SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “reliable”

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 73 records · Page 4

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2024

Sensitivity of fatigue reliability in wind turbines: effects of design turbulence and the Wöhler exponent

Fatigue assessment of wind turbines involves three main sources of uncertainty: material resistance, load, and the damage accumulation model. Many studies focus on increasing the accuracy of fatigue load assessment to improve the fatigue reliability. Probabilistic modeling of the wind's turbulence standard deviation is an example of an approach used for this purpose. Editions 3 and 4 of the IEC standard for the design of wind energy generation systems (IEC 61400-1) suggest different probability distributions as alternatives for the representative turbulence in the normal turbulence model (NTM) of edition 1. There are debates on whether the suggested distributions provide conservative reliability levels, as the established design safety factors are calibrated based on the representative turbulence approach. The current study addresses the debate by comparing annual reliability based on different scenarios of NTM using a probabilistic approach. More importantly, it elaborates on the relative importance of load assessment accuracy in defining the fatigue reliability. Using the DTU 10 MW reference wind turbine and the first-order reliability method (FORM), we study the changes in the annual reliability level and its sensitivity to the three main random inputs. We perform the study considering the blade root flapwise and the tower base fore–aft moments, assuming different fatigue exponents in each load channel. The results show that integration over distributions of turbulence in each mean wind speed results in less conservative annual reliability levels than representative turbulence. The difference in the reliability levels varies according to turbulence distribution and the fatigue exponent. In the case of the tower base, the difference in the annual reliability index after 20 years can be up to 50 %. However, the model and material uncertainty have much higher effects on the reliability levels compared to load uncertainty. Knowledge about such differences in the reliability levels due to the choice of turbulence distribution is especially important, as it impacts the extent of lifetime extension through reliability reassessments.

17 WIND ENERGY↗

NASA NTRS1991

Reliability growth models for NASA applications

The objective of any reliability growth study is prediction of reliability at some future instant. Another objective is statistical inference, estimation of reliability for reliability demonstration. A cause of concern for the development engineer and management is that reliability demands an excessive number of tests for reliability demonstration. For example, the Space Transportation Main Engine (STME) program requirements call for .99 reliability at 90 pct. confidence for demonstration. This requires running 230 tests with zero failure if a classical binomial model is used. It is therefore also an objective to explore the reliability growth models for reliability demonstration and tracking and their applicability to NASA programs. A reliability growth model is an analytical tool used to monitor the reliability progress during the development program and to establish a test plan to demonstrate an acceptable system reliability.

Taneja, Vidya S.↗

NASA NTRS2013

FY12 End of Year Report for NEPP DDR2 Reliability

This document reports the status of the NASA Electronic Parts and Packaging (NEPP) Double Data Rate 2 (DDR2) Reliability effort for FY2012. The task expanded the focus of evaluating reliability effects targeted for device examination. FY11 work highlighted the need to test many more parts and to examine more operating conditions, in order to provide useful recommendations for NASA users of these devices. This year's efforts focused on development of test capabilities, particularly focusing on those that can be used to determine overall lot quality and identify outlier devices, and test methods that can be employed on components for flight use. Flight acceptance of components potentially includes considerable time for up-screening (though this time may not currently be used for much reliability testing). Manufacturers are much more knowledgeable about the relevant reliability mechanisms for each of their devices. We are not in a position to know what the appropriate reliability tests are for any given device, so although reliability testing could be focused for a given device, we are forced to perform a large campaign of reliability tests to identify devices with degraded reliability. With the available up-screening time for NASA parts, it is possible to run many device performance studies. This includes verification of basic datasheet characteristics. Furthermore, it is possible to perform significant pattern sensitivity studies. By doing these studies we can establish higher reliability of flight components. In order to develop these approaches, it is necessary to develop test capability that can identify reliability outliers. To do this we must test many devices to ensure outliers are in the sample, and we must develop characterization capability to measure many different parameters. For FY12 we increased capability for reliability characterization and sample size. We increased sample size this year by moving from loose devices to dual inline memory modules (DIMMs) with an approximate reduction of 20 to 50 times in terms of per device under test (DUT) cost. By increasing sample size we have improved our ability to characterize devices that may be considered reliability outliers. This report provides an update on the effort to improve DDR2 testing capability. Although focused on DDR2, the methods being used can be extended to DDR and DDR3 with relative ease.

