Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Concurrent Engineering”

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 109 records · Page 6
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1994

STEP: A Futurevision, Today

STEP (STandard for the Exchange of Product Model Data) is an innovative software tool that allows the exchange of data between different programming systems to occur and helps speed up the designing in various process industries. This exchange occurs easily between those companies that have STEP, and many industries and government agencies are requiring that their vendors utilize STEP in their computer aided design projects, such as in the areas of mechanical, aeronautical, and electrical engineering. STEP allows the process of concurrent engineering to occur and increases the quality of the design product. One example of the STEP program is the Boeing 777, the first paperless airplane.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1996

Working on the Boundaries: Philosophies and Practices of the Design Process

While systems engineering process is a program formal management technique and contractually binding, the design process is the informal practice of achieving the design project requirements throughout all design phases of the systems engineering process. The design process and organization are systems and component dependent. Informal reviews include technical information meetings and concurrent engineering sessions, and formal technical discipline reviews are conducted through the systems engineering process. This paper discusses and references major philosophical principles in the design process, identifies its role in interacting systems and disciplines analyses and integrations, and illustrates the process application in experienced aerostructural designs.

Ryan, R.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Design of a prototype Advanced Main Combustion Chamber for the Space Shuttle Main Engine

Development of a prototype advanced main combustion chamber is underway at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. The Advanced Main Combustion Chamber (AMCC) project is being approached utilizing a 'concurrent engineering' concept where groups from materials, manufacturing, stress, quality, and design are involved from the initiation of the project. The AMCC design has been tailored to be compatible with the investment casting process. Jacket, inlet/outlet manifolds, inlet/outlet neck coolant flow splitters, support ribs, actuator lugs, and engine controller mounting bracket will all be a part of the one-piece AMCC casting. Casting of the AMCC in a one-piece configuration necessitated a method of forming a liner in its structural jacket. A method of vacuum plasma spraying the liner is being developed. In 1994, the AMCC will be hot-fired on the Technology Test Bed Space Shuttle Main Engine.

Lackey, J. D.↗
NASA NTRS1993

A minimum cost tolerance allocation method for rocket engines and robust rocket engine design

Rocket engine design follows three phases: systems design, parameter design, and tolerance design. Systems design and parameter design are most effectively conducted in a concurrent engineering (CE) environment that utilize methods such as Quality Function Deployment and Taguchi methods. However, tolerance allocation remains an art driven by experience, handbooks, and rules of thumb. It was desirable to develop and optimization approach to tolerancing. The case study engine was the STME gas generator cycle. The design of the major components had been completed and the functional relationship between the component tolerances and system performance had been computed using the Generic Power Balance model. The system performance nominals (thrust, MR, and Isp) and tolerances were already specified, as were an initial set of component tolerances. However, the question was whether there existed an optimal combination of tolerances that would result in the minimum cost without any degradation in system performance.

Gerth, Richard J.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Early Formulation Model-centric Engineering on NASA's Europa Mission Concept Study

The proposed Jupiter Europa Orbiter and Jupiter Ganymede Orbiter missions were formulated using current state-of-the-art MBSE facilities: - JPL's TeamX, Rapid Mission Architecting - ESA's Concurrent Design Facility - APL's ACE Concurrent Engineering Facility. When JEO became an official "pre-project" in Sep 2010, we had already developed a strong partnership with JPL's Integrated Model Centric Engineering (IMCE) initiative; decided to apply Architecting and SysML-based MBSE from the beginning, begun laying these foundations to support work in Phase A. Release of Planetary Science Decadal Survey and FY12 President's Budget in March 2011 changed the landscape. JEO reverted to being a pre-phase A study. A conscious choice was made to continue application of MBSE on the Europa Study, refocused for early formulation. This presentation describes the approach, results, and lessons.

early formulation↗
NASA NTRS2017

Multi-Organization Multi-Discipline Effort Developing a Mitigation Concept for Planetary Defense

