linked with an elastic-plastic crack growth computer code. The conditional probability of failure in service is computed for a population of components that have survived a previous proof test, based on an assumed distribution of initial crack depths. Parameter studies investigate the influence of proof factor, tearing resistance, crack shape, initial crack depth distribution, and notches on the MCPT vs. SCPT comparison. The parameter studies provide a rational basis to formulate conclusions about the relative advantages and disadvantages of SCPT and MCPT. Practical engineering guidelines are proposed to help select the optimum proof test protocol in a given application.

McClung, R. C.↗
NASA NTRS1997

Residual Stress Measurements After Proof and Flight: ETP-0403

The intent of this testing was to evaluate the residual stresses that occur in and around the attachment details of a case stiffener segment that has been subjected to flight/recovery followed by proof loading. Not measured in this test were stresses relieved at joint disassembly due to out-of-round and interference effects, and those released by cutting the specimens out of the case segment. The test article was lightweight case stiffener segment 1U50715, S/N L023 which was flown in the forward stiffener position on flight SRM 14A and in the aft position on flight SRM24A. Both of these flights were flown with the 3 stiffener ring configuration. Stiffener L023 had a stiffener ring installed only on the aft stub in its first flight, and it had both rings installed on its second flight. No significant post flight damage was found on either flight. Finally, the segment was used on the DM-8 static test motor in the forward position. No stiffener rings were installed. It had only one proof pressurization prior to assignment to its first use, and it was cleaned and proof tested after each flight. Thus, the segment had seen 3 proof tests, two flight pressurizations, and two low intensity water impacts prior to manufacturing for use on DM-8. On DM-8 it received one static firing pressurization in the horizontal configuration. Residual stresses at the surface and in depth were evaluated by both the x-ray diffraction and neutron beam diffraction methods. The x-ray diffraction evaluations were conducted by Technology for Energy Corporation (TEC) at their facilities in Knoxville, TN. The neutron beam evaluations were done by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) at the Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories in Ontario. The results showed general agreement with relatively high compressive residual stresses on the surface and moderate to low subsurface tensile residual stresses.

Webster, Ronald L..↗
NASA NTRS1999

A Comparison of Single-Cycle Versus Multiple-Cycle Proof Testing Strategies

Single-cycle and multiple-cycle proof testing (SCPT and MCPT) strategies for reusable aerospace propulsion system components are critically evaluated and compared from a rigorous elastic-plastic fracture mechanics perspective. Earlier MCPT studies are briefly reviewed. New J-integral estimation methods for semielliptical surface cracks and cracks at notches are derived and validated. Engineering methods are developed to characterize crack growth rates during elastic-plastic fatigue crack growth (FCG) and the tear-fatigue interaction near instability. Surface crack growth experiments are conducted with Inconel 718 to characterize tearing resistance, FCG under small-scale yielding and elastic-plastic conditions, and crack growth during simulated MCPT. Fractography and acoustic emission studies provide additional insight. The relative merits of SCPT and MCPT are directly compared using a probabilistic analysis linked with an elastic-plastic crack growth computer code. The conditional probability of failure in service is computed for a population of components that have survived a previous proof test, based on an assumed distribution of initial crack depths. Parameter studies investigate the influence of proof factor, tearing resistance, crack shape, initial crack depth distribution, and notches on the MCPT versus SCPT comparison. The parameter studies provide a rational basis to formulate conclusions about the relative advantages and disadvantages of SCPT and MCPT. Practical engineering guidelines are proposed to help select the optimum proof test protocol in a given application.

McClung, R. C.↗