Guertin, Steven M.↗

NASA NTRS2015

Addressing Unison and Uniqueness of Reliability and Safety for Better Integration

For a long time, both in theory and in practice, safety and reliability have not been clearly differentiated, which leads to confusion, inefficiency, and sometime counter-productive practices in executing each of these two disciplines. It is imperative to address the uniqueness and the unison of these two disciplines to help both disciplines become more effective and to promote a better integration of the two for enhancing safety and reliability in our products as an overall objective. There are two purposes of this paper. First, it will investigate the uniqueness and unison of each discipline and discuss the interrelationship between the two for awareness and clarification. Second, after clearly understanding the unique roles and interrelationship between the two in a product design and development life cycle, we offer suggestions to enhance the disciplines with distinguished and focused roles, to better integrate the two, and to improve unique sets of skills and tools of reliability and safety processes. From the uniqueness aspect, the paper identifies and discusses the respective uniqueness of reliability and safety from their roles, accountability, nature of requirements, technical scopes, detailed technical approaches, and analysis boundaries. It is misleading to equate unreliable to unsafe, since a safety hazard may or may not be related to the component, sub-system, or system functions, which are primarily what reliability addresses. Similarly, failing-to-function may or may not lead to hazard events. Examples will be given in the paper from aerospace, defense, and consumer products to illustrate the uniqueness and differences between reliability and safety. From the unison aspect, the paper discusses what the commonalities between reliability and safety are, and how these two disciplines are linked, integrated, and supplemented with each other to accomplish the customer requirements and product goals. In addition to understanding the uniqueness in reliability and safety, a better understanding of unison and commonalities will further help in understanding the interaction between reliability and safety. This paper discusses the unison and uniqueness of reliability and safety. It presents some suggestions for better integration of the two disciplines in terms of technical approaches, tools, techniques, and skills to enhance the role of reliability and safety in supporting a product design and development life cycle. The paper also discusses eliminating the redundant effort and minimizing the overlap of reliability and safety analyses for an efficient implementation of the two disciplines.

Huang, Zhaofeng↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Misperception in Reliability Growth Modelling

The Duane reliability growth model is n(t)/t = k t^-alpha (1) The reliability growth rate is alpha, the downward slope of n(t)/t versus t. It usually varies from 0.2 to 0.6. k is a constant. Crow used a 56-failure data set to illustrate reliability growth.1 A graphical Duane model fit to this data gives n(t)/t = 0.640 t^-0.283 (2) A problem in using the Duane-Crow reliability growth model is that it assumes that reliability growth continues and the failure rate decreases throughout the test period. It is more usual that reliability growth stops when the failure rated is low enough. Growth testing is often followed by testing with a low constant failure rate due to rare or uncorrectable failure modes. As more and more low constant rate acceptable failures accumulate after the period of reliability growth, the reliability growth time exponent alpha decreases toward zero. This occurs if constant rate failures are treated as occurring during the reliability growth period. It is more accurate to model a period of initial reliability growth followed by testing without repair to more accurately determine the final constant failure rate. This is done in the abcd model. n(t)/t = a t^-b + c from t = 0 to td (3) = c + d after td, where d = a td^-b (4) The term a t^-b describes the continuous reliability growth that continues out to time td and c is the constant uncorrected failure rate. The parameter d represents an additional constant failure rate due to correctable but uncorrected failure modes. After the reliability growth process is terminated, the failure rate n(t)/t = c + d.

Harry W Jones↗

NASA NTRS2024

High Reliability at Minimum Cost

This paper investigates the minimum cost of improving the reliability of complex technical systems. The two major methods to improve reliability are redesigning the system for higher reliability or providing redundant components to replace failed elements. The costs of redesign for reliability or adding redundancy are estimated. The most cost-effective combination for high reliability can be identified. The cost of increasing the intrinsic reliability of a system can be modeled as cost proportional to 1/(system failure rate) a , where the exponent “a” measures the difficulty of increasing reliability. The “a” exponent can vary from 0.25 to about 2.5. Operational reliability can also be increased by using redundant systems. The failure rate for N parallel redundant units is (system failure rate) N . The cost of redundancy is N times the system cost. The total redundant system cost is proportional to N/(system failure rate) a . The cost of redundancy increases as N gets larger, but larger N allows a higher system failure rate, which reduces the system design cost. There is a certain N, a certain level of redundancy, that has the minimum cost to achieve the required overall redundant system failure rate. The minimum cost for the redundant system is achieved at the optimum level of redundancy. The N for minimum cost is equal to -a ln (redundant system failure rate). The minimum cost of the N redundant systems is proportional to N * (original system failure rate) a . The optimum redesigned individual system failure rate is proportional to exp (-1/a), so the greater the difficulty, the higher the optimum individual system failure rate. Increasing the intrinsic reliability of a system encounters diminishing returns and at some point it becomes more cost-effective to add redundancy. The difficulty of increasing intrinsic system reliability determines the optimum design for high reliability at minimum cost.

reliability↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

High Reliability at Minimum Cost

reliability↗

NASA NTRS2024

Redundancy: How Many Unreliable Spares are Needed for High Reliability and Confidence?

This paper investigates the number of redundant units needed to achieve high reliability with high confidence. The approach is developed for the case when the system failure rate is too high for a single unit to provide the required reliability over the mission duration. To achieve high reliability, N redundant units can be used, one operating unit and N – 1 spares. If the unit failure rate is f, the mission length is L, and f * L is small (not the case assumed here), the unit failure probability over the mission duration is F1 = f * L << 1. In this case, the probability that all N units will fail is Ffail = F1 N , and the needed redundancy N = LN(F)/LN(F1). For the case of large f * L assumed here, F1 = f * L > 1, and F1 is the expected number of failures during the mission. (When F1 = f * L << 1, F1 is the probability that a unit will fail during the mission. When F1 = f * L > 1, F1 is the expected number of failures during the mission.) The needed redundancy, N, to achieve the required N redundant unit reliability, FN, can be computed using the cumulative Poisson distribution with mean equal to F1. The number of spares, N - 1, is increased until the probability - that the total number of failures will be less than N -1 - is equal to the required reliability. The confidence that this reliability can be achieved can be computed using the cumulative Poisson distribution or the chi-square distribution. Since the measured unit failure rate, f, has some probabilistic uncertainty, the actual failure rate will be randomly higher or lower. This means that the reliability of the N redundant systems will be overestimated about half the time. Adding more redundant units increases the confidence that the required reliability will be achieved. For a fixed number of redundant units, the expected reliability and confidence can be traded off, since lower reliability goals will be achieved with higher confidence. Both the desired reliability and confidence can be specified as initial requirements and the needed number of redundant units estimated using the measured failure rate.

Redundancy↗

NASA NTRS2009

Parts and Components Reliability Assessment: A Cost Effective Approach

System reliability assessment is a methodology which incorporates reliability analyses performed at parts and components level such as Reliability Prediction, Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) to assess risks, perform design tradeoffs, and therefore, to ensure effective productivity and/or mission success. The system reliability is used to optimize the product design to accommodate today?s mandated budget, manpower, and schedule constraints. Stand ard based reliability assessment is an effective approach consisting of reliability predictions together with other reliability analyses for electronic, electrical, and electro-mechanical (EEE) complex parts and components of large systems based on failure rate estimates published by the United States (U.S.) military or commercial standards and handbooks. Many of these standards are globally accepted and recognized. The reliability assessment is especially useful during the initial stages when the system design is still in the development and hard failure data is not yet available or manufacturers are not contractually obliged by their customers to publish the reliability estimates/predictions for their parts and components. This paper presents a methodology to assess system reliability using parts and components reliability estimates to ensure effective productivity and/or mission success in an efficient manner, low cost, and tight schedule.

Lee, Lydia↗

NASA NTRS2010

Ultra Reliable Closed Loop Life Support for Long Space Missions

Spacecraft human life support systems can achieve ultra reliability by providing sufficient spares to replace all failed components. The additional mass of spares for ultra reliability is approximately equal to the original system mass, provided that the original system reliability is not too low. Acceptable reliability can be achieved for the Space Shuttle and Space Station by preventive maintenance and by replacing failed units. However, on-demand maintenance and repair requires a logistics supply chain in place to provide the needed spares. In contrast, a Mars or other long space mission must take along all the needed spares, since resupply is not possible. Long missions must achieve ultra reliability, a very low failure rate per hour, since they will take years rather than weeks and cannot be cut short if a failure occurs. Also, distant missions have a much higher mass launch cost per kilogram than near-Earth missions. Achieving ultra reliable spacecraft life support systems with acceptable mass will require a well-planned and extensive development effort. Analysis must determine the reliability requirement and allocate it to subsystems and components. Ultra reliability requires reducing the intrinsic failure causes, providing spares to replace failed components and having "graceful" failure modes. Technologies, components, and materials must be selected and designed for high reliability. Long duration testing is needed to confirm very low failure rates. Systems design should segregate the failure causes in the smallest, most easily replaceable parts. The system must be designed, developed, integrated, and tested with system reliability in mind. Maintenance and reparability of failed units must not add to the probability of failure. The overall system must be tested sufficiently to identify any design errors. A program to develop ultra reliable space life support systems with acceptable mass should start soon since it must be a long term effort.

Jones, Harry W.↗

NASA NTRS2011

NASA Applications and Lessons Learned in Reliability Engineering

Since the Shuttle Challenger accident in 1986, communities across NASA have been developing and extensively using quantitative reliability and risk assessment methods in their decision making process. This paper discusses several reliability engineering applications that NASA has used over the year to support the design, development, and operation of critical space flight hardware. Specifically, the paper discusses several reliability engineering applications used by NASA in areas such as risk management, inspection policies, components upgrades, reliability growth, integrated failure analysis, and physics based probabilistic engineering analysis. In each of these areas, the paper provides a brief discussion of a case study to demonstrate the value added and the criticality of reliability engineering in supporting NASA project and program decisions to fly safely. Examples of these case studies discussed are reliability based life limit extension of Shuttle Space Main Engine (SSME) hardware, Reliability based inspection policies for Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) turbine disc, probabilistic structural engineering analysis for reliability prediction of the SSME alternate turbo-pump development, impact of ET foam reliability on the Space Shuttle System risk, and reliability based Space Shuttle upgrade for safety. Special attention is given in this paper to the physics based probabilistic engineering analysis applications and their critical role in evaluating the reliability of NASA development hardware including their potential use in a research and technology development environment.

Safie, Fayssal M.↗

NASA NTRS2015

Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment - How They Play Together

PRA methodology is one of the probabilistic analysis methods that NASA brought from the nuclear industry to assess the risk of LOM, LOV and LOC for launch vehicles. PRA is a system scenario based risk assessment that uses a combination of fault trees, event trees, event sequence diagrams, and probability and statistical data to analyze the risk of a system, a process, or an activity. It is a process designed to answer three basic questions: What can go wrong? How likely is it? What is the severity of the degradation? Since 1986, NASA, along with industry partners, has conducted a number of PRA studies to predict the overall launch vehicles risks. Planning Research Corporation conducted the first of these studies in 1988. In 1995, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) conducted a comprehensive PRA study. In July 1996, NASA conducted a two-year study (October 1996 - September 1998) to develop a model that provided the overall Space Shuttle risk and estimates of risk changes due to proposed Space Shuttle upgrades. After the Columbia accident, NASA conducted a PRA on the Shuttle External Tank (ET) foam. This study was the most focused and extensive risk assessment that NASA has conducted in recent years. It used a dynamic, physics-based, integrated system analysis approach to understand the integrated system risk due to ET foam loss in flight. Most recently, a PRA for Ares I launch vehicle has been performed in support of the Constellation program. Reliability, on the other hand, addresses the loss of functions. In a broader sense, reliability engineering is a discipline that involves the application of engineering principles to the design and processing of products, both hardware and software, for meeting product reliability requirements or goals. It is a very broad design-support discipline. It has important interfaces with many other engineering disciplines. Reliability as a figure of merit (i.e. the metric) is the probability that an item will perform its intended function(s) for a specified mission profile. In general, the reliability metric can be calculated through the analyses using reliability demonstration and reliability prediction methodologies. Reliability analysis is very critical for understanding component failure mechanisms and in identifying reliability critical design and process drivers. The following sections discuss the PRA process and reliability engineering in detail and provide an application where reliability analysis and PRA were jointly used in a complementary manner to support a Space Shuttle flight risk assessment.

Safie, Fayssal M.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Scaled CMOS Technology Reliability Users Guide

The desire to assess the reliability of emerging scaled microelectronics technologies through faster reliability trials and more accurate acceleration models is the precursor for further research and experimentation in this relevant field. The effect of semiconductor scaling on microelectronics product reliability is an important aspect to the high reliability application user. From the perspective of a customer or user, who in many cases must deal with very limited, if any, manufacturer's reliability data to assess the product for a highly-reliable application, product-level testing is critical in the characterization and reliability assessment of advanced nanometer semiconductor scaling effects on microelectronics reliability. A methodology on how to accomplish this and techniques for deriving the expected product-level reliability on commercial memory products are provided.Competing mechanism theory and the multiple failure mechanism model are applied to the experimental results of scaled SDRAM products. Accelerated stress testing at multiple conditions is applied at the product level of several scaled memory products to assess the performance degradation and product reliability. Acceleration models are derived for each case. For several scaled SDRAM products, retention time degradation is studied and two distinct soft error populations are observed with each technology generation: early breakdown, characterized by randomly distributed weak bits with Weibull slope (beta)=1, and a main population breakdown with an increasing failure rate. Retention time soft error rates are calculated and a multiple failure mechanism acceleration model with parameters is derived for each technology. Defect densities are calculated and reflect a decreasing trend in the percentage of random defective bits for each successive product generation. A normalized soft error failure rate of the memory data retention time in FIT/Gb and FIT/cm2 for several scaled SDRAM generations is presented revealing a power relationship. General models describing the soft error rates across scaled product generations are presented. The analysis methodology may be applied to other scaled microelectronic products and their key parameters.

Microelectronics Reliability↗

NASA NTRS2016

Applicability and Limitations of Reliability Allocation Methods

Reliability allocation process may be described as the process of assigning reliability requirements to individual components within a system to attain the specified system reliability. For large systems, the allocation process is often performed at different stages of system design. The allocation process often begins at the conceptual stage. As the system design develops, more information about components and the operating environment becomes available, different allocation methods can be considered. Reliability allocation methods are usually divided into two categories: weighting factors and optimal reliability allocation. When properly applied, these methods can produce reasonable approximations. Reliability allocation techniques have limitations and implied assumptions that need to be understood by system engineers. Applying reliability allocation techniques without understanding their limitations and assumptions can produce unrealistic results. This report addresses weighting factors, optimal reliability allocation techniques, and identifies the applicability and limitations of each reliability allocation technique.

Reliability allocation↗

NASA NTRS1992

User's guide to the Reliability Estimation System Testbed (REST)

The Reliability Estimation System Testbed is an X-window based reliability modeling tool that was created to explore the use of the Reliability Modeling Language (RML). RML was defined to support several reliability analysis techniques including modularization, graphical representation, Failure Mode Effects Simulation (FMES), and parallel processing. These techniques are most useful in modeling large systems. Using modularization, an analyst can create reliability models for individual system components. The modules can be tested separately and then combined to compute the total system reliability. Because a one-to-one relationship can be established between system components and the reliability modules, a graphical user interface may be used to describe the system model. RML was designed to permit message passing between modules. This feature enables reliability modeling based on a run time simulation of the system wide effects of a component's failure modes. The use of failure modes effects simulation enhances the analyst's ability to correctly express system behavior when using the modularization approach to reliability modeling. To alleviate the computation bottleneck often found in large reliability models, REST was designed to take advantage of parallel processing on hypercube processors.

Nicol, David M.↗

NASA NTRS2003

Overview of the SAE G-11 RMSL (Reliability, Maintainability, Supportability, and Logistics) Division Activities and Technical Projects

The SAE G-11 RMSL (Reliability, Maintainability, Supportability, and Logistics) Division activities include identification and fulfillment of joint industry, government, and academia needs for development and implementation of RMSL technologies. Four Projects in the Probabilistic Methods area and two in the area of RMSL have been identified. These are: (1) Evaluation of Probabilistic Technology - progress has been made toward the selection of probabilistic application cases. Future effort will focus on assessment of multiple probabilistic softwares in solving selected engineering problems using probabilistic methods. Relevance to Industry & Government - Case studies of typical problems encountering uncertainties, results of solutions to these problems run by different codes, and recommendations on which code is applicable for what problems; (2) Probabilistic Input Preparation - progress has been made in identifying problem cases such as those with no data, little data and sufficient data. Future effort will focus on developing guidelines for preparing input for probabilistic analysis, especially with no or little data. Relevance to Industry & Government - Too often, we get bogged down thinking we need a lot of data before we can quantify uncertainties. Not True. There are ways to do credible probabilistic analysis with little data; (3) Probabilistic Reliability - probabilistic reliability literature search has been completed along with what differentiates it from statistical reliability. Work on computation of reliability based on quantification of uncertainties in primitive variables is in progress. Relevance to Industry & Government - Correct reliability computations both at the component and system level are needed so one can design an item based on its expected usage and life span; (4) Real World Applications of Probabilistic Methods (PM) - A draft of volume 1 comprising aerospace applications has been released. Volume 2, a compilation of real world applications of probabilistic methods with essential information demonstrating application type and timehost savings by the use of probabilistic methods for generic applications is in progress. Relevance to Industry & Government - Too often, we say, 'The Proof is in the Pudding'. With help from many contributors, we hope to produce such a document. Problem is - not too many people are coming forward due to proprietary nature. So, we are asking to document only minimum information including problem description, what method used, did it result in any savings, and how much?; (5) Software Reliability - software reliability concept, program, implementation, guidelines, and standards are being documented. Relevance to Industry & Government - software reliability is a complex issue that must be understood & addressed in all facets of business in industry, government, and other institutions. We address issues, concepts, ways to implement solutions, and guidelines for maximizing software reliability; (6) Maintainability Standards - maintainability/serviceability industry standard/guidelines and industry best practices and methodologies used in performing maintainability/ serviceability tasks are being documented. Relevance to Industry & Government - Any industry or government process, project, and/or tool must be maintained and serviced to realize the life and performance it was designed for. We address issues and develop guidelines for optimum performance & life.

Singhal, Surendra N.↗

NASA NTRS2003

System and Software Reliability (C103)

Within the last decade better reliability models (hardware. software, system) than those currently used have been theorized and developed but not implemented in practice. Previous research on software reliability has shown that while some existing software reliability models are practical, they are no accurate enough. New paradigms of development (e.g. OO) have appeared and associated reliability models have been proposed posed but not investigated. Hardware models have been extensively investigated but not integrated into a system framework. System reliability modeling is the weakest of the three. NASA engineers need better methods and tools to demonstrate that the products meet NASA requirements for reliability measurement. For the new models for the software component of the last decade, there is a great need to bring them into a form that they can be used on software intensive systems. The Statistical Modeling and Estimation of Reliability Functions for Systems (SMERFS'3) tool is an existing vehicle that may be used to incorporate these new modeling advances. Adapting some existing software reliability modeling changes to accommodate major changes in software development technology may also show substantial improvement in prediction accuracy. With some additional research, the next step is to identify and investigate system reliability. System reliability models could then be incorporated in a tool such as SMERFS'3. This tool with better models would greatly add value in assess in GSFC projects.

Wallace, Dolores↗

NASA NTRS2005

Lifetime Reliability Prediction of Ceramic Structures Under Transient Thermomechanical Loads

An analytical methodology is developed to predict the probability of survival (reliability) of ceramic components subjected to harsh thermomechanical loads that can vary with time (transient reliability analysis). This capability enables more accurate prediction of ceramic component integrity against fracture in situations such as turbine startup and shutdown, operational vibrations, atmospheric reentry, or other rapid heating or cooling situations (thermal shock). The transient reliability analysis methodology developed herein incorporates the following features: fast-fracture transient analysis (reliability analysis without slow crack growth, SCG); transient analysis with SCG (reliability analysis with time-dependent damage due to SCG); a computationally efficient algorithm to compute the reliability for components subjected to repeated transient loading (block loading); cyclic fatigue modeling using a combined SCG and Walker fatigue law; proof testing for transient loads; and Weibull and fatigue parameters that are allowed to vary with temperature or time. Component-to-component variation in strength (stochastic strength response) is accounted for with the Weibull distribution, and either the principle of independent action or the Batdorf theory is used to predict the effect of multiaxial stresses on reliability. The reliability analysis can be performed either as a function of the component surface (for surface-distributed flaws) or component volume (for volume-distributed flaws). The transient reliability analysis capability has been added to the NASA CARES/ Life (Ceramic Analysis and Reliability Evaluation of Structures/Life) code. CARES/Life was also updated to interface with commercially available finite element analysis software, such as ANSYS, when used to model the effects of transient load histories. Examples are provided to demonstrate the features of the methodology as implemented in the CARES/Life program.

Nemeth, Noel N.↗