Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Complex Systems 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 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2018

Designing Graceful Degradation into Complex Systems: The Interaction Between Causes of Degradation and the Association with Degradation Prevention and Recovery

System resilience is critical to safety in air traffic control. An important element of maintaining resilience is the ability of systems to degrade gracefully. Of the available graceful degradation research, a majority of studies have focused primarily on technological causes of degradation only, limiting an ecologically valid understanding of the causes of degradation in air traffic control, and the preventative and mitigative strategies that enable graceful degradation. The current study aimed to address this research gap by investigating causes of degradation in air traffic control (ATC) across the broad categories of technology, the environment, and the human operator, and the potential interactions between these causes. 12 retired controllers (ATCOs - Air Traffic Control Officers) participated in semi-structured interviews focused on previous experience of causes of degradation and mitigation strategies. Findings provide an understanding of causation of degradation in air traffic control, and the prevention and mitigation strategies that moderate the relationship between cause and system effect. Findings confirmed that causes appear to interact to create compound, multiple effects on overall system performance. Findings also revealed prevention and mitigation strategies utilized to moderate the effect of the cause on the system. In order to gain an ecologically valid understanding of the causes of degradation, and effective prevention or mitigation strategies, causes from multiple categories, and the interactions between them, must be identified. Findings have implications for designers of future air traffic control systems to ensure the ability of the system to gracefully degrade, as well as risk assessment and system validation processes.

Graceful Degradation↗
NASA NTRS1966

Chart system simplifies identification of complex design assemblies

Identification breakdown chart that lists the component parts required for any specific end item is used to identify rapidly and accurately, from numerous drawings, all the component parts of a complex design assembly. Cylindrical and complex configurations are depicted as continuous flat surfaces for ready identification.

Morin, H. P.↗
NASA NTRS1989

Human performance models for computer-aided engineering

This report discusses a topic important to the field of computational human factors: models of human performance and their use in computer-based engineering facilities for the design of complex systems. It focuses on a particular human factors design problem -- the design of cockpit systems for advanced helicopters -- and on a particular aspect of human performance -- vision and related cognitive functions. By focusing in this way, the authors were able to address the selected topics in some depth and develop findings and recommendations that they believe have application to many other aspects of human performance and to other design domains.

Elkind, Jerome I.↗
NASA NTRS2001

Toward Failure Modeling In Complex Dynamic Systems: Impact of Design and Manufacturing Variations

When designing vehicle vibration monitoring systems for aerospace devices, it is common to use well-established models of vibration features to determine whether failures or defects exist. Most of the algorithms used for failure detection rely on these models to detect significant changes during a flight environment. In actual practice, however, most vehicle vibration monitoring systems are corrupted by high rates of false alarms and missed detections. Research conducted at the NASA Ames Research Center has determined that a major reason for the high rates of false alarms and missed detections is the numerous sources of statistical variations that are not taken into account in the. modeling assumptions. In this paper, we address one such source of variations, namely, those caused during the design and manufacturing of rotating machinery components that make up aerospace systems. We present a novel way of modeling the vibration response by including design variations via probabilistic methods. The results demonstrate initial feasibility of the method, showing great promise in developing a general methodology for designing more accurate aerospace vehicle vibration monitoring systems.

Tumer, Irem Y.↗
NASA NTRS2015

A Case Study on the Application of a Structured Experimental Method for Optimal Parameter Design of a Complex Control System

This report documents a case study on the application of Reliability Engineering techniques to achieve an optimal balance between performance and robustness by tuning the functional parameters of a complex non-linear control system. For complex systems with intricate and non-linear patterns of interaction between system components, analytical derivation of a mathematical model of system performance and robustness in terms of functional parameters may not be feasible or cost-effective. The demonstrated approach is simple, structured, effective, repeatable, and cost and time efficient. This general approach is suitable for a wide range of systems.

