Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “CERTIFICATION”

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 415 records · Page 23
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2018

Verification and Validation Challenges for Adaptive Flight Control of Complex Autonomous Systems

Autonomy of aerospace systems requires the ability for flight control systems to be able to adapt to complex uncertain dynamic environment. In spite of the five decades of research in adaptive control, the fact still remains that currently no adaptive control system has ever been deployed on any safety-critical or human-rated production systems such as passenger transport aircraft. The problem lies in the difficulty with the certification of adaptive control systems since existing certification methods cannot readily be used for nonlinear adaptive control systems. Research to address the notion of metrics for adaptive control began to appear in the recent years. These metrics, if accepted, could pave a path towards certification that would potentially lead to the adoption of adaptive control as a future control technology for safety-critical and human-rated production systems. Development of certifiable adaptive control systems represents a major challenge to overcome. Adaptive control systems with learning algorithms will never become part of the future unless it can be proven that they are highly safe and reliable. Rigorous methods for adaptive control software verification and validation must therefore be developed to ensure that adaptive control system software failures will not occur, to verify that the adaptive control system functions as required, to eliminate unintended functionality, and to demonstrate that certification requirements imposed by regulatory bodies such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) can be satisfied. This presentation will discuss some of the technical issues with adaptive flight control and related V&V challenges.

Nguyen, Nhan T.↗
NASA NTRS2021

NASA Electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing (eVTOL) Aircraft Technology for Public Services – A White Paper

