SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “VERIFICATION”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 523 records · Page 29

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2012

Cognitive Bias in Systems Verification

Working definition of cognitive bias: Patterns by which information is sought and interpreted that can lead to systematic errors in decisions. Cognitive bias is used in diverse fields: Economics, Politics, Intelligence, Marketing, to name a few. Attempts to ground cognitive science in physical characteristics of the cognitive apparatus exceed our knowledge. Studies based on correlations; strict cause and effect is difficult to pinpoint. Effects cited in the paper and discussed here have been replicated many times over, and appear sound. Many biases have been described, but it is still unclear whether they are all distinct. There may only be a handful of fundamental biases, which manifest in various ways. Bias can effect system verification in many ways . Overconfidence -> Questionable decisions to deploy. Availability -> Inability to conceive critical tests. Representativeness -> Overinterpretation of results. Positive Test Strategies -> Confirmation bias. Debiasing at individual level very difficult. The potential effect of bias on the verification process can be managed, but not eliminated. Worth considering at key points in the process.

Cognitive bias↗

NASA NTRS2013

Model Verification and Validation Concepts for a Probabilistic Fracture Assessment Model to Predict Cracking of Knife Edge Seals in the Space Shuttle Main Engine High Pressure Oxidizer

Physics-based models are routinely used to predict the performance of engineered systems to make decisions such as when to retire system components, how to extend the life of an aging system, or if a new design will be safe or available. Model verification and validation (V&V) is a process to establish credibility in model predictions. Ideally, carefully controlled validation experiments will be designed and performed to validate models or submodels. In reality, time and cost constraints limit experiments and even model development. This paper describes elements of model V&V during the development and application of a probabilistic fracture assessment model to predict cracking in space shuttle main engine high-pressure oxidizer turbopump knife-edge seals. The objective of this effort was to assess the probability of initiating and growing a crack to a specified failure length in specific flight units for different usage and inspection scenarios. The probabilistic fracture assessment model developed in this investigation combined a series of submodels describing the usage, temperature history, flutter tendencies, tooth stresses and numbers of cycles, fatigue cracking, nondestructive inspection, and finally the probability of failure. The analysis accounted for unit-to-unit variations in temperature, flutter limit state, flutter stress magnitude, and fatigue life properties. The investigation focused on the calculation of relative risk rather than absolute risk between the usage scenarios. Verification predictions were first performed for three units with known usage and cracking histories to establish credibility in the model predictions. Then, numerous predictions were performed for an assortment of operating units that had flown recently or that were projected for future flights. Calculations were performed using two NASA-developed software tools: NESSUS(Registered Trademark) for the probabilistic analysis, and NASGRO(Registered Trademark) for the fracture mechanics analysis. The goal of these predictions was to provide additional information to guide decisions on the potential of reusing existing and installed units prior to the new design certification.

Pai, Shantaram S.↗

NASA NTRS2013

Status on the Verification of Combustion Stability for the J-2X Engine Thrust Chamber Assembly

Development is underway of the J -2X engine, a liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen rocket engine for use on the Space Launch System. The Engine E10001 began hot fire testing in June 2011 and testing will continue with subsequent engines. The J -2X engine main combustion chamber contains both acoustic cavities and baffles. These stability aids are intended to dampen the acoustics in the main combustion chamber. Verification of the engine thrust chamber stability is determined primarily by examining experimental data using a dynamic stability rating technique; however, additional requirements were included to guard against any spontaneous instability or rough combustion. Startup and shutdown chug oscillations are also characterized for this engine. This paper details the stability requirements and verification including low and high frequency dynamics, a discussion on sensor selection and sensor port dynamics, and the process developed to assess combustion stability. A status on the stability results is also provided and discussed.

Casiano, Matthew↗

NASA NTRS2014

Development and Implementation of Dynamic Scripts to Support Local Model Verification at National Weather Service Weather Forecast Offices

Local modeling with a customized configuration is conducted at National Weather Service (NWS) Weather Forecast Offices (WFOs) to produce high-resolution numerical forecasts that can better simulate local weather phenomena and complement larger scale global and regional models. The advent of the Environmental Modeling System (EMS), which provides a pre-compiled version of the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model and wrapper Perl scripts, has enabled forecasters to easily configure and execute the WRF model on local workstations. NWS WFOs often use EMS output to help in forecasting highly localized, mesoscale features such as convective initiation, the timing and inland extent of lake effect snow bands, lake and sea breezes, and topographically-modified winds. However, quantitatively evaluating model performance to determine errors and biases still proves to be one of the challenges in running a local model. Developed at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), the Model Evaluation Tools (MET) verification software makes performing these types of quantitative analyses easier, but operational forecasters do not generally have time to familiarize themselves with navigating the sometimes complex configurations associated with the MET tools. To assist forecasters in running a subset of MET programs and capabilities, the Short-term Prediction Research and Transition (SPoRT) Center has developed and transitioned a set of dynamic, easily configurable Perl scripts to collaborating NWS WFOs. The objective of these scripts is to provide SPoRT collaborating partners in the NWS with the ability to evaluate the skill of their local EMS model runs in near real time with little prior knowledge of the MET package. The ultimate goal is to make these verification scripts available to the broader NWS community in a future version of the EMS software. This paper provides an overview of the SPoRT MET scripts, instructions for how the scripts are run, and example use cases.

Zavordsky, Bradley↗

NASA NTRS2014

Observations on CFD Verification and Validation from the AIAA Drag Prediction Workshops

The authors provide observations from the AIAA Drag Prediction Workshops that have spanned over a decade and from a recent validation experiment at NASA Langley. These workshops provide an assessment of the predictive capability of forces and moments, focused on drag, for transonic transports. It is very difficult to manage the consistency of results in a workshop setting to perform verification and validation at the scientific level, but it may be sufficient to assess it at the level of practice. Observations thus far: 1) due to simplifications in the workshop test cases, wind tunnel data are not necessarily the “correct” results that CFD should match, 2) an average of core CFD data are not necessarily a better estimate of the true solution as it is merely an average of other solutions and has many coupled sources of variation, 3) outlier solutions should be investigated and understood, and 4) the DPW series does not have the systematic build up and definition on both the computational and experimental side that is required for detailed verification and validation. Several observations regarding the importance of the grid, effects of physical modeling, benefits of open forums, and guidance for validation experiments are discussed. The increased variation in results when predicting regions of flow separation and increased variation due to interaction effects, e.g., fuselage and horizontal tail, point out the need for validation data sets for these important flow phenomena. Experiences with a recent validation experiment at NASA Langley are included to provide guidance on validation experiments.

Computational Fluid Dynamics↗

NASA NTRS2014

Time and Frequency-Domain Cross-Verification of SLS 6DOF Trajectory Simulations

The SLS GNC team and its partners have developed several time- and frequency-based simulations for development and analysis of the proposed SLS launch vehicle. The simulations differ in fidelity and some have unique functionality that allows them to perform specific analyses. Some examples of the purposes of the various models are: trajectory simulation, multi-body separation, Monte Carlo, hardware in the loop, loads, and frequency domain stability analyses. While no two simulations are identical, many of the models are essentially six degree-of-freedom (6DOF) representations of the SLS plant dynamics, hardware implementation, and flight software. Thus at a high level all of those models should be in agreement. Comparison of outputs from several SLS trajectory and stability analysis tools are ongoing as part of the program's current verification effort. The purpose of these comparisons is to highlight modeling and analysis differences, verify simulation data sources, identify inconsistencies and minor errors, and ultimately to verify output data as being a good representation of the vehicle and subsystem dynamics. This paper will show selected verification work in both the time and frequency domain from the current design analysis cycle of the SLS for several of the design and analysis simulations. In the time domain, the tools that will be compared are MAVERIC, CLVTOPS, SAVANT, STARS, ARTEMIS, and POST 2. For the frequency domain analysis, the tools to be compared are FRACTAL, SAVANT, and STARS. The paper will include discussion of these tools including their capabilities, configurations, and the uses to which they are put in the SLS program. Determination of the criteria by which the simulations are compared (matching criteria) requires thoughtful consideration, and there are several pitfalls that may occur that can severely punish a simulation if not considered carefully. The paper will discuss these considerations and will present a framework for responding to these issues when they arise. For example, small event timing differences can lead to large differences in mass properties if the criteria are to measure those properties at the same time, or large differences in altitude if the criteria are to measure those properties when the simulation experiences a staging event. Similarly, a tiny difference in phase can lead to large gain margin differences for frequency-domain comparisons of gain margins.

VanZwieten, Tannen↗

NASA NTRS2014

Development and Implementation of Dynamic Scripts to Support Local Model Verification at National Weather Service Weather Forecast Offices

Zavodsky, Bradley↗

NASA NTRS2015

Real-Time Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station High-Resolution Model Implementation and Verification

NASA's Launch Services Program, Ground Systems Development and Operations, Space Launch System and other programs at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) use the daily and weekly weather forecasts issued by the 45th Weather Squadron (45 WS) as decision tools for their day-to-day and launch operations on the Eastern Range (ER). Examples include determining if they need to limit activities such as vehicle transport to the launch pad, protect people, structures or exposed launch vehicles given a threat of severe weather, or reschedule other critical operations. The 45 WS uses numerical weather prediction models as a guide for these weather forecasts, particularly the Air Force Weather Agency (AFWA) 1.67 km Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model. Considering the 45 WS forecasters' and Launch Weather Officers' (LWO) extensive use of the AFWA model, the 45 WS proposed a task at the September 2013 Applied Meteorology Unit (AMU) Tasking Meeting requesting the AMU verify this model. Due to the lack of archived model data available from AFWA, verification is not yet possible. Instead, the AMU proposed to implement and verify the performance of an ER version of the high-resolution WRF Environmental Modeling System (EMS) model configured by the AMU (Watson 2013) in real time. Implementing a real-time version of the ER WRF-EMS would generate a larger database of model output than in the previous AMU task for determining model performance, and allows the AMU more control over and access to the model output archive. The tasking group agreed to this proposal; therefore the AMU implemented the WRF-EMS model on the second of two NASA AMU modeling clusters. The AMU also calculated verification statistics to determine model performance compared to observational data. Finally, the AMU made the model output available on the AMU Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System II (AWIPS II) servers, which allows the 45 WS and AMU staff to customize the model output display on the AMU and Range Weather Operations (RWO) AWIPS II client computers and conduct real-time subjective analyses.

Meteorology↗

NASA NTRS2013

A Scala DSL for RETE-Based Runtime Verification

Runtime verification (RV) consists in part of checking execution traces against formalized specifications. Several systems have emerged, most of which support specification notations based on state machines, regular expressions, temporal logic, or grammars. The field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has for an even longer period of time studied rule-based production systems, which at a closer look appear to be relevant for RV, although seemingly focused on slightly different application domains, such as for example business processes and expert systems. The core algorithm in many of these systems is the Rete algorithm. We have implemented a Rete-based runtime verification system, named LogFire (originally intended for offline log analysis but also applicable to online analysis), as an internal DSL in the Scala programming language, using Scala's support for defining DSLs. This combination appears attractive from a practical point of view. Our contribution is in part conceptual in arguing that such rule-based frameworks originating from AI may be suited for RV.

matching problem↗

NASA NTRS2012

Verification and Validation Testing of the Bridle and Umbilical Device for Mars Science Laboratory

The Bridle Umbilical Device (BUD) subsystem is used during the Skycrane maneuver of the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) during the final phases of the Entry Descent and Landing (EDL). During this phase the BUD subsystem will control the deployment of the MSL Rover from the Descent Stage. This paper covers the verification and validation testing of the subsystem. Testing included component through full system level testing. Testing ranged from simple bench top extraction tests to full system deploy drop test that included external disturbances such as the Rover mobility impulse. This paper will discuss the test that were performed, why they were performed and how these test results were used in the overall Verification and Validation of the MSL Skycrane phase.

