Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “concurrent engineering 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 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1999

Integrating Thermal Tools Into the Mechanical Design Process

The intent of mechanical design is to deliver a hardware product that meets or exceeds customer expectations, while reducing cycle time and cost. To this end, an integrated mechanical design process enables the idea of parallel development (concurrent engineering). This represents a shift from the traditional mechanical design process. With such a concurrent process, there are significant issues that have to be identified and addressed before re-engineering the mechanical design process to facilitate concurrent engineering. These issues also assist in the integration and re-engineering of the thermal design sub-process since it resides within the entire mechanical design process. With these issues in mind, a thermal design sub-process can be re-defined in a manner that has a higher probability of acceptance, thus enabling an integrated mechanical design process. However, the actual implementation is not always problem-free. Experience in applying the thermal design sub-process to actual situations provides the evidence for improvement, but more importantly, for judging the viability and feasibility of the sub-process.

Tsuyuki, Glenn T.↗
NASA NTRS1998

An Example of Concurrent Engineering

The Collaborative Engineering Design and Analysis Room (CEDAR) facility allows on-the- spot design review capability for any project during all phases of development. The required disciplines assemble in this facility to work on any problems (analysis, manufacturing, inspection, etc.) associated with a particular design. A small highly focused team of specialists can meet in this room to better expedite the process of developing a solution to an engineering task within the framework of the constraints that are unique to each discipline. This facility provides the engineering tools and translators to develop a concept within the confines of the room or with remote team members that could access the team's data from other locations. The CEDAR area is envisioned as excellent for failure investigation meetings to be conducted where the computer capabilities can be utilized in conjunction with the Smart Board display to develop failure trees, brainstorm failure modes, and evaluate possible solutions.

Rowe, Sidney↗
NASA NTRS2012

Resource Management and Contingencies in Aerospace Concurrent Engineering

significant concern in designing complex systems implementing new technologies is that while knowledge about the system is acquired incrementally, substantial financial commitments, even make-or-break decisions, must be made upfront, essentially in the unknown. One practice that helps in dealing with this dichotomy is the smart embedding of contingencies and margins in the design to serve as buffers against surprises. This issue presents itself in full force in the aerospace industry, where unprecedented systems are formulated and committed to as a matter of routine. As more and more aerospace mission concepts are generated by concurrent design laboratories, it is imperative that such laboratories apply well thought-out contingency and margin structures to their designs. The first part of this publication provides an overview of resource management techniques and standards used in the aerospace industry. That is followed by a thought provoking treatise on margin policies. The expose presents the actual flight telemetry data recorded by the thermal discipline during several recent NASA Goddard Space Flight Center missions. The margins actually achieved in flight are compared against pre-flight predictions, and the appropriateness and the ramifications of having designed with rigid margins to bounding stacked worst case conditions are assessed. The second half of the paper examines the particular issues associated with the application of contingencies and margins in the concurrent engineering environment. In closure, a discipline-by-discipline disclosure of the contingency and margin policies in use at the Integrated Design Center at NASA s Goddard Space Flight Center is made.

Karpati, Gabe↗
NASA NTRS1993

The Design of a Primary Flight Trainer using Concurrent Engineering Concepts

Concurrent Engineering (CE) concepts seek to coordinate the expertise of various disciplines from initial design configuration selection through product disposal so that cost efficient design solutions may be achieve. Integrating this methodology into an undergraduate design course sequence may provide a needed enhancement to engineering education. The Advanced Design Program (ADP) project at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (EMU) is focused on developing recommendations for the general aviation Primary Flight Trainer (PFT) of the twenty first century using methods of CE. This project, over the next two years, will continue synthesizing the collective knowledge of teams composed of engineering students along with students from other degree programs, their faculty, and key industry representatives. During the past year (Phase I). conventional trainer configurations that comply with current regulations and existing technologies have been evaluated. Phase I efforts have resulted in two baseline concepts, a high-wing, conventional design named Triton and a low-wing, mid-engine configuration called Viper. In the second and third years (Phases II and III). applications of advanced propulsion, advanced materials, and unconventional airplane configurations along with military and commercial technologies which are anticipated to be within the economic range of general aviation by the year 2000, will be considered.