Torres-Pomales, Wilfredo↗
NASA NTRS2014

A Model-Based Approach to Developing Your Mission Operations System

Model-Based System Engineering (MBSE) is an increasingly popular methodology for designing complex engineering systems. As the use of MBSE has grown, it has begun to be applied to systems that are less hardware-based and more people- and process-based. We describe our approach to incorporating MBSE as a way to streamline development, and how to build a model consisting of core resources, such as requirements and interfaces, that can be adapted and used by new and upcoming projects. By comparing traditional Mission Operations System (MOS) system engineering with an MOS designed via a model, we will demonstrate the benefits to be obtained by incorporating MBSE in system engineering design processes.

mos↗
NASA NTRS2005

Systems Engineering and Integration for Advanced Life Support System and HST

Systems engineering (SE) discipline has revolutionized the way engineers and managers think about solving issues related to design of complex systems: With continued development of state-of-the-art technologies, systems are becoming more complex and therefore, a systematic approach is essential to control and manage their integrated design and development. This complexity is driven from integration issues. In this case, subsystems must interact with one another in order to achieve integration objectives, and also achieve the overall system's required performance. Systems engineering process addresses these issues at multiple levels. It is a technology and management process dedicated to controlling all aspects of system life cycle to assure integration at all levels. The Advanced Integration Matrix (AIM) project serves as the systems engineering and integration function for the Human Support Technology (HST) program. AIM provides means for integrated test facilities and personnel for performance trade studies, analyses, integrated models, test results, and validated requirements of the integration of HST. The goal of AIM is to address systems-level integration issues for exploration missions. It will use an incremental systems integration approach to yield technologies, baselines for further development, and possible breakthrough concepts in the areas of technological and organizational interfaces, total information flow, system wide controls, technical synergism, mission operations protocols and procedures, and human-machine interfaces.

Kamarani, Ali K.↗
NASA NTRS2000

Aerospace Systems Design in NASA's Collaborative Engineering Environment

Past designs of complex aerospace systems involved an environment consisting of collocated design teams with project managers, technical discipline experts, and other experts (e.g., manufacturing and systems operation). These experts were generally qualified only on the basis of past design experience and typically had access to a limited set of integrated analysis tools. These environments provided less than desirable design fidelity, often lead to the inability of assessing critical programmatic and technical issues (e.g., cost, risk, technical impacts), and generally derived a design that was not necessarily optimized across the entire system. The continually changing, modern aerospace industry demands systems design processes that involve the best talent available (no matter where it resides) and access to the the best design and analysis tools. A solution to these demands involves a design environment referred to as collaborative engineering. The collaborative engineering environment evolving within the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is a capability that enables the Agency's engineering infrastructure to interact and use the best state-of-the-art tools and data across organizational boundaries. Using collaborative engineering, the collocated team is replaced with an interactive team structure where the team members are geographical distributed and the best engineering talent can be applied to the design effort regardless of physical location. In addition, a more efficient, higher quality design product is delivered by bringing together the best engineering talent with more up-to-date design and analysis tools. These tools are focused on interactive, multidisciplinary design and analysis with emphasis on the complete life cycle of the system, and they include nontraditional, integrated tools for life cycle cost estimation and risk assessment. NASA has made substantial progress during the last two years in developing a collaborative engineering environment. NASA is planning to use this collaborative engineering engineering infrastructure to provide better aerospace systems life cycle design and analysis, which includes analytical assessment of the technical and programmatic aspects of a system from "cradle to grave." This paper describes the recent NASA developments in the area of collaborative engineering, the benefits (realized and anticipated) of using the developed capability, and the long-term plans for implementing this capability across Agency.

Monell, Donald W.↗
NASA NTRS1999

Aerospace Systems Design in NASA's Collaborative Engineering Environment

Past designs of complex aerospace systems involved an environment consisting of collocated design teams with project managers, technical discipline experts, and other experts (e.g. manufacturing and systems operations). These experts were generally qualified only on the basis of past design experience and typically had access to a limited set of integrated analysis tools. These environments provided less than desirable design fidelity, often lead to the inability of assessing critical programmatic and technical issues (e.g., cost risk, technical impacts), and generally derived a design that was not necessarily optimized across the entire system. The continually changing, modern aerospace industry demands systems design processes that involve the best talent available (no matter where it resides) and access to the best design and analysis tools. A solution to these demands involves a design environment referred to as collaborative engineering. The collaborative engineering environment evolving within the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is a capability that enables the Agency's engineering infrastructure to interact and use the best state-of-the-art tools and data across organizational boundaries. Using collaborative engineering, the collocated team is replaced with an interactive team structure where the team members are geographically distributed and the best engineering talent can be applied to the design effort regardless of physical location. In addition, a more efficient, higher quality design product is delivered by bringing together the best engineering talent with more up-to-date design and analysis tools. These tools are focused on interactive, multidisciplinary design and analysis with emphasis on the complete life cycle of the system, and they include nontraditional, integrated tools for life cycle cost estimation and risk assessment. NASA has made substantial progress during the last two years in developing a collaborative engineering environment. NASA is planning to use this collaborative engineering infrastructure to provide better aerospace systems life cycle design and analysis, which includes analytical assessment of the technical and programmatic aspects of a system from "cradle to grave." This paper describes the recent NASA developments in the area of collaborative engineering, the benefits (realized and anticipated) of using the developed capability, and the long-term plans for implementing this capability across the Agency.

Monell, Donald W.↗
NASA NTRS1997

An Algorithm for Integrated Subsystem Embodiment and System Synthesis

Consider the statement,'A system has two coupled subsystems, one of which dominates the design process. Each subsystem consists of discrete and continuous variables, and is solved using sequential analysis and solution.' To address this type of statement in the design of complex systems, three steps are required, namely, the embodiment of the statement in terms of entities on a computer, the mathematical formulation of subsystem models, and the resulting solution and system synthesis. In complex system decomposition, the subsystems are not isolated, self-supporting entities. Information such as constraints, goals, and design variables may be shared between entities. But many times in engineering problems, full communication and cooperation does not exist, information is incomplete, or one subsystem may dominate the design. Additionally, these engineering problems give rise to mathematical models involving nonlinear functions of both discrete and continuous design variables. In this dissertation an algorithm is developed to handle these types of scenarios for the domain-independent integration of subsystem embodiment, coordination, and system synthesis using constructs from Decision-Based Design, Game Theory, and Multidisciplinary Design Optimization. Implementation of the concept in this dissertation involves testing of the hypotheses using example problems and a motivating case study involving the design of a subsonic passenger aircraft.

Lewis, Kemper↗
NASA NTRS2011

Man-Machine Integration Design and Analysis System (MIDAS) v5: Augmentations, Motivations, and Directions for Aeronautics Applications

As automation and advanced technologies are introduced into transport systems ranging from the Next Generation Air Transportation System termed NextGen, to the advanced surface transportation systems as exemplified by the Intelligent Transportations Systems, to future systems designed for space exploration, there is an increased need to validly predict how the future systems will be vulnerable to error given the demands imposed by the assistive technologies. One formalized approach to study the impact of assistive technologies on the human operator in a safe and non-obtrusive manner is through the use of human performance models (HPMs). HPMs play an integral role when complex human-system designs are proposed, developed, and tested. One HPM tool termed the Man-machine Integration Design and Analysis System (MIDAS) is a NASA Ames Research Center HPM software tool that has been applied to predict human-system performance in various domains since 1986. MIDAS is a dynamic, integrated HPM and simulation environment that facilitates the design, visualization, and computational evaluation of complex man-machine system concepts in simulated operational environments. The paper will discuss a range of aviation specific applications including an approach used to model human error for NASA s Aviation Safety Program, and what-if analyses to evaluate flight deck technologies for NextGen operations. This chapter will culminate by raising two challenges for the field of predictive HPMs for complex human-system designs that evaluate assistive technologies: that of (1) model transparency and (2) model validation.

Gore, Brian F.↗
NASA NTRS1994

A rose by any other name: Certification seen as process rather than content

Green (1990) believes that the two main factors safeguarding flying from human error are both related to certification and regulation. First is the increasingly proceduralized nature of flying whereby as much as possible is reduced to a rule-based activity. Second is the emphasis placed upon training and competency checking of aircrew in simulators and in the air, both generally and for all particular types of aircraft flown. This leaves, believes Green, other human factors that are relatively unaddressed as yet and which can give rise to human reliability problems. These include: hardware factors and especially pilot/co-pilot relationships; and system factors including fatigue and cost/safety trade-offs. He also, importantly, identifies problems with the integration of the 'electronic crew member' following increased automation. Human reliability failures with artificial intelligence and automation, due to over-reliance on the system fail-safe mechanisms, or to operator under- confidence in the integrity or self-regulating capacity of the system, or to out-of-loop effects, are widely accepted as being due to deficiencies in plant design, planning, management and maintenance more than to 'operator error' - Reason's (1990) latent error or organization pathogens argument. Reliability failures in complex systems are well enough documented to give cause for concern and at least promote a debate on the merits of a full certification program. The purpose of this short paper is to seek out and explore what is valuable in certification, at the least to show that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages and at best to identify positive outcomes perhaps not obtainable in other ways. On both sides of the debate on certification there is general agreement on the need for a better human factors perspective and effort in complex aviation systems design. What is at issue is how this is to be promoted. It is incumbent upon opponents of certification to say how else such promotion be enabled. This is an exploratory and philosophical review, not a focused and specific one, and it will draw upon much that is not firmly in the domain of complex aviation systems.

Wilson, John R.↗
NASA NTRS1998

Integration of a CAD System Into an MDO Framework

NASA Langley has developed a heterogeneous distributed computing environment, called the Framework for Inter-disciplinary Design Optimization, or FIDO. Its purpose has been to demonstrate framework technical feasibility and usefulness for optimizing the preliminary design of complex systems and to provide a working environment for testing optimization schemes. Its initial implementation has been for a simplified model of preliminary design of a high-speed civil transport. Upgrades being considered for the FIDO system include a more complete geometry description, required by high-fidelity aerodynamics and structures codes and based on a commercial Computer Aided Design (CAD) system. This report presents the philosophy behind some of the decisions that have shaped the FIDO system and gives a brief case study of the problems and successes encountered in integrating a CAD system into the FEDO framework.

Townsend, J. C.↗
NASA NTRS2013

From STEM to STEAM: Toward a Human-Centered Education

The 20th century was based on local linear engineering of complicated systems. We made cars, airplanes and chemical plants for example. The 21st century has opened a new basis for holistic non-linear design of complex systems, such as the Internet, air traffic management and nanotechnologies. Complexity, interconnectivity, interaction and communication are major attributes of our evolving society. But, more interestingly, we have started to understand that chaos theories may be more important than reductionism, to better understand and thrive on our planet. Systems need to be investigated and tested as wholes, which requires a cross-disciplinary approach and new conceptual principles and tools. Consequently, schools cannot continue to teach isolated disciplines based on simple reductionism. Science; Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) should be integrated together with the Arts1 to promote creativity together with rationalization, and move to STEAM (with an "A" for Arts). This new concept emphasizes the possibility of longer-term socio-technical futures instead of short-term financial predictions that currently lead to uncontrolled economies. Human-centered design (HCD) can contribute to improving STEAM education technologies, systems and practices. HCD not only provides tools and techniques to build useful and usable things, but also an integrated approach to learning by doing, expressing and critiquing, exploring possible futures, and understanding complex systems.

Boy, Guy A.↗
NASA NTRS2015

A Framework of Working Across Disciplines in Early Design and R&D of Large Complex Engineered Systems

This paper examines four primary methods of working across disciplines during R&D and early design of large-scale complex engineered systems such as aerospace systems. A conceptualized framework, called the Combining System Elements framework, is presented to delineate several aspects of cross-discipline and system integration practice. The framework is derived from a theoretical and empirical analysis of current work practices in actual operational settings and is informed by theories from organization science and engineering. The explanatory framework may be used by teams to clarify assumptions and associated work practices, which may reduce ambiguity in understanding diverse approaches to early systems research, development and design. The framework also highlights that very different engineering results may be obtained depending on work practices, even when the goals for the engineered system are the same.

McGowan, Anna-Maria Rivas↗
NASA NTRS1989

DeMAID: A Design Manager's Aide for Intelligent Decomposition user's guide

A design problem is viewed as a complex system divisible into modules. Before the design of a complex system can begin, the couplings among modules and the presence of iterative loops is determined. This is important because the design manager must know how to group the modules into subsystems and how to assign subsystems to design teams so that changes in one subsystem will have predictable effects on other subsystems. Determining these subsystems is not an easy, straightforward process and often important couplings are overlooked. Moreover, the planning task must be repeated as new information become available or as the design specifications change. The purpose of this research is to develop a knowledge-based tool called the Design Manager's Aide for Intelligent Decomposition (DeMAID) to act as an intelligent advisor for the design manager. DeMaid identifies the subsystems of a complex design problem, orders them into a well-structured format, and marks the couplings among the subsystems to facilitate the use of multilevel tools. DeMAID also provides the design manager with the capability of examining the trade-offs between sequential and parallel processing. This type of approach could lead to a substantial savings or organizing and displaying a complex problem as a sequence of subsystems easily divisible among design teams. This report serves as a User's Guide for the program.

Rogers, James L.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Automation of POST Cases via External Optimizer and "Artificial p2" Calculation

During early conceptual design of complex systems, speed and accuracy are often at odds with one another. While many characteristics of the design are fluctuating rapidly during this phase there is nonetheless a need to acquire accurate data from which to down-select designs as these decisions will have a large impact upon program life-cycle cost. Therefore enabling the conceptual designer to produce accurate data in a timely manner is tantamount to program viability. For conceptual design of launch vehicles, trajectory analysis and optimization is a large hurdle. Tools such as the industry standard Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories (POST) have traditionally required an expert in the loop for setting up inputs, running the program, and analyzing the output. The solution space for trajectory analysis is in general non-linear and multi-modal requiring an experienced analyst to weed out sub-optimal designs in pursuit of the global optimum. While an experienced analyst presented with a vehicle similar to one which they have already worked on can likely produce optimal performance figures in a timely manner, as soon as the "experienced" or "similar" adjectives are invalid the process can become lengthy. In addition, an experienced analyst working on a similar vehicle may go into the analysis with preconceived ideas about what the vehicle's trajectory should look like which can result in sub-optimal performance being recorded. Thus, in any case but the ideal either time or accuracy can be sacrificed. In the authors' previous work a tool called multiPOST was created which captures the heuristics of a human analyst over the process of executing trajectory analysis with POST. However without the instincts of a human in the loop, this method relied upon Monte Carlo simulation to find successful trajectories. Overall the method has mixed results, and in the context of optimizing multiple vehicles it is inefficient in comparison to the method presented POST's internal optimizer functions like any other gradient-based optimizer. It has a specified variable to optimize whose value is represented as optval, a set of dependent constraints to meet with associated forms and tolerances whose value is represented as p2, and a set of independent variables known as the u-vector to modify in pursuit of optimality. Each of these quantities are calculated or manipulated at a certain phase within the trajectory. The optimizer is further constrained by the requirement that the input u-vector must result in a trajectory which proceeds through each of the prescribed events in the input file. For example, if the input u-vector causes the vehicle to crash before it can achieve the orbital parameters required for a parking orbit, then the run will fail without engaging the optimizer, and a p2 value of exactly zero is returned. This poses a problem, as this "non-connecting" region of the u-vector space is far larger than the "connecting" region which returns a non-zero value of p2 and can be worked on by the internal optimizer. Finding this connecting region and more specifically the global optimum within this region has traditionally required the use of an expert analyst.

Dees, Patrick D.↗