History has shown that our personal life is highly dependent on the technology that people have developed. A strategic scan of the aerospace environment at the beginning of the 21st century strongly suggests that the world might be approaching a new age of airpower—the era of electrified/hybrid aircraft propulsion. Undeniably, starting from the Montgolfier Brothers balloon flight in 1783, to the Wright Brothers piston engine flight in 1903, and the jet engine of the 1960s, or the space age of today, one can say that leaps in propulsion technology have marked the different ages of human flight. The technological advancements, brought at the beginning of 21st century by the revolution in data exchange, computational power, sensors, wireless communication, internet, and autonomy, contributed to the vision of this new age of propulsion we are approaching. Historically, conventional vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft have been equipped with propulsion units relying on complex internal combustion machines (turbines, piston engines, for example), and complex mechanical arrangements (gearboxes, shafts, variable pitch propeller). By contrast, electric VTOL aircraft (eVTOL)1 rely on simpler propulsion units (electric motors and in some cases fixed-pitch propellers). This promotes redundancy and improves tolerance to failures, in turn improving safety. The use of simpler electric propulsion units should also allow significant acquisition and operating cost reductions. Whether full-electric (relying solely on batteries) or hybrid-electric (relying on a combination of batteries, fuel-powered engines, and generators.), eVTOLs are also expected to generate less noise and air pollution than conventional aircraft with similar payloads. According to the 2019 Annual Review of IATA (International Air Transport Association) [ref.1], due to an expected increase in air transport traffic by 5% every year and a doubling of air transport passenger numbers to 8.2 billion by 2037 significant challenges are posed to the aviation industry. Furthermore, this report does not factor in the expected demand for short-range (intra-city) air transportation, which is in development and yet to be operational. The increased demand to fly creates a responsibility to expand in a sustainable manner and an endeavor to develop more environmentally-friendly aircraft. eVTOL aircraft, either piloted or autonomous, is gathering considerable interest worldwide. Modern and novel full-electric or hybrid-electric eVTOL configurations enable a new paradigm shift in air transportation as the aviation industry remains committed to its goals of carbon-neutral growth from 2020 onwards and cutting CO2 emissions to half 2005 levels by 2050. While electric power has been used for decades, recent developments in mobile electric/hybrid propulsion coupled with advanced materials and autonomous systems may create the possibility to transition into the next age of air mobility propelled by electric/hybrid VTOL aircraft technology. Although eVTOL aircraft might seem like an incremental improvement or even a counterintuitive regression with regard to past VTOL development, it has in fact the potential to transform air mobility across a wide range of government applications. Previous transformations in aviation generated dramatic leaps in performance, but the cost was commensurate with performance, limiting quantity produced. This next age appears to take a different approach. Performance may not increase, but at this moment technology is poised for future urban mobility that will spawn commercial passenger drone services, that is, autonomous (pilotless) air taxis and thereby add a new dimension to the urban transportation mix of the future [ref. 2]. Advances in electric propulsion, autonomous flight technology, and 5G communication networks will enable this fast new-growing market to become a reality. It is now time to envision the introduction of electric/hybrid eVTOL aircraft for Public Services2. We believe that in the next decades eVTOL aircraft will have the potential to become an essential tool to Public Service agencies around the world in applications such as firefighting, public safety, search and rescue, disaster relief and law enforcement. This is due to several major factors. • First, with the increasing popularity of small, unmanned aircraft vehicles (UAVs) or drones, many companies today are focusing on the development of passenger UAVs designed to accommodate up to five passengers or equivalent cargo payload. Many such configurations are electric or hybrid-electric designs with VTOL capabilities. Several of these projects have started a flight test program and many more are expected to be in the experimental and development phase in 2020. Such revolutionary vehicles could be in commercial operations by 2030. These eVTOL systems could be ready for selected Public Services missions even sooner. • Second, although these advanced eVTOL vehicles under development still need access to fuel (hybrid) and/or electric charging capability, they can take off and land from almost anywhere. Therefore, such vehicles, both manned and unmanned can be successfully integrated for the critical missions of the Public Services with extra deployment flexibilities. • Third, advancement in electric propulsion systems in the automotive industry together with NASA’s leading efforts in electrification of aircraft propulsion systems, FAA’s ongoing active eVTOL certification programs, and EASA’s proposed framework for the certification of electric/hybrid small category VTOL aircraft in Europe [ref. 3] will help accelerate industry electric propulsion system development and integration. • Finally, eVTOL vehicles could be deployed for Public Services sooner than air taxi or other commercial applications, since Public Services missions may be more easily approved based on specific mission criteria, localized airworthiness authority for public-use aircraft3, and are normally operating under centralized airspace management and control by the theater command. Moreover, public perception and acceptance are generally less of a concern when operations save lives and benefit the wider community. The prioritized introduction of eVTOL aircraft in Public Services is ambitious, but we believe it is achievable in the coming decades if fundamental enablers (people and technologies) are engaged in defining the objectives and needs of these missions. The revolution that is currently taking place in eVTOL aircraft represents an unprecedented opportunity to develop a safer, more affordable, more available and more environmentally friendly future of vertical flight. To ensure that these novel aircraft meet the future expectations of Public Services, it is essential to take a collaborative and multi-disciplinary approach to their development, across engineering disciplines, policy-making, program management, business case development, manufacturing, and flight demonstrations. It should be noted that the term eVTOL (in the near term) used throughout this publication implies aircraft capable of transporting up to 5 persons which may or may not include a pilot if operated fully autonomously, assuming an average of 200 pounds (91 kg) per person or equivalent payload and a range up to 60 miles plus a suitable reserve. Hybrid or hydrogen powered eVTOLs would have greater range. For example, a “3-seat” eVTOL aircraft may only be able to carry two fully equipped firemen, and payload capacity is more relevant when used for the supply mission. Moreover, this paper concentrates on the “last-mile” solutions with a deployment time of no more than 6 hours. Although not specifically discussed in this document, it is understood that the future of Transformative Vertical Flight in general and Public Services, in particular, will also involve smaller UAVs that will undoubtedly play a crucial role in future aerial operations. For example, smaller unmanned aircraft may be used to dispatch medical supplies, portable filtration systems or perform the Search task of future Search and Rescue (SAR) operations. Close collaboration between the aircraft industry, the Civil Aviation Authorities (CAA), e.g., Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) and the Department of Defense (DoD) certifiers, will help identify Public Services requirements, define expectations and limit development cost and timescales. Take the US Air Force Agility Prime as an example, the majority of the eVTOL application opportunities and mission elements identified are in line with the NASA TVF WG-4 objectives and use cases. Together, it forms a strong partnership to accelerate the development, certification, and practical deployment for public service missions. The US Air Force Agility Prime has been a collaboration partner on this white paper, and provided valuable input and recommendations. Most of the eVTOL public service mission elements discussed in this paper and additional use cases envisioned by the NASA TVF WG-4 team are shared by the Agility Prime program. The focus and efforts of the Agility Prime in product and system development, industry and government partnership, accelerated certifications as well as early test and deployment are totally in sync with the path forward recommended by this white paper. This kind of collaboration and partnership will help enable the practical use of the eVTOL for public service missions, benefit the eVTOL public acceptance, and accelerate the eVTOL industry revolution.

Johnny T. Doo↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Improved Benchmarking of Cohesive Elements in Abaqus Standard for Predicting Disbond and Delamination in Composite Structures

Traditional approaches for aircraft certification require the assumption of an initial flaw condition, either represented as barely visible impact damage (BVID) or through inclusion of a Teflon insert to serve as surrogate damage. Based on the initial composite damage state, the structure must be shown to demonstrate structural durability and damage tolerance (DaDT) according to the following criteria: a. Damage displays no detrimental growth under cyclic loading b. The structure is able to sustain design limit load (DLL) Currently, the only available manner for validating structural performance is through test. Since damage can occur over a wide variety of areas within a structure, this approach has proven to be increasingly expensive and time consuming for composite airframes and acreage structure within the design-test-certification building block. A further complicating factor is the requirement to accurately capture the most critical damage morphologies as a starting condition. To understand the severity of the damage, it is either required to experimentally determine the most critical areas at tremendous expense or rely on legacy data of similar structural testing, which limits design space expansion. A preferred solution is to use advanced analysis to provide improved understanding of load margins for critical locations based on a wide variety of potential starting damage conditions. The standard industry approach for DaDT certification adheres to the use of the traditional virtual crack closure technique (VCCT) method. VCCT is generally a preferred method because it conforms to the current certification principles of damage from a known flaw, and when used correctly, can be effective at predicting delamination propagation under static and cyclic loading. The VCCT method requires the inclusion of an initial flaw in the finite element (FE) model requiring a-priori knowledge of the flaw location. This in turn requires a plethora of analysis cases to be examined to cover a reasonable span of potential damage states. Additionally, the VCCT approach requires node-to-node connectivity rendering it incompatible with the best practices and approaches for using continuum damage mechanics (CDM) based progressive damage and failure analysis (PDFA) tools within a typical FE solver. Alternatives to VCCT have emerged in the form of cohesive elements which utilize the cohesive zone model (CZM). Unlike VCCT which models linear elastic fracture mechanics, cohesive elements couples continuum and fracture based responses through the use of bilinear traction separation laws. These laws are defined based on a penalty stiffness, a cohesive strength, and a strain energy release rate. The approach can be mesh regularized with native cohesive elements within many FE solvers such as Abaqus and LS-DYNA. In Phase I of the NASA Advanced Composites Consortium (ACC) post-buckled stiffened panel with BVID, Strength and Life [1], the performance of cohesive elements were benchmarked in comparison to VCCT and LEFM solutions and showed good agreement using Abaqus explicit [2]. To realize savings on current and future programs, it is still necessary to close technical gaps related to the use of cohesive elements with Abaqus Standard. Within a program environment, standard finite element analysis is the preferred analytical capability for quasi-static loading as it eliminates uncertainty due to oscillatory behavior commonly seen with explicit analysis. This oscillatory behavior creates difficulties in writing margins of safety based on the analysis. The use of negative tangent stiffness material models complicates convergence which typically requires the use of numerical controls such as viscous damping to overcome. To date, there has not been a comprehensive study on how to establish best practices for cohesive element convergence for predictive capability within the Abaqus implicit solver. In pursuit of these goals, under the NASA ACC program, several numerical benchmark problems were proposed including pure mode I (double cantilevered beam – DCB), pure mode II (end notch flexure – ENF), and symmetric/unsymmetric evolving mixed mode (single leg bend – SLB). This paper focuses on the use of cohesive elements to model the delamination through the use of CZM. Specifically, finite element models for the DCB, ENF, symmetric SLB, and unsymmetric SLB, are developed and various solution controls for convergence are studied to develop a best practice. Once the best practice has been developed, the predictive capability of the objective CZM model is used to analyze the hat pull-off strength of a standard hat stiffened configuration under various loading conditions.