Ladesic, James G.↗
NASA NTRS2015

A Principled Approach to the Specification of System Architectures for Space Missions

Modern space systems are increasing in complexity and scale at an unprecedented pace. Consequently, innovative methods, processes, and tools are needed to cope with the increasing complexity of architecting these systems. A key systems challenge in practice is the ability to scale processes, methods, and tools used to architect complex space systems. Traditionally, the process for specifying space system architectures has largely relied on capturing the system architecture in informal descriptions that are often embedded within loosely coupled design documents and domain expertise. Such informal descriptions often lead to misunderstandings between design teams, ambiguous specifications, difficulty in maintaining consistency as the architecture evolves throughout the system development life cycle, and costly design iterations. Therefore, traditional methods are becoming increasingly inefficient to cope with ever-increasing system complexity. We apply the principles of component-based design and platform-based design to the development of the system architecture for a practical space system to demonstrate feasibility of our approach using SysML. Our results show that we are able to apply a systematic design method to manage system complexity, thus enabling effective data management, semantic coherence and traceability across different levels of abstraction in the design chain. Just as important, our approach enables interoperability among heterogeneous tools in a concurrent engineering model based design environment.

platform-based design↗
NASA NTRS2012

What is Team X?

Team X is a concurrent engineering team for rapid design and analysis of space mission concepts. It was developed in 1995 by JPL to reduce study time and cost. More than 1100 studies have been completed It is institutionally endorsed and it has been emulated by many institutions. In Concurrent Engineering (i.e., Parallel) diverse specialists work in real time, in the same place, with shared data, to yield an integrated design

Concurrent Engineering↗
NASA NTRS2013

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↗
NASA NTRS2017

Review of a Draft - Avoiding the Impossible: Re-focusing a Non-Feasible Mission 2-Hrs into a 3-Day Engineering Session

Concurrent engineering offers a great many benefits to engineers and mission designers throughout the world of aerospace. The only downside of concurrent engineering, and this is somewhat unavoidable, is that you don’t know the results of a design session until the end when it is completed. Usually, this is not a problem – you wouldn’t start building a spacecraft before the design is finished. However, within mass and cost constrained systems, you may end up with a final design that although technically sound – is not feasible due to mass or cost limits. Employing in-session mass and cost models with flexible inputs that refine their estimates and variance as more detailed information comes in throughout a design session allows major design changes to be made when the probability of breaching a mass or cost cap exceeds a threshold level. This enables mission designers to re-focus the study, and avoid spending 3-days with 15 engineers designing a non-feasible mission. By understanding key correlations and nested relationships within mass or cost, and specifically mass or cost allocations per mission element by mission type, it’s possible to get flexible-input, statistically based mass and cost estimates very early in the design process. Baseline models are seeded using mission characteristics and general parameters (outer planetary orbiter-probe mission, $500M cost cap for example) to provide a rough estimate of the expected mass or cost. As information gets solidified during the session, it gets added to the model and the estimates are updated. Continuing the orbiter-probe mission example, modeling probe heat shield cost as a percent of total probe cost, and probe cost as a percent of total flight system cost, and total flight system cost as a percent of total mission cost allows a design team to roll-up solidified information to estimate the probability of fitting within a mass or cost constraint early in a concurrent design session. When only the heat shield cost is known, the variance of the final estimate is higher, whereas when the full probe gets defined, naturally, the variance of the estimate decreases. A methodology, model, verification and demo implementation for cost limit breach are presented.

Hihn, Jairus M.↗
NASA NTRS2018

A SysML Model Template for NASA Concurrent Engineering Studies

Systems Engineers at NASA Langley’s Engineering Design Studio (EDS) have been developing a SysML** template that models both the EDS concurrent engineering study process and the system of interest for the study. Specifically, the model template is used to develop end-to-end space-based mission concepts. The model template evolved through targeted use and technical feedback during several EDS studies in 2016-17. This year, a model template version was completed that is being tested for use throughout EDS studies. It features ease of navigation through the documented study process to create the logistical articles (e.g. session agenda) and technical articles (e.g. system requirements) connected in the study SysML model, resulting in demonstrable and trackable relationships between the system design and the study goals and objectives. The model template allows easy release of the system of interest portion at the end of the EDS study. The customers may use this as a starter model as their project moves forward. The model template design details and the motivation for them will be explained in this paper. This will be followed by the results of the first trials of the model template in an EDS study, and discussion of the integration of this template into the NASA MBSE Community of Practice.

Infeld, Samantha I.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Computer aided design and manufacturing of composite propfan blades for a cruise missile wind tunnel model

One of the propulsion concepts being investigated for future cruise missiles is advanced unducted propfans. To support the evaluation of this technology applied to the cruise missile, a joint DOD and NASA test project was conducted to design and then test the characteristics of the propfans on a 0.55-scale, cruise missile model in a NASA wind tunnel. The configuration selected for study is a counterrotating rearward swept propfan. The forward blade row, having six blades, rotates in a counterclockwise direction, and the aft blade row, having six blades, rotates in a clockwise direction, as viewed from aft of the test model. Figures show the overall cruise missile and propfan blade configurations. The objective of this test was to evaluate propfan performance and suitability as a viable propulsion option for next generation of cruise missiles. This paper details the concurrent computer aided design, engineering, and manufacturing of the carbon fiber/epoxy propfan blades as the NASA Lewis Research Center.

Thorp, Scott A.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Estimation Model of Spacecraft Parameters and Cost Based on a Statistical Analysis of COMPASS Designs

The Collaborative Modeling for Parametric Assessment of Space Systems (COMPASS) team at Glenn Research Center has performed integrated system analysis of conceptual spacecraft mission designs since 2006 using a multidisciplinary concurrent engineering process. The set of completed designs was archived in a database, to allow for the study of relationships between design parameters. Although COMPASS uses a parametric spacecraft costing model, this research investigated the possibility of using a top-down approach to rapidly estimate the overall vehicle costs. This paper presents the relationships between significant design variables, including breakdowns of dry mass, wet mass, and cost. It also develops a model for a broad estimate of these parameters through basic mission characteristics, including the target location distance, the payload mass, the duration, the delta-v requirement, and the type of mission, propulsion, and electrical power. Finally, this paper examines the accuracy of this model in regards to past COMPASS designs, with an assessment of outlying spacecraft, and compares the results to historical data of completed NASA missions.

cost modeling↗
NASA NTRS2011

How Engineers Really Think About Risk: A Study of JPL Engineers

The objectives of this work are: To improve risk assessment practices as used during the mission design process by JPL's concurrent engineering teams. (1) Developing effective ways to identify and assess mission risks (2) Providing a process for more effective dialog between stakeholders about the existence and severity of mission risks (3) Enabling the analysis of interactions of risks across concurrent engineering roles.

risk identification↗
NASA NTRS1993

Integrated design and manufacturing for the high speed civil transport

In June 1992, Georgia Tech's School of Aerospace Engineering was awarded a NASA University Space Research Association (USRA) Advanced Design Program (ADP) to address 'Integrated Design and Manufacturing for the High Speed Civil Transport (HSCT)' in its graduate aerospace systems design courses. This report summarizes the results of the five courses incorporated into the Georgia Tech's USRA ADP program. It covers AE8113: Introduction to Concurrent Engineering, AE4360: Introduction to CAE/CAD, AE4353: Design for Life Cycle Cost, AE6351: Aerospace Systems Design One, and AE6352: Aerospace Systems Design Two. AE8113: Introduction to Concurrent Engineering was an introductory course addressing the basic principles of concurrent engineering (CE) or integrated product development (IPD). The design of a total system was not the objective of this course. The goal was to understand and define the 'up-front' customer requirements, their decomposition, and determine the value objectives for a complex product, such as the high speed civil transport (HSCT). A generic CE methodology developed at Georgia Tech was used for this purpose. AE4353: Design for Life Cycle Cost addressed the basic economic issues for an HSCT using a robust design technique, Taguchi's parameter design optimization method (PDOM). An HSCT economic sensitivity assessment was conducted using a Taguchi PDOM approach to address the robustness of the basic HSCT design. AE4360: Introduction to CAE/CAD permitted students to develop and utilize CAE/CAD/CAM knowledge and skills using CATIA and CADAM as the basic geometric tools. AE6351: Aerospace Systems Design One focused on the conceptual design refinement of a baseline HSCT configuration as defined by Boeing, Douglas, and NASA in their system studies. It required the use of NASA's synthesis codes FLOPS and ACSYNT. A criterion called the productivity index (P.I.) was used to evaluate disciplinary sensitivities and provide refinements of the baseline HSCT configuration. AE6352: Aerospace Systems Design Two was a continuation of Aerospace Systems Design One in which wing concepts were researched and analyzed in more detail. FLOPS and ACSYNT were again used at the system level while other off-the-shelf computer codes were used for more detailed wing disciplinary analysis and optimization. The culmination of all efforts and submission of this report conclude the first year's efforts of Georgia Tech's NASA USRA ADP. It will hopefully provide the foundation for next year's efforts concerning continuous improvement of integrated design and manufacturing for the HSCT.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2022

2020 I.F._Wickizer_New CE Tool for MDC_Final Report

Our team surveyed available products and found no readily-available/U.S. commercial or Agency products which supported our envisioned workflow for the Mission Design Center and the concurrent engineering (CE) process we use. Therefore, we sought to create our own CE tool. Changes in agency policy during the performance period allowed us to shift direction and instead adapt our previous legacy tool (Atlas) to include the collaboration features we sorely needed. Atlas relied upon databases for its back-end data management. Poseidon, the work proposed under this effort, was also intended to leverage from that previous back end (in part). However, in May 2021, EUSO announced that “SBU/CUI Information Can Now Be Shared/Stored Within O365 Without Encryption.” Consequently, we made the decision to use O365 in place of our back end. This change provides for version history, collaborative simultaneous editing, and other collaboration tools agency-wide that were previously unavailable with the old database architecture. The new Atlas O365 has more flexibility and capability for users. It’s now easier for users to switch between using the tool for concurrent engineering and individual subsystem engineering. A version was delivered for concurrent engineering of small satellite missions; so far, it has been used successfully on the Aeolus MDC study. Atlas O365 will facilitate the design and assessment of Small Satellite Missions at low Concept Maturity Level at Ames. Feasibility assessments on mission concepts still at a low CML permit strategic planning and decision-making efforts at the center level about which concepts should be pursued and proposed.

concurrent engineering↗
NASA NTRS1991

Process and assembly plans for low cost commercial fuselage structure

Cost and weight reduction for a composite structure is a result of selecting design concepts that can be built using efficient low cost manufacturing and assembly processes. Since design and manufacturing are inherently cost dependent, concurrent engineering in the form of a Design-Build Team (DBT) is essential for low cost designs. Detailed cost analysis from DBT designs and hardware verification must be performed to identify the cost drivers and relationships between design and manufacturing processes. Results from the global evaluation are used to quantitatively rank design, identify cost centers for higher ranking design concepts, define and prioritize a list of technical/economic issues and barriers, and identify parameters that control concept response. These results are then used for final design optimization.

Willden, Kurtis↗
NASA NTRS2005

Relevant Parameter Evolution in Team X Mission Concept Designs

The Advanced Projects Design Team, also known as Team X, is a concurrent engineering team that quickly and cheaply designs space mission architectures including the flight system and subsystems, the trajectory, and ground system. Through the use of ICEMaker, an Excel spreadsheet database, the parameters from each subsystem can be shared and used among the other subsystems. This allows for entire missions to be planned with only a few short design team sessions. Based on the results, the feasibility of the mission concept can be determined. Over the Years since the team was created, the amount of information being shared among subsystems on the database has increased, however many of the parameters are now obsolete. Removal of these unused parameters Will clean UP the database and help to streamline the mission design process. By comparing parameter files from previous Team X mission studies, the parameter usage can be determined. As was initially suspected there are more unused parameters on the database than parameters that are actually used.

Huelman, Brandon N.↗