There have been significant recent efforts in addressing mitigation approaches to neutralize Potentially Hazardous Asteroids (PHA). One such research effort was performed in 2015 by an integrated, inter-disciplinary team of asteroid scientists, energy deposition modeling scientists, payload engineers, orbital dynamist engineers, spacecraft discipline engineers, and systems architecture engineer from NASAs Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) and the Department of Energy (DoE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) laboratories (Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL) and Sandia National Laboratories). The study team collaborated with GSFCs Integrated Design Centers Mission Design Lab (MDL) which engaged a team of GSFC flight hardware discipline engineers to work with GSFC, LANL, and LLNL NEA-related subject matter experts during a one-week intensive concept formulation study in an integrated concurrent engineering environment. This team has analyzed the first of several distinct study cases for a multi-year NASA research grant. This Case 1 study references the Near-Earth Asteroid (NEA) named Bennu as the notional target due to the availability of a very detailed Design Reference Asteroid (DRA) model for its orbit and physical characteristics (courtesy of the Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification, Security-Regolith Explorer (OSIRIS-REx) mission team). The research involved the formulation and optimization of spacecraft trajectories to intercept Bennu, overall mission and architecture concepts, and high-fidelity modeling of both kinetic impact (spacecraft collision to change a NEAs momentum and orbit) and nuclear detonation effects on Bennu, for purposes of deflecting Bennu.

Planetary Defense↗
NASA NTRS1992

Elements of designing for cost

During recent history in the United States, government systems development has been performance driven. As a result, systems within a class have experienced exponentially increasing cost over time in fixed year dollars. Moreover, little emphasis has been placed on reducing cost. This paper defines designing for cost and presents several tools which, if used in the engineering process, offer the promise of reducing cost. Although other potential tools exist for designing for cost, this paper focuses on rules of thumb, quality function deployment, Taguchi methods, concurrent engineering, and activity-based costing. Each of these tools has been demonstrated to reduce cost if used within the engineering process.

Dean, Edwin B.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Elements of Designing for Cost

During recent history in the United States, government systems development has been performance driven. As a result, systems within a class have experienced exponentially increasing cost over time in fixed year dollars. Moreover, little emphasis has been placed on reducing cost. This paper defines designing for cost and presents several tools which, if used in the engineering process, offer the promise of reducing cost. Although other potential tools exist for designing for cost, this paper focuses on rules of thumb, quality function deployment, Taguchi methods, concurrent engineering, and activity based costing. Each of these tools has been demonstrated to reduce cost if used within the engineering process.

Dean, Edwin B.↗
NASA NTRS1990

Space Transportation Engine Program (STEP), phase B

The Space Transportation Engine Program (STEP) Phase 2 effort includes preliminary design and activities plan preparation that will allow smooth and time transition into a Prototype Phase and then into Phases 3, 4, and 5. A Concurrent Engineering approach using Total Quality Management (TQM) techniques, is being applied to define an oxygen-hydrogen engine. The baseline from Phase 1/1' studies was used as a point of departure for trade studies and analyses. Existing STME system models are being enhanced as more detailed module/component characteristics are determined. Preliminary designs for the open expander, closed expander, and gas generator cycles were prepared, and recommendations for cycle selection made at the Design Concept Review (DCR). As a result of July '90 DCR, and information subsequently supplied to the Technical Review Team, a gas generator cycle was selected. Results of the various Advanced Development Programs (ADP's) for the Advanced Launch Systems (ALS) were contributive to this effort. An active vehicle integration effort is supplying the NASA, Air Force, and vehicle contractors with engine parameters and data, and flowing down appropriate vehicle requirements. Engine design and analysis trade studies are being documented in a data base that was developed and is being used to organize information. To date, seventy four trade studies were input to the data base.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1995

A 20k Payload Launch Vehicle Fast Track Development Concept Using an RD-180 Engine and a Centaur Upper Stage

A launch vehicle concept to deliver 20,000 lb of payload to a 100-nmi orbit has been defined. A new liquid oxygen/kerosene booster powered by an RD-180 engine was designed while using a slightly modified Centaur upper stage. The design, development, and test program met the imposed 40-mo schedule by elimination of major structural testing by increased factors of safety and concurrent engineering concepts. A growth path to attain 65,000 lb of payload is developed.