Abaqus↗
NASA NTRS2021

ATTRACTOR: Autonomy Teaming and TRAjectories for Complex Trusted Operational Reliability

Autonomous systems (AS) are crucial to realizing the vision of new, complex transportation modes, such as advanced air mobility (AAM) and urban air mobility (UAM). A chief barrier to induction of AS into aviation is insufficient understanding of AS reliability in time-critical and safety-critical environments—an obstacle to certification. ATTRACTOR is aimed at building a basis for certification of classes of autonomous cyber-physical-human systems (CPHS) via establishing metrics and models of trustworthiness and trust in multi-agent team interactions, analyzable trajectories, explainability of computational algorithms (explainable artificial intelligence, or XAI), and persistent modeling and simulation, in the context of missions planning and operation. By “building a basis for certification,” we mean acquiring an understanding of when a system is trustworthy and developing computable means to estimate trustworthiness and trust in order to eventually inform functional requirements that contribute to certification. The outcomes are applicable not just to aviation but to all domains that rely on autonomous systems.

Autonomy↗
NASA NTRS2022

Making or Breaking a Rover: System Engineering Parameters On-Board the Mars 2020 Perseverance Rover

On February 18, 2021, Perseverance, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s (JPL’s) Mars 2020 Rover, successfully landed on Mars with all systems nominal, despite the risk surrounding the over 200,000 internal flight parameters that had to be properly configured. The Perseverance team defines these parameters as software variables that are configurable, commandable and retrievable from Earth. In 2015, the Mars 2020 project leaders focused on improving systems engineering of parameters based on their experiences from parameter management on previous Mars rovers (Curiosity, Opportunity, Spirit, and Pathfinder) and parameter failures of past missions, such as the mission-ending parameter of the Mars Climate Orbiter. The new rigorous development process allowed for efficient certification and effective implementation of the parameters, allowing the rover to approach and land on the red planet (the most challenging phase of the mission) with zero parameter issues. Although successful, the Perseverance team learned many lessons for how to better manage parameters for the continued surface operations of the Mars 2020 mission and future missions. This paper will discuss eight parameter-management topics for the Perseverance Mission. The first is parameter definition: how we define parameters on our mission, where they are physically located on the vehicle, and why we have so many of them. The second topic is the updated parameter flight software module from Curiosity, including details on the 99% reduction in parameter commands, new bulk configuration capabilities, and improved parameter traceability. The third topic is parameter selection for different mission phases; this includes improving and tweaking our preferred parameter settings until they become certification candidates and managing parameter configurations based on test venue throughout the mission life cycle. The fourth topic is our flight certification process; this includes certification of flight values for four different epochs in the mission: Launch, Entry Decent and Landing (EDL) - 6days, Landing + 5 Sols (Martian Days, still on Cruise Flight Software), and once are on Surface Flight Software (FSW). The fifth topic covers in-flight command implementation, along with details on testing, validation, and verification of those commands. In the sixth section, we will explain our use of open-source management tools, including how we used GitHub for version control and management approvals. The seventh topic will describe the ground tools used in operations, including capabilities of the in-house built tool called Parasol. The eighth and final topic will dig into lessons learned for improving parameter management in the future of this mission and others.

Roth, Brian↗
NASA NTRS2022

Making or Breaking a Rover- Systems Engineering Parameters On-Board the Mars 2020 Perseverance Rover

On February 18, 2021, Perseverance, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s (JPL’s) Mars 2020 Rover, successfully landed on Mars with all systems nominal, despite the risk surrounding the over 200,000 internal flight parameters that had to be properly configured. The Perseverance team defines these parameters as software variables that are configurable, commandable and retrievable from Earth. In 2015, the Mars 2020 project leaders focused on improving systems engineering of parameters based on their experiences from parameter management on previous Mars rovers (Curiosity, Opportunity, Spirit, and Pathfinder) and parameter failures of past missions, such as the mission-ending parameter of the Mars Climate Orbiter. The new rigorous development process allowed for efficient certification and effective implementation of the parameters, allowing the rover to approach and land on the red planet (the most challenging phase of the mission) with zero parameter issues. Although successful, the Perseverance team learned many lessons for how to better manage parameters for the continued surface operations of the Mars 2020 mission and future missions. This paper will discuss eight parameter-management topics for the Perseverance Mission. The first is parameter definition: how we define parameters on our mission, where they are physically located on the vehicle, and why we have so many of them. The second topic is the updated parameter flight software module from Curiosity, including details on the 99% reduction in parameter commands, new bulk configuration capabilities, and improved parameter traceability. The third topic is parameter selection for different mission phases; this includes improving and tweaking our preferred parameter settings until they become certification candidates and managing parameter configurations based on test venue throughout the mission life cycle. The fourth topic is our flight certification process; this includes certification of flight values for four different epochs in the mission: Launch, Entry Decent and Landing (EDL) - 6days, Landing + 5 Sols (Martian Days, still on Cruise Flight Software), and once are on Surface Flight Software (FSW). The fifth topic covers in-flight command implementation, along with details on testing, validation, and verification of those commands. In the sixth section, we will explain our use of open-source management tools, including how we used GitHub for version control and management approvals. The seventh topic will describe the ground tools used in operations, including capabilities of the in-house built tool called Parasol. The eighth and final topic will dig into lessons learned for improving parameter management in the future of this mission and others.

Roth, Brian↗
NASA NTRS2014

Preparing GMAT for Operational Maneuver Planning of the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE)

The General Mission Analysis Tool (GMAT) is an open-source space mission design, analysis and trajectory optimization tool. GMAT is developed by a team of NASA, private industry, public and private contributors. GMAT is designed to model, optimize and estimate spacecraft trajectories in flight regimes ranging from low Earth orbit to lunar applications, interplanetary trajectories and other deep space missions. GMAT has also been flight qualified to support operational maneuver planning for the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) mission. ACE was launched in August, 1997 and is orbiting the Sun-Earth L1 libration point. The primary science objective of ACE is to study the composition of both the solar wind and the galactic cosmic rays. Operational orbit determination, maneuver operations and product generation for ACE are conducted by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) Flight Dynamics Facility (FDF). This paper discusses the entire engineering lifecycle and major operational certification milestones that GMAT successfully completed to obtain operational certification for the ACE mission. Operational certification milestones such as gathering of the requirements for ACE operational maneuver planning, gap analysis, test plans and procedures development, system design, pre-shadow operations, training to FDF ACE maneuver planners, shadow operations, Test Readiness Review (TRR) and finally Operational Readiness Review (ORR) are discussed. These efforts have demonstrated that GMAT is flight quality software ready to support ACE mission operations in the FDF.

Trajectory analysis↗
NASA NTRS2019

Preparing General Mission Analysis Tool for Operational Maneuver Planning of the Advanced Composition Explorer Mission

The General Mission Analysis Tool (GMAT) is an open-source space mission design, analysis and trajectory optimization tool. GMAT is developed by a team of NASA, private industry, public and private contributors. GMAT is designed to model, optimize and estimate spacecraft trajectories in flight regimes ranging from low Earth orbit to lunar applications, interplanetary trajectories and other deep space missions. GMAT has also been flight qualified to support operational maneuver planning for the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) mission. ACE was launched in August, 1997 and is orbiting the Sun-Earth L1 libration point. The primary science objective of ACE is to study the composition of both the solar wind and the galactic cosmic rays. Operational orbit determination, maneuver operations and product generation for ACE are conducted by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) Flight Dynamics Facility (FDF). This paper discusses the entire engineering lifecycle and major operational certification milestones that GMAT successfully completed to obtain operational certification for the ACE mission. Operational certification milestones such as gathering of the requirements for ACE operational maneuver planning, gap analysis, test plans and procedures development, system design, pre-shadow operations, training to FDF ACE maneuver planners, shadow operations, Test Readiness Review (TRR) and finally Operational Readiness Review (ORR) are discussed. These efforts have demonstrated that GMAT is flight quality software ready to support ACE mission operations in the FDF.

mission design↗
NASA NTRS2021

Best Practices Identified Through the Completion of UAS Flight Demonstrations

After several years of research into Detect and Avoid (DAA) and Command and Control (C2) systems for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) UAS Integration into the National Airspace System project initiated a focused two-year effort along with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and three industry partners to investigate remaining issues in the specification, test, certification and airspace integration to allow UAS operations in non-segregated airspace. The approach taken had the industry partners propose a flight demonstration approximating a commercial operation, while NASA helped, as needed, the partners through design and test phases and NASA observed interactions with the FAA. During this effort NASA collected best practices intended to be of value to similar UAS endeavors. These best practices can be divided into different sets, including practices that describe the relationship between business considerations to UAS design or describe several UAS development challenges. Another set includes best practices focused on navigating the UAS design and type certification processes. A third set includes best practices that relate to the design of the DAA system. Deploying DAA systems in this timeframe posed unique challenges. Commercial off-the-shelf DAA systems do not exist, necessitating custom development and, for two of the partners, the use of low-size, -weight, and -power (SWaP) sensors not completely specified for DAA. A fourth set of best practices relates to lost-link contingency planning. The final set of best practices relates to the design and testing of C2 systems and obtaining spectrum licenses. The UAS demonstrations were piloted remotely, and for all aspects of flight safety, a C2 system was required to communicate DAA and other UAS subsystem data to the remote pilot and to allow the pilot to issue commands to the vehicle. Throughout the course of this effort, the partners integrated prototype DAA and C2 systems into unmanned aircraft, tested those systems, and laid the groundwork for type certification programs that are expected to continue.

NASA↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Role of NDE and In-Situ Process Monitoring in Managing Risk of AM Space Hardware

The recently published NASA-STD-6030 defines the Additive Manufacturing (AM) Requirements for Spaceflight Systems. Key aspects of the certification approach include the development of a qualified material process (QMP) and material characterization determined by part classification. Nondestructive evaluation (NDE) of the full surface and volume is required for all part classifications except those with negligible risk. NASA is exploring the use of in-process monitoring data to improve risk posture and supplement post-build inspection for complex parts. Currently, the most challenging obstacle to overcome is linking the indications in the monitoring data to the physics of the process and the final material state of the finished part. NASA is undertaking studies to understand and quantify this relationship for various monitoring methods. The desired goal is to develop a protocol to establish this correlation for any monitoring method. Once this correlation is known, the critical defect size can be linked to a representative indication in the monitoring data, and the capability of the monitoring system can be tested using the 90/95 probability of detection requirement for NDE methods. This would enable the use of in-process monitoring as a defect screening activity for AM part certification. Many high-criticality components built with AM have high complexity and therefore limited inspectability, so using in-process monitoring can help address this certification gap. The use of adaptive, closed-loop monitoring systems that alter the locked process will require a new approach to the QMP.

additive manufacturing↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Role of NDE and In-Situ Process Monitoring in Managing Risk of AM Space Hardware

The recently published NASA-STD-6030 defines the Additive Manufacturing (AM) Requirements for Spaceflight Systems. Key aspects of the certification approach include the development of a qualified material process (QMP) and material characterization determined by part classification. Nondestructive evaluation (NDE) of the full surface and volume is required for all part classifications except those with negligible risk. NASA is exploring the use of in-process monitoring data to improve risk posture and supplement post-build inspection for complex parts. Currently, the most challenging obstacle to overcome is linking the indications in the monitoring data to the physics of the process and the final material state of the finished part. NASA is undertaking studies to understand and quantify this relationship for various monitoring methods. The desired goal is to develop a protocol to establish this correlation for any monitoring method. Once this correlation is known, the critical defect size can be linked to a representative indication in the monitoring data, and the capability of the monitoring system can be tested using the 90/95 probability of detection requirement for NDE methods. This would enable the use of in-process monitoring as a defect screening activity for AM part certification. Many high-criticality components built with AM have high complexity and therefore limited inspectability, so using in-process monitoring can help address this certification gap. The use of adaptive, closed-loop monitoring systems that alter the locked process will require a new approach to the QMP.

advanced manufacturing↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Leveling Arguments: Easier Said Than Done

The aerospace industry’s current desire to rapidly adopt new technologies is inconsistent with the traditional approach to creating new aerospace certification standards. To address this, an FAA-sponsored international Overarching Properties Working Group comprising industry representatives and certifying agencies has introduced the concept of Overarching Properties (OPs). OPs provide a foundation for proposing alternative Means of Compliance (MoC) by demonstrating a product's possession of the Intent, Correctness, and Innocuity properties. Handling criticality levels with the OPs is in its infancy but still required to integrate alternative MoC into the existing aerospace certification infrastructure. This paper examines the impact of criticality levels on the creation and evaluation of OP-related arguments (OPRAs), specifically focusing on the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) system. The study highlights the need for tailored OPRA creation based on assigned criticality levels and proposes self-assessment techniques to strengthen arguments. This research serves as a stepping stone in exploring criticality levels for OPs and bridging the gap in aerospace certification practices.

argument↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Runway Sign Classifier: A DAL C Certifiable Machine Learning System

In recent years, the remarkable progress of Machine Learning (ML) technologies within the domain of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems has presented unprecedented opportunities for the aviation industry, paving the way for further advancements in automation, including the potential for single pilot or fully autonomous operation of large commercial airplanes. However, ML technology faces major incompatibilities with existing airborne certification standards, such as ML model traceability and explainability issues or the inadequacy of traditional coverage metrics. Certification of ML-based airborne systems using current standards is problematic due to these challenges. This paper presents a case study of an airborne system utilizing a Deep Neural Network (DNN) for airport sign detection and classification. Building upon our previous work, which demonstrates compliance with Design Assurance Level (DAL) ”D”, we upgrade the system to meet the more stringent requirements of Design Assurance Level ”C”. To achieve DAL C, we employ an established architectural mitigation technique involving two redundant and dissimilar Deep Neural Networks. The application of novel ML-specific data management techniques further enhances this approach. This work is intended to illustrate how the certification challenges of ML-based systems can be addressed for medium criticality airborne applications.

Flight Software↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Exercising Prediction Validation Methods for Analysis of Quiet Supersonic Overflight

En route noise certification procedures for quiet supersonic aircraft are in development under the International Civil Aviation Organization for a proposed standard that could enable civil supersonic overland flight. While these quiet supersonic aircraft do not exist yet, methods are being developed and evaluated using existing N-wave empirical datasets and low-boom simulation datasets. One potential aspect of future certification methods is the ability to use a validated prediction model to predict the certification noise level under reference day weather conditions. Methods to validate predictions, such as the two-sample t-test, Fisher’s combined probability test, two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and equivalence testing, have been exercised and modified for this application. While some methods compare mean values, others compare values across the distribution, and a combination of methods can be used. The methods were applied to a subset of an N-wave dataset to demonstrate the applicability and identify potential areas for improvement. Atmospheric turbulence variability was included as a factor in these analyses through KZKFourier propagation simulations with parameters matching actual flights and weather conditions. Results are presented for six noise metrics (PL, ASEL, BSEL, DSEL, ESEL, and ISBAP), and plans to expand the analyses are discussed.

sonic boom↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Call To Action To Engage The Community To Meet The Challenges That Must Be Tackled To Make Electrified Aircraft Propulsion Real

Technology risk reduction is essential, as it is necessary to demonstrate the potential of Electrified Aircraft Propulsion (EAP). However, more is needed for implementation. The industry is leading EAP by developing a diverse community of novel vehicles from short-haul, small, urban-focused electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) to regional air mobility (RAM) and hybrid-electric, single-aisle transport category airplanes. There are a variety of novel EAP technologies for each of these novel vehicles. And the industry is not only looking at novel technology to advance the state of the art. Instead, the industry is looking to certify these novel aircraft through their regulatory authorities, such as the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the European Union Aviation Safety Authority (EASA), Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), and Brazil’s Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (National Civil Aviation Agency, ANAC), as well as other regulatory authorities. The NASA Electrified Powertrain Flight Demonstration (EPFD) project has partnered with two industry partners to advance integrated MW-class powertrain system technology demonstration that includes an assessment of their regulatory and standards gaps in their technology. The EPFD has conducted a generic regulatory gap analysis of hybrid electric engines that aligns with the industry partners’ efforts. The EPFD regulations and standards team is integrated into the industry standards community. The international industry standards community is wrestling with critical key challenges to certification. While some certification elements are proprietary, several technology elements cut across company propriety in aircraft engines (US 14 CFR Part 33 and EASA CS-E, regulations that only reflect reciprocating and turbine engines). The approach that several of these regulatory authorities have taken is to collaborate to address their challenges. The Certification Management Team (CMT) consists of the EASA, FAA, TCCA, and ANAC, and they have begun to address common questions, such as the Loss of Power Control (LOPC) for electric engines. They have reached out to the standards community to seek answers. The industry standards development organizations (SDO) have also looked ahead to address current regulations and standards gaps. The ASTM has built key committees in its ASTM F44 General Aviation Committee and F39 Aircraft Systems Committee. The SAE has established the E-40 Electric Propulsion and AE-10 High Voltage committees.

Standards↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Call To Action To Engage The Community To Meet The Challenges That Must Be Tackled To Make Electrified Aircraft Propulsion Real

Technology risk reduction is essential, as it is necessary to demonstrate the potential of Electrified Aircraft Propulsion (EAP). However, more is needed for implementation. The industry is leading EAP by developing a diverse community of novel vehicles from short-haul, small, urban-focused electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) to regional air mobility (RAM) and hybrid-electric, single-aisle transport category airplanes. There are a variety of novel EAP technologies for each of these novel vehicles. And the industry is not only looking at novel technology to advance the state of the art. Instead, the industry is looking to certify these novel aircraft through their regulatory authorities, such as the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the European Union Aviation Safety Authority (EASA), Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), and Brazil’s Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (National Civil Aviation Agency, ANAC), as well as other regulatory authorities. The NASA Electrified Powertrain Flight Demonstration (EPFD) project has partnered with two industry partners to advance integrated MW-class powertrain system technology demonstration that includes an assessment of their regulatory and standards gaps in their technology. The EPFD has conducted a generic regulatory gap analysis of hybrid electric engines that aligns with the industry partners’ efforts. The EPFD regulations and standards team is integrated into the industry standards community. The international industry standards community is wrestling with critical key challenges to certification. While some certification elements are proprietary, several technology elements cut across company propriety in aircraft engines (US 14 CFR Part 33 and EASA CS-E, regulations that only reflect reciprocating and turbine engines). The approach that several of these regulatory authorities have taken is to collaborate to address their challenges. The Certification Management Team (CMT) consists of the EASA, FAA, TCCA, and ANAC, and they have begun to address common questions, such as the Loss of Power Control (LOPC) for electric engines. They have reached out to the standards community to seek answers. The industry standards development organizations (SDO) have also looked ahead to address current regulations and standards gaps. The ASTM has built key committees in its ASTM F44 General Aviation Committee and F39 Aircraft Systems Committee. The SAE has established the E-40 Electric Propulsion and AE-10 High Voltage committees.

Standards↗
NASA NTRS1981

Advantages of multigrid methods for certifying the accuracy of PDE modeling

Numerical techniques for assessing and certifying the accuracy of the modeling of partial differential equations (PDE) to the user's specifications are analyzed. Examples of the certification process with conventional techniques are summarized for the three dimensional steady state full potential and the two dimensional steady Navier-Stokes equations using fixed grid methods (FG). The advantages of the Full Approximation Storage (FAS) scheme of the multigrid technique of A. Brandt compared with the conventional certification process of modeling PDE are illustrated in one dimension with the transformed potential equation. Inferences are drawn for how MG will improve the certification process of the numerical modeling of two and three dimensional PDE systems. Elements of the error assessment process that are common to FG and MG are analyzed.

Forester, C. K.↗