Gallon, John↗

NASA NTRS2015

Combustion Stability Verification for the Thrust Chamber Assembly of J-2X Developmental Engines 10001, 10002, and 10003

The J-2X engine, a liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen propellant rocket engine available for future use on the upper stage of the Space Launch System vehicle, has completed testing of three developmental engines at NASA Stennis Space Center. Twenty-one tests of engine E10001 were conducted from June 2011 through September 2012, thirteen tests of the engine E10002 were conducted from February 2013 through September 2013, and twelve tests of engine E10003 were conducted from November 2013 to April 2014. Verification of combustion stability of the thrust chamber assembly was conducted by perturbing each of the three developmental engines. The primary mechanism for combustion stability verification was examining the response caused by an artificial perturbation (bomb) in the main combustion chamber, i.e., dynamic combustion stability rating. No dynamic instabilities were observed in the TCA, although a few conditions were not bombed. Additional requirements, included to guard against spontaneous instability or rough combustion, were also investigated. Under certain conditions, discrete responses were observed in the dynamic pressure data. The discrete responses were of low amplitude and posed minimal risk to safe engine operability. Rough combustion analyses showed that all three engines met requirements for broad-banded frequency oscillations. Start and shutdown transient chug oscillations were also examined to assess the overall stability characteristics, with no major issues observed.

Morgan, C. J.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Orion GN&C Fault Management System Verification: Scope And Methodology

In order to ensure long-term ability to meet mission goals and to provide for the safety of the public, ground personnel, and any crew members, nearly all spacecraft include a fault management (FM) system. For a manned vehicle such as Orion, the safety of the crew is of paramount importance. The goal of the Orion Guidance, Navigation and Control (GN&C) fault management system is to detect, isolate, and respond to faults before they can result in harm to the human crew or loss of the spacecraft. Verification of fault management/fault protection capability is challenging due to the large number of possible faults in a complex spacecraft, the inherent unpredictability of faults, the complexity of interactions among the various spacecraft components, and the inability to easily quantify human reactions to failure scenarios. The Orion GN&C Fault Detection, Isolation, and Recovery (FDIR) team has developed a methodology for bounding the scope of FM system verification while ensuring sufficient coverage of the failure space and providing high confidence that the fault management system meets all safety requirements. The methodology utilizes a swarm search algorithm to identify failure cases that can result in catastrophic loss of the crew or the vehicle and rare event sequential Monte Carlo to verify safety and FDIR performance requirements.

Brown, Denise↗

NASA NTRS2016

Deductive Evaluation: Implicit Code Verification With Low User Burden

We describe a framework for symbolically evaluating C code using a deductive approach that discovers and proves program properties. The framework applies Floyd-Hoare verification principles in its treatment of loops, with a library of iteration schemes serving to derive loop invariants. During evaluation, theorem proving is performed on-the-fly, obviating the generation of verification conditions normally needed to establish loop properties. A PVS-based prototype is presented along with results for sample C functions.

Di Vito, Ben L.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Optical Testing and Verification Methods for the James Webb Space Telescope Integrated Science Instrument Module Element

NASA's James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is a 6.6m diameter, segmented, deployable telescope for cryogenic IR space astronomy (~40K). The JWST Observatory includes the Optical Telescope Element (OTE) and the Integrated Science Instrument Module (ISIM) that contains four science instruments (SI) and the fine guider. The SIs are mounted to a composite metering structure. The SI and guider units were integrated to the ISIM structure and optically tested at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center as a suite using the Optical Telescope Element SIMulator (OSIM). OSIM is a full field, cryogenic JWST telescope simulator. SI performance, including alignment and wave front error, were evaluated using OSIM. We describe test and analysis methods for optical performance verification of the ISIM Element, with an emphasis on the processes used to plan and execute the test. The complexity of ISIM and OSIM drove us to develop a software tool for test planning that allows for configuration control of observations, associated scripts, and management of hardware and software limits and constraints, as well as tools for rapid data evaluation, and flexible re-planning in response to the unexpected. As examples of our test and analysis approach, we discuss how factors such as the ground test thermal environment are compensated in alignment. We describe how these innovative methods for test planning and execution and post-test analysis were instrumental in the verification program for the ISIM element, with enough information to allow the reader to consider these innovations and lessons learned in this successful effort in their future testing for other programs.

spaceborne telescopes↗

NASA NTRS2016

Challenges in High-Assurance Runtime Verification

Safety-critical systems are growing more complex and becoming increasingly autonomous. Runtime Verification (RV) has the potential to provide protections when a system cannot be assured by conventional means, but only if the RV itself can be trusted. In this paper, we proffer a number of challenges to realizing high-assurance RV and illustrate how we have addressed them in our research. We argue that high-assurance RV provides a rich target for automated verification tools in hope of fostering closer collaboration among the communities.

Goodloe, Alwyn E.↗

NASA NTRS2017

Time and Frequency-Domain Cross-Verification of SLS 6DOF Trajectory Simulations

The Space Launch System (SLS) Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC) team and its partners have developed several time- and frequency-based simulations for development and analysis of the proposed SLS launch vehicle. The simulations differ in fidelity and some have unique functionality that allows them to perform specific analyses. Some examples of the purposes of the various models are: trajectory simulation, multi-body separation, Monte Carlo, hardware in the loop, loads, and frequency domain stability analyses. While no two simulations are identical, many of the models are essentially six degree-of-freedom (6DOF) representations of the SLS plant dynamics, hardware implementation, and flight software. Thus at a high level all of those models should be in agreement. Comparison of outputs from several SLS trajectory and stability analysis tools are ongoing as part of the program's current verification effort. The purpose of these comparisons is to highlight modeling and analysis differences, verify simulation data sources, identify inconsistencies and minor errors, and ultimately to verify output data as being a good representation of the vehicle and subsystem dynamics. This paper will show selected verification work in both the time and frequency domain from the current design analysis cycle of the SLS for several of the design and analysis simulations. In the time domain, the tools that will be compared are MAVERIC, CLVTOPS, SAVANT, STARS, ARTEMIS, and POST 2. For the frequency domain analysis, the tools to be compared are FRACTAL, SAVANT, and STARS. The paper will include discussion of these tools including their capabilities, configurations, and the uses to which they are put in the SLS program. Determination of the criteria by which the simulations are compared (matching criteria) requires thoughtful consideration, and there are several pitfalls that may occur that can severely punish a simulation if not considered carefully. The paper will discuss these considerations and will present a framework for responding to these issues when they arise. For example, small event timing differences can lead to large differences in mass properties if the criteria are to measure those properties at the same time, or large differences in altitude if the criteria are to measure those properties when the simulation experiences a staging event. Similarly, a tiny difference in phase can lead to large gain margin differences for frequency-domain comparisons of gain margins.

Johnson, Matthew↗

NASA NTRS2017

In-Space Engine (ISE-100) Development - Design Verification Test

In the past decade, NASA has formulated science mission concepts with an anticipation of landing spacecraft on the lunar surface, meteoroids, and other planets. Advancing thruster technology for spacecraft propulsion systems has been considered for maximizing science payload. Starting in 2010, development of In-Space Engine (designated as ISE-100) has been carried out. ISE-100 thruster is designed based on heritage Missile Defense Agency (MDA) technology aimed for a lightweight and efficient system in terms volume and packaging. It runs with a hypergolic bi-propellant system: MON-25 (nitrogen tetroxide, N2O4, with 25% of nitric oxide, NO) and MMH (monomethylhydrazine, CH6N2) for NASA spacecraft applications. The utilization of this propellant system will provide a propulsion system capable of operating at wide range of temperatures, from 50 C (122 F) down to -30 C (-22 F) to drastically reduce heater power. The thruster is designed to deliver 100 lb(sub f) of thrust with the capability of a pulse mode operation for a wide range of mission duty cycles (MDCs). Two thrusters were fabricated. As part of the engine development, this test campaign is dedicated for the design verification of the thruster. This presentation will report the efforts of the design verification hot-fire test program of the ISE-100 thruster in collaboration between NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) and Aerojet Rocketdyne (AR) test teams. The hot-fire tests were conducted at Advance Mobile Propulsion Test (AMPT) facility in Durango, Colorado, from May 13 to June 10, 2016. This presentation will also provide a summary of key points from the test results.

Trinh, Huu P.↗

NASA NTRS2017

Towards Verification and Validation for Increased Autonomy

This presentation goes over the work we have performed over the last few years on verification and validation of the next generation onboard collision avoidance system, ACAS X, for commercial aircraft. It describes our work on probabilistic verification and synthesis of the model that ACAS X is based on, and goes on to the validation of that model with respect to actual simulation and flight data. The presentation then moves on to identify the characteristics of ACAS X that are related to autonomy and to discuss the challenges that autonomy pauses on VV. All work presented has already been published.

Giannakopoulou, Dimitra↗