Toelle, Ronald↗
NASA NTRS1997

Computational Infrastructure for Engine Structural Performance Simulation

Select computer codes developed over the years to simulate specific aspects of engine structures are described. These codes include blade impact integrated multidisciplinary analysis and optimization, progressive structural fracture, quantification of uncertainties for structural reliability and risk, benefits estimation of new technology insertion and hierarchical simulation of engine structures made from metal matrix and ceramic matrix composites. Collectively these codes constitute a unique infrastructure readiness to credibly evaluate new and future engine structural concepts throughout the development cycle from initial concept, to design and fabrication, to service performance and maintenance and repairs, and to retirement for cause and even to possible recycling. Stated differently, they provide 'virtual' concurrent engineering for engine structures total-life-cycle-cost.

Chamis, Christos C.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Exploring the Science Trade Space with the JPL Innovation Foundry A-Team

The JPL Innovation Foundry has established a new approach for exploring, developing, and evaluating early concepts with a group called the Architecture Team (A-Team). The A-Team combines innovative collaborative methods and facilitated sessions with subject matter experts and analysis tools to help mature mission concepts. Science, implementation, and programmatic elements are all considered during an ATeam study. In these studies, Concept Maturity Levels (CML) are used to group methods. These levels include idea generation and capture (CML 1), initial feasibility assessment (CML 2), and trade space exploration (CML 3). Methods used for exploring the science objectives, feasibility, and scope will be described including use of a new technique for understanding the most compelling science, called a Science Return Diagram (SRD). In the process of developing the SRD, gradients in the science trade space are uncovered along with their implications for implementation and mission architecture. Special attention is paid towards developing complete investigations, establishing a series of logical claims that lead to the natural selection of a measurement approach. Over 20 science-focused A-Team studies have used these techniques to help science teams refine their mission objectives, make implementation decisions and reveal the mission concept’s most compelling science. This paper will describe the A-Team process for exploring the mission concept's science trade space and the Science Return Diagram technique.In June of 2011 a new collaborative engineering approach forearly concept formulation began in the JPL InnovationFoundry [1], six months later becoming the “A-Team” [2].Responding to a need for exploring mission architecturelevel trades [3], the A-Team precedes Team X [4,5] in asequence of concurrent engineering teams at JPL that can beused to mature a concept from a “cocktail napkin” level ideato a complete mission point design. The A-Team efficientlyexplores the science, implementation, and programmatictrade space in early concept formulation. Small, facilitatedgroups of experts generate innovative ideas, quantitativelyassess feasibility, and discover key sensitivities in the tradespace through collaborative analysis and use of advancedmethods and tools. The A-Team process builds off theexperience within JPL and other recent approaches to earlyconcept formulation [6] including best practices of the JPLInnovation Foundry, Project Systems Engineering &Formulation Section, Team Eureka and the Rapid MissionArchitecture Team[7].The A-Team is a focal point for innovative formulationapproaches and people within JPL. It relies on a largebackground of study resources, creative thinkers and “greybeard” scrutinizers, advanced tools, and subject matterexperts with both breadth and depth in experience andexpertise that are all available at JPL. The A-Team isdesigned to be a rapid and efficient process takingapproximately 6 weeks (the entire process can be as short asjust a few days or as long as up to three months) and costingthe equivalent of a work-month of a full-time employee orless. Studies begin with detailed planning and client reviewfollowed by study sessions, analysis work, and reporting.The staffing on each study is customized to the study goalsand objectives, and it is addressed early in the A-Teamprocess. Sessions are generally half-day or whole-day eventsand conducted over a series of days with focused agendas thatare moderated by a trained facilitator. Preliminary results andknowledge capture are available within hours of each session,and a final report is generally available two weeks later.One of the biggest challenges facing early conceptdevelopment is understanding the gradient in science returnversus various available mission scenarios and payload options. Often times, major areas of scientific inquiry havealready been prioritized by science groups, including throughthe National Research Council’s Decadal Studies inAstronomy, Planetary, and Earth Science. Yet science teamscontinue to struggle, especially in competitive missionsolicitations, to capture the right amount of scope that’sachievable within the cost constraints of the opportunity.Often the desire to completely and comprehensively study ascience area in just one mission (after all, true missionopportunities are rare) drives teams to take on too much,providing requirements that are unachievable within theresources of the opportunity without inducing unacceptableimplementation risk. Alternatively, science teams can seekto reduce risk by using an established instrument, but havenot thought through the traceability and key aspects of thescience question to justify its use. Both scenarios lead to badassumptions at the beginning of the concept development thatcan then ripple through implementation option choices,potentially preventing what would have been a good scienceinvestigation from being selected.The purpose of this paper is first to provide some additionalbackground and summary of the A-Team process, tools,people, and facilities. We then focus on the A-Teammethodology for overcoming the barriers of defining thescience scope well at the early concept development stage.This includes understanding the science story andtraceability, and then examining the gradient in science returnversus key characteristics of observables, developing theright payload and mission requirement specification throughexamining the science and implementation trade space.

