SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “software defect defect analysis defect data”

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.

40 records · Page 3

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2019

Automatic Incorporation of Flaws into Cad and FEA Models Based On Measured NDE Data

Automatic incorporation of non-destructive evaluation (NDE) data into CAD and finite element (FE) models for structural analysis is essential for accurate residual-life and strength analyses of composite structures. Currently, two significant but independent challenges exist for incorporating NDE data in such analyses: interpretation of the NDE signals to locate and characterize the structural defects and the incorporation of that information into structural analysis tools. The first challenge will be addressed through linear inversion of calculated synthetic responses generated by a simulation engine to evaluate flaw size, location, and other characteristics. The second challenge will be addressed by building on prior and parallel defect modeling efforts to integrate suitable flaw models into the CAD/finite-element representation of a specimen. Ultrasonic NDE information is usually represented using C-Scans of time-of-flight or intensity information. Other modalities such as thermography and computed tomography (CT) could also be used to characterize the structure. This information will first be projected into material coordinates and then aligned with the specimen’s finite element mesh. The NDE data can then be incorporated by inserting flaw geometry into the CAD and FE analysis model and automatic modification of local material properties and boundary conditions. This process will enable the use of structural analysis tools even for practical modalities such as ultrasound and thermography which may not directly give accurate-enough geometric information to fully define the flaw. The full flaw characteristics will be inferred using prior expert and modeling knowledge to categorize flaw signatures. Outputs for this project will include demonstrated methods for creating structural analysis geometric models that incorporate flaw characterization information; these models can then be used directly in popular commercial FEA software. In addition, the primary deliverable for the project will include a software that will be able to automatically incorporate different kinds of flaws into an existing FE models. The models will be generated in standard file formats to enable direct import into the analysis software.

Adarsh Krishnamurthy↗

NASA NTRS2011

Ground Processing Affordability for Space Vehicles

Launch vehicles and most of their payloads spend the majority of their time on the ground. The cost of ground operations is very high. So, why so often is so little attention given to ground processing during development? The current global space industry and economic environment are driving more need for efficiencies to save time and money. Affordability and sustainability are more important now than ever. We can not continue to treat space vehicles as mere science projects. More RLV's (Reusable Launch Vehicles) are being developed for the gains of reusability which are not available for ELV's (Expendable Launch Vehicles). More human-rated vehicles are being developed, with the retirement of the Space Shuttles, and for a new global space race, yet these cost more than the many unmanned vehicles of today. We can learn many lessons on affordability from RLV's. DFO (Design for Operations) considers ground operations during design, development, and manufacturing-before the first flight. This is often minimized for space vehicles, but is very important. Vehicles are designed for launch and mission operations. You will not be able to do it again if it is too slow or costly to get there. Many times, technology changes faster than space products such that what is launched includes outdated features, thus reducing competitiveness. Ground operations must be considered for the full product Lifecycle, from concept to retirement. Once manufactured, launch vehicles along with their payloads and launch systems require a long path of processing before launch. Initial assembly and testing always discover problems to address. A solid integration program is essential to minimize these impacts, as was seen in the Constellation Ares I-X test rocket. For RLV's, landing/recovery and post-flight turnaround activities are performed. Multi-use vehicles require reconfiguration. MRO (Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul) must be well-planned--- even for the unplanned problems. Defect limits and standard repairs need to be in-place as well as easily added. Many routine inspections and maintenance can be like an aircraft overhaul. Modifications and technology upgrades should be expected. Another factor affecting ground operations efficiency is trending. It is essential for RLV's, and also useful for ELV's which fly the same or similar models again. Good data analysis of technical and processing performance will determine fixes and improvements needed for safety, design, and future processing. Collecting such data on new or low-frequency vehicles is a challenge. Lessons can be learned from the Space Shuttle, or even the Concorde aircraft. For all of the above topics, efficient business systems must be established for comprehensive program management and good throughput. Drawings, specifications, and manuals for an entire launch vehicle are often in different formats from multiple vendors, plus they have proprietary constraints. Nonetheless, the integration team must ensure that all data needed is compatible and visible to each appropriate team member. Ground processing systems for scheduling, tracking, problem resolution, etc. must be well laid-out. The balance between COTS (commercial off the shelf) and custom software is difficult. Multiple customers, vendors, launch sites, and landing sites add to the complexity of efficient IT (Information Technology) tools.

Ingalls, John↗

NASA NTRS2010

Model for Simulating a Spiral Software-Development Process

A discrete-event simulation model, and a computer program that implements the model, have been developed as means of analyzing a spiral software-development process. This model can be tailored to specific development environments for use by software project managers in making quantitative cases for deciding among different software-development processes, courses of action, and cost estimates. A spiral process can be contrasted with a waterfall process, which is a traditional process that consists of a sequence of activities that include analysis of requirements, design, coding, testing, and support. A spiral process is an iterative process that can be regarded as a repeating modified waterfall process. Each iteration includes assessment of risk, analysis of requirements, design, coding, testing, delivery, and evaluation. A key difference between a spiral and a waterfall process is that a spiral process can accommodate changes in requirements at each iteration, whereas in a waterfall process, requirements are considered to be fixed from the beginning and, therefore, a waterfall process is not flexible enough for some projects, especially those in which requirements are not known at the beginning or may change during development. For a given project, a spiral process may cost more and take more time than does a waterfall process, but may better satisfy a customer's expectations and needs. Models for simulating various waterfall processes have been developed previously, but until now, there have been no models for simulating spiral processes. The present spiral-process-simulating model and the software that implements it were developed by extending a discrete-event simulation process model of the IEEE 12207 Software Development Process, which was built using commercially available software known as the Process Analysis Tradeoff Tool (PATT). Typical inputs to PATT models include industry-average values of product size (expressed as number of lines of code), productivity (number of lines of code per hour), and number of defects per source line of code. The user provides the number of resources, the overall percent of effort that should be allocated to each process step, and the number of desired staff members for each step. The output of PATT includes the size of the product, a measure of effort, a measure of rework effort, the duration of the entire process, and the numbers of injected, detected, and corrected defects as well as a number of other interesting features. In the development of the present model, steps were added to the IEEE 12207 waterfall process, and this model and its implementing software were made to run repeatedly through the sequence of steps, each repetition representing an iteration in a spiral process. Because the IEEE 12207 model is founded on a waterfall paradigm, it enables direct comparison of spiral and waterfall processes. The model can be used throughout a software-development project to analyze the project as more information becomes available. For instance, data from early iterations can be used as inputs to the model, and the model can be used to estimate the time and cost of carrying the project to completion.

Mizell, Carolyn↗

NASA NTRS1999

NASGRO 3.0: A Software for Analyzing Aging Aircraft

Structural integrity analysis of aging aircraft is a critical necessity in view of the increasing numbers of such aircraft in general aviation, the airlines and the military. Efforts are in progress by NASA, the FAA and the DoD to focus attention on aging aircraft safety. The present paper describes the NASGRO software which is well-suited for effectively analyzing the behavior of defects that may be found in aging aircraft. The newly revised Version 3.0 has many features specifically implemented to suit the needs of the aircraft community. The fatigue crack growth computer program NASA/FLAGRO 2.0 was originally developed to analyze space hardware such as the Space Shuttle, the International Space Station and the associated payloads. Due to popular demand, the software was enhanced to suit the needs of the aircraft industry. Major improvements in Version 3.0 are the incorporation of the ability to read aircraft spectra of unlimited size, generation of common aircraft fatigue load blocks, and the incorporation of crack-growth models which include load-interaction effects such as retardation due to overloads and acceleration due to underloads. Five new crack-growth models, viz., generalized Willenborg, modified generalized Willenborg, constant closure model, Walker-Chang model and the deKoning-Newman strip-yield model, have been implemented. To facilitate easier input of geometry, material properties and load spectra, a Windows-style graphical user interface has been developed. Features to quickly change the input and rerun the problem as well as examine the output are incorporated. NASGRO has been organized into three modules, the crack-growth module being the primary one. The other two modules are the boundary element module and the material properties module. The boundary-element module provides the ability to model and analyze complex two-dimensional problems to obtain stresses and stress-intensity factors. The material properties module allows users to store and curve-fit fatigue-crack growth data. On-line help and documentation are provided for each of the modules. In addition to the popular PC windows version, a unix-based X-windows version of NASGRO is also available. A portable C++ class library called WxWindows was used to facilitate cross-platform availability of the software.

Mettu, S. R.↗