SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Verification”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 91 records · Page 5

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2012

Cognitive Bias in the Verification and Validation of Space Flight Systems

Cognitive bias is generally recognized as playing a significant role in virtually all domains of human decision making. Insight into this role is informally built into many of the system engineering practices employed in the aerospace industry. The review process, for example, typically has features that help to counteract the effect of bias. This paper presents a discussion of how commonly recognized biases may affect the verification and validation process. Verifying and validating a system is arguably more challenging than development, both technically and cognitively. Whereas there may be a relatively limited number of options available for the design of a particular aspect of a system, there is a virtually unlimited number of potential verification scenarios that may be explored. The probability of any particular scenario occurring in operations is typically very difficult to estimate, which increases reliance on judgment that may be affected by bias. Implementing a verification activity often presents technical challenges that, if they can be overcome at all, often result in a departure from actual flight conditions (e.g., 1-g testing, simulation, time compression, artificial fault injection) that may raise additional questions about the meaningfulness of the results, and create opportunities for the introduction of additional biases. In addition to mitigating the biases it can introduce directly, the verification and validation process must also overcome the cumulative effect of biases introduced during all previous stages of development. A variety of cognitive biases will be described, with research results for illustration. A handful of case studies will be presented that show how cognitive bias may have affected the verification and validation process on recent JPL flight projects, identify areas of strength and weakness, and identify potential changes or additions to commonly used techniques that could provide a more robust verification and validation of future systems.

Larson, Steve↗

NASA NTRS2016

Z-2 Architecture Description and Requirements Verification Results

The Z-2 Prototype Planetary Extravehicular Space Suit Assembly is a continuation of NASA's Z series of spacesuits. The Z-2 is another step in NASA's technology development roadmap leading to human exploration of the Martian surface. The suit was designed for maximum mobility at 8.3 psid, reduced mass, and to have high fidelity life support interfaces. As Z-2 will be man-tested at full vacuum in NASA JSC's Chamber B, it was manufactured as Class II, making it the most flight-like planetary walking suit produced to date. The Z-2 suit architecture is an evolution of previous EVA suits, namely the ISS EMU, Mark III, Rear Entry I-Suit and Z-1 spacesuits. The suit is a hybrid hard and soft multi-bearing, rear entry spacesuit. The hard upper torso (HUT) is an all-composite structure and includes a 2-bearing rolling convolute shoulder with Vernier sizing mechanism, removable suit port interface plate (SIP), elliptical hemispherical helmet and self-don/doff shoulder harness. The hatch is a hybrid aluminum and composite construction with Apollo style gas connectors, custom water pass-thru, removable hatch cage and interfaces to primary and auxiliary life support feed water bags. The suit includes Z-1 style lower arms with cam brackets for Vernier sizing and government furnished equipment (GFE) Phase VI gloves. The lower torso includes a telescopic waist sizing system, waist bearing, rolling convolute waist joint, hard brief, 2 bearing soft hip thigh, Z-1 style legs with ISS EMU style cam brackets for sizing, and conformal walking boots with ankle bearings. The Z-2 Requirements Verification Plan includes the verification of more than 200 individual requirements. The verification methods include test, analysis, inspection, demonstration or a combination of methods. Examples of unmanned requirements include suit leakage, proof pressure testing, operational life, mass, isometric man-loads, sizing adjustment ranges, internal and external interfaces such as in-suit drink bag, partial pressure relief valve, purge valve, donning stand and ISS Body Restraint Tether (BRT). Examples of manned requirements include verification of anthropometric range, suit self-don/doff, secondary suit exit method, donning stand self-ingress/egress and manned mobility covering eight functional tasks. The eight functional tasks include kneeling with object pick-up, standing toe touch, cross-body reach, walking, reach to the SIP and helmet visor. This paper will provide an overview of the Z-2 design. Z-2 requirements verification testing was performed with NASA at the ILC Houston test facility. This paper will also discuss pre-delivery manned and unmanned test results as well as analysis performed in support of requirements verification.

Graziosi, Dave↗

NASA NTRS2018

Space System Verification Approach Based on MEAL and Mission Risk Posture

There is no "one size fits all" solution for verifying space avionics systems to ensure safety and mission success. This paper presents a verification approach based on MEAL and risk posture for space systems. MEAL refers to Mission, mission Environment, Application, and Lifetime of the application. In addition to the description of the verification approach, the paper also provides the awareness of the different levels of risks associated with verification tests and inspections when performed at part-, board- and box-level, and discusses the applications of the approach for flight heritage verification, commercial off the shelf (COTS) verification and radiation-effects verification.

Mission Environment Application and Lifetime (MEAL↗

NASA NTRS2018

Space System Verification Approach Based on MEAL and Mission Risk Posture

Mission Environment Application and Lifetime (MEAL↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Adding a Verification View for Autonomous Real-Time Architecture

Spacecraft software systems continue to increase in complexity and must frequently operate autonomously for extended periods. Thus, the consequences of software flaws are increasing and it is necessary to improve development methods to minimize the risk of latent flaws in the operational software. Traditional software architectures place verification as one element in the development architectural view and treat verification as a later lifecycle activity that is considered complete when the system is certified for flight. The Gateway Vehicle System Manager team, recognizing the importance of verification throughout the system lifecycle, is treating verification as an additional architectural view that receives continuous attention from the requirements analysis phase and continuing for the life of the operational system. The verification view consists of two viewpoints: development and operational. We present background on the verification view and discuss the approaches the Vehicle System Manager team is taking.

James B Dabney↗

NASA NTRS2017

Runtime Verification Logics A Language Design Perspective

Runtime Verification is a light-weight approach to systems verification, where actual executions of a system are processed and analyzed using rigorous techniques. In this paper we shall narrow the term’s definition to represent the commonly studied variant consisting of verifying that a single system execution conforms to a specification written in a formal specification language. Runtime verification (in this sense) can be used for writing test oracles during testing when the system is too complex for full formal verification, or it can be used during deployment of the system as part of a fault protection strategy, where corrective actions may be taken in case the specification is violated. Specification languages for runtime verification appear to differ from for example temporal logics applied in model checking, in part due to the focus on monitoring of events that carry data, and specifically due to the desire to relate data values existing at different time points, resulting in new challenges in both the complexity of the monitoring approach and the expressiveness of languages. Over the recent years, numerous runtime verification specification languages have emerged, each with its different features and levels of expressiveness and usability. This paper presents an overview and a discussion of this design space.

Reger, Giles↗

DOE OSTI2024

Reusable Verification Components for High-Energy Physics readout ASICs

Verification is a critical aspect of designing front-end (FE) readout ASICs for High-Energy Physics (HEP) experiments. These ASICs share several similar functional features, resulting in similar verification objectives, which can be addressed using comparable verification strategies. This contribution presents a set of re-usable verification components for addressing common verification tasks, such as clock generation, reset handling, configuration, as well as hit and fault injections. The components were developed as part of the CHIPS initiative and they have been successfully used in the verification of multiple HEP ASICs.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗

DOE OSTI2023

Verification and benchmarking relativistic electron beam transport through a background gas

It is necessary to establish confidence in high-consequence codes containing an extensive suite of physics algorithms in the regimes of interest. Verification problems allow code developers to assess numerical accuracy and increase confidence that specific sets of model physics were implemented correctly in the code. The two main verification techniques are code verification and solution verification. In this work, we present verification problems that can be used in other codes to increase confidence in simulations of relativistic beam transport. Specifically, we use the general plasma code EMPIRE to model and compare with the analytical solution to the evolution of the outer radial envelope of a relativistic charged particle beam. Additionally, we also outline a benchmark test of a relativistic beam propagating through a vacuum and pressurized gas cell, and present the results between EMPIRE and the hybrid code GAZEL. Further, we discuss the subtle errors that were caught with these problems and detail lessons learned.

71 CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS, GENERAL PHYSIC↗

DOE OSTI2022

Verification of MOOSE/Bison's Heat Conduction Solver Using Combined Spatiotemporal Convergence Analysis

Bison is a computational physics code that uses the finite element method to model the thermo-mechanical response of nuclear fuel. Since Bison is used to inform high-consequence decisions, it is important that its computational results are reliable and predictive. One important step in assessing the reliability and predictive capabilities of a simulation tool is the verification process, which quantifies numerical errors in a discrete solution relative to the exact solution of the mathematical model. One step in the verification process—called code verification—ensures that the implemented numerical algorithm is a faithful representation of the underlying mathematical model, including partial differential or integral equations, initial and boundary conditions, and auxiliary relationships. In this paper, the code verification process is applied to spatiotemporal heat conduction problems in Bison. Simultaneous refinement of the discretization in space and time is employed to reveal any potential mistakes in the numerical algorithms for the interactions between the spatial and temporal components of the solution. For each verification problem, the correct spatial and temporal order of accuracy is demonstrated for both first- and second-order accurate finite elements and a variety of time-integration schemes. Furthermore, these results provide strong evidence that the Bison numerical algorithm for solving spatiotemporal problems reliably represents the underlying mathematical model in MOOSE. The selected test problems can also be used in other simulation tools that numerically solve for conduction or diffusion.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2020

ZND Verification Tests for Reactive Burn Models in FLAG

The ZND theory, named after Zeldovich, von Neumann, and Doering, provides a simple model for one-dimensional ideal steady-state detonation. It assumes that the detonation wave front starts with a shock that is a discontinuous jump and is followed by a finite-length reaction zone. Reactive burn (also called reactive flow) models are based on ZND theory, as they model the shock initiation and detonation process with a finite reaction rate. The ZND wave propagation test is essentially the only available test case where an analytic solution exists for verification of reactive burn models in numerical codes. However, there are extensions and variants of the ZND test that have been devised for verification of multidimensional flows. The objective of this work is to provide verification of the reactive burn models currently implemented in the Lagrangian hydrocode FLAG and investigate the influence of mesh resolution, artificial viscosity models, and the Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian (ALE) Euler relaxer on the simulation results. The burn models of interest are the Wescott-Stewart-Davis (WSD) model, the Scaled Uniform Reactive Flow (SURF) model (specifically with the SURFplus model extension), and the Arrhenius shock temperature state dependent WSD (AWSD) model. Previously, Ralph Menikoff has used ZND tests for verification of the SURF and SURFplus models in the Eulerian hydrocode xRAGE. The ZND tests here are somewhat different than the approach by Menikoff. In particular, we use a piston-driven ZND detonation wave (via a prescribed constant velocity boundary condition) in a Lagrangian framework whereas Menikoff had a ZND wave followed by a invariant rarefaction wave. The xRAGE simulations were carried out on uniform grids and adaptive mesh refinement (AMR) grids. Although AMR was recently implemented in FLAG and now fully functional for 2D simulations, it will not be evaluated with ZND tests at this time. Some work has been done previously for validating the reactive burn models in FLAG. For example, the validation studies of SURF with shock-to-detonation (SDT) tests, cylinder tests, and gap-stick tests. Further validation of the AWSD, WSD, and SURF models is described in for SDT, multi-shock, cylinder, and corner-turning tests. Recently, a large parameter study with approximately twenty SDT tests was performed to validate the AWSD, WSD, SURF, and SURFplus models while also investigating mesh resolution and artificial viscosity settings. To the best of our knowledge, the current work represents the first documented verification of these burn models in FLAG. The reader should note that many of the tables and figures in this report use units of cm/g/µs, which are the default units for FLAG. However, some lengths and velocities are expressed in µm and mm/µs, respectively, which are typical units for detonation analyses.

45 MILITARY TECHNOLOGY, WEAPONRY, AND NATIONAL DEF↗

NASA NTRS2017

Cleared for Launch - Lessons Learned from the OSIRIS-REx System Requirements Verification Program

Requirements verification of a large flight system is a challenge. It is especially challenging for engineers taking on their first role in space systems engineering. This paper describes our approach to verification of the Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification, Security-Regolith Explorer (OSIRIS-REx) system requirements. It also captures lessons learned along the way from developing systems engineers embroiled in this process. We begin with an overview of the mission and science objectives as well as the project requirements verification program strategy. A description of the requirements flow down is presented including our implementation for managing the thousands of program and element level requirements and associated verification data. We discuss both successes and methods to improve the managing of this data across multiple organizational interfaces. Our approach to verifying system requirements at multiple levels of assembly is presented using examples from our work at instrument, spacecraft, and ground segment levels. We include a discussion of system end-to-end testing limitations and their impacts to the verification program. Finally, we describe lessons learned that are applicable to all emerging space systems engineers using our unique perspectives across multiple organizations of a large NASA program.

Requirements Verification↗

NASA NTRS2018

Investigation of a Verification and Validation Tool with a Turbofan Aircraft Engine Application

The development of more advanced control architectures for turbofan aircraft engines can yield gains in performance and efficiency over the lifetime of an engine. However, the implementation of these increasingly complex controllers is contingent on their ability to provide safe, reliable engine operation. Therefore, having the means to verify the safety of new control algorithms is crucial. As a step towards this goal, CoCoSim, a publicly available verification tool for Simulink, is used to analyze C-MAPSS40k, a 40,000 lbf class turbo-fan engine model developed at NASA for testing new control algorithms. Due to current limitations of the verification software, several modifications are made to C-MAPSS40k to achieve compatibility with CoCoSim. Some of these modifications sacrifice fidelity to the original model. Several safety and performance requirements typical for turbofan engines are identified and constructed into a verification framework. Preliminary results using an industry standard baseline controller for these requirements are presented. While verification capabilities are demonstrated, a truly comprehensive analysis will require further development of the verification tool.

V&↗

NASA NTRS2018

Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI) Structural Verification Unit (SVU) Vibration Test

This presentation describes the vibration test campaign of the Structural Verification Unit for the Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI) mission The Structural Verification Unit test campaign served multiple purposes including the qualification of the instrument primary structure, verification of the structure's stiffness, Aperture Control Mechanism assembly level verification, and validation of the control approach for protoflight instrument vibration testing. Testing included three axes of sine burst, random, and sine vibration excitation. This test sequence required a high number of response instrumentation sensors that included tri-axial accelerometers and tri-axial force gauges. Multiple response limiting methods that included acceleration, force, and moment measurements were used to ensure the safety of the flight hardware. The lessons and specific test details learned on the structural verification unit test campaign will reduce test risks for the upcoming instrument-level vibration tests.

Structural Verification Unit↗

DOE OSTI2023

Bison Verification and Validation Activities for TRISO

Numerical modeling and simulation (M&S) tools play a key role in the research, development, and overall safety assessments of next-generation nuclear energy systems. One such tool, Bison, is a nuclear fuel performance code that is applicable to many fuel forms (e.g., light-water reactor fuel, oxide and metallic fuel for fast reactors, tri-structural isotropic (TRISO) fuel, and plate fuel), and it uses the finite element method to model the thermo- mechanical response of nuclear fuels. One fuel form widely utilized in Generation-IV high-temperature gas-cooled and fluoride- salt-cooled nuclear reactor concepts is TRISO fuel. Recently, Bison’s capabilities were significantly expanded to enable it to model the performance of TRISO particles and compacts. It is important that Bison’s computational results be reliable and predictive, since this code is used to inform high-consequence decisions. The various processes developed to address this issue generally entail two fundamental steps: verification and validation (V&V). Verification ensures that the code functions correctly and is reliable. Code/solution verification, code benchmark, and software quality assurance exercises are examples of verification activities. On the other hand, validation is the process of assessing a code’s capability to accurately model physical problems. Comparisons between code results and experiments quantify the validation level. Application of V&V procedures is crucial to the development of computational tools that are free of coding mistakes and can accurately represent reality. The current study presents an overview of Bison V&V activities relevant to the TRISO fuel concept, which include code/solution verification exercises, CRP-6 Benchmark—a Coordinated Research Program through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)—exercises, and validation exercises with the Advanced Gas Reactor (AGR)- 1/2/3/4 experiment series.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2020

Verification and Validation of the PLTEMP/ANL Code for Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis of Experimental and Test Reactors

The document compiles in a single volume the verification and validation works done for the PLTEMP/ANL code during the years of its development and improvement. The verification of sixteen capabilities of the PLTEMP/ANL Version 4.3 code that were identified by research reactor analysts as frequently used in their thermal-hydraulic analysis are described and documented. Each chapter of the document deals with the verification or validation of a specific model. The model verification is usually done by comparing the code with hand calculation, Microsoft spreadsheet calculation, or Mathematica calculation. The model validation is done by comparing the code with experimental data or a widely tested code like the RELAP5 code. In addition, some PLTEMP/ANL verification works that are available in the open literature are simply referenced and not included in the document. PLTEMP/ANL has been used in conversion safety analysis reports of several US and foreign research reactors that have been licensed and converted. A list of such reactors is given.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2020

Improvements to CTF Code Verification and Unit Testing (FY2020)

In 2010, the U.S. Department of Energy created its first Energy Innovation Hub, which focuses on improving Light Water Reactors (LWRs) through Modeling and Simulation. This hub, named the Consortium for the Advanced Simulation of LWRs (CASL), attempts to characterize and understand LWR behavior under normal operating conditions and use any gained insights to improve their efficiency. In collaboration with North Carolina State University (NCSU), CASL has worked extensively on the thermal-hydraulic subchannel code Coolant Boiling in Rod Arrays—Three Field (COBRA-TF). The NCSU/CASL version of COBRA-TF has been rebranded as CTF. This document focuses on code verification test problems that ensure CTF converges to the correct answer for the intended application. The suite of code verification tests are mapped to the underlying conservation equations of CTF, and significant gaps are addressed. Convergence behavior and numerical errors are quantified for each of the tests. Tests that converge at the correct rate to the corresponding analytic solution are incorporated into the CTF automated regression suite. A new verification utility is created for this purpose, which enables code verification by generalizing the process. For problems that do not behave correctly, the results are reported but the problem is not included in the regression suite. In addition to verification studies, this document also quantifies the existing tests of constitutive models. A few existing gaps are addressed by adding new unit tests.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2021

SAS4A/SASSYS-1 Lead Verification Test Suite

SAS4A/SASSYS-1 is a simulation tool used to perform deterministic analyses of anticipated events as well as design basis and beyond design basis accidents for advanced liquid-metal-cooled nuclear reactors. With its origin as SAS1A in the late 1960s, the SAS series of codes has been under continuous use and development for over forty-five years and represents a critical investment in safety analysis capabilities for the U.S. Department of Energy. Although SAS4A/SASSYS-1 was developed to support the analysis of any liquid-metal-cooled nuclear reactor, it has primarily been utilized to design and analyze Sodium Fast Reactors (SFRs). As a result, most of the verification basis for SAS4A/SASSYS-1 utilizes sodium as a coolant and geometry descriptions that are typical of a SFR facility. In this work, new verification problems are defined to extend the applicability of the SAS4A/SASSYS-1 verification basis into Lead Fast Reactor (LFR) design space. A review of the existing SAS4A/SASSYS-1 SFR verification test suite is performed to determine the number of test cases that are SFR specific. SFR specific test cases are replicated using lead as a coolant and system layouts that are representative of LFRs. This report provides definitions and reference solutions for seven new test cases that scope lead-specific features and capabilities of the software. For a verification test to be considered acceptable, comparisons of analytical solutions to SAS4A/SASSYS-1 predictions must produce negligible or justifiable errors. All LFR specific test cases are found to be acceptable.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2020

An Overview of Gemma FY20 Verification Activities

Gemma verification activities for FY20 can be divided into three categories: the development of specialized quadrature rules, initial progress towards the development of manufactured solutions for code verification, and automated code-verification testing. In the method-of-moments implementation of the electric-field integral equation, the presence of a Green’s function in the four-dimensional integrals yields singularities in the integrand when two elements are nearby. To address these challenges, we have developed quadrature rules to integrate the functions through which the singularities can be characterized. Code verification is necessary to develop confidence in the implementation of the numerical methods in Gemma. Therefore, we have begun investigating the use of manufactured solutions to more thoroughly verify Gemma. Manufactured solutions provide greater flexibility for testing aspects of the code; however, the aforementioned singularities provide challenges, and existing work is limited in rigor and quantity. Finally, we have implemented automated code-verification testing using the VVTest framework to automate the mesh refinement and execution of a Gemma simulation to generate mesh convergence data. This infrastructure computes the observed order of accuracy from these data and compares it with the theoretical order of accuracy to either develop confidence in the implementation of the numerical methods or detect coding errors.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