Ziemer, John K.↗
NASA NTRS1996

Integrating post-manufacturing issues into design and manufacturing decisions

An investigation is conducted on research into some of the fundamental issues underlying the design for manufacturing, service and recycling that affect engineering decisions early in the conceptual design phase of mechanical systems. The investigation focuses on a system-based approach to material selection, manufacturing methods and assembly processes related to overall product requirements, performance and life-cycle costs. Particular emphasis is placed on concurrent engineering decision support for post-manufacturing issues such as serviceability, recyclability, and product retirement.

Eubanks, Charles F.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Risk Reduction for the System Design of an Enhanced MMRTG

Engineering of an enhanced Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (eMMRTG) began 3 years ago with agreement between the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The Jet Propulsion Laboratory is leading the transfer of skutterudite thermoelectric couple technology to industry and leading the systems engineering of the proposed eMMRTG. Should NASA fund the flight development of an eMMRTG, the DOE would lead the flight system development. The analytical models and design of the MMRTG have been enhanced to use skutterudite couples developed at Jet Propulsion Laboratory over the last two decades. This required a thorough evaluation of the MMRTG design, and concurrent engineering of an enhanced MMRTG to shed light on potential design issues or risks. At the end of the U.S. fiscal year (FY) 2015, a complete catalog of risks was produced. Tests, hardware development, and analyses have now been put in place to mitigate those risks to acceptable levels. Few risks can ever be truly eliminated unless a design is modified to eliminate specific risks and not introduce more severe risks. The design imperative for the eMMRTG is to change only a few MMRTG features; therefore, risks can largely only be mitigated, not eliminated, through design changes. However, many risks can be effectively - though not totally - eliminated without design changes. This paper briefly describes some of the documented risks and mitigations or reduction approaches to be applied in the coming 3 years, on the way to completing the eMMRTG concept.

eMMRTG↗
NASA NTRS2000

The Life Cycle Application of Intelligent Software Modeling for the First Materials Science Research Rack

Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) has been funding development of intelligent software models to benefit payload ground operations for nearly a decade. Experience gained from simulator development and real-time monitoring and control is being applied to engineering design, testing, and operation of the First Material Science Research Rack (MSRR-1). MSRR-1 is the first rack in a suite of three racks comprising the Materials Science Research Facility (MSRF) which will operate on the International Space Station (ISS). The MSRF will accommodate advanced microgravity investigations in areas such as the fields of solidification of metals and alloys, thermo-physical properties of polymers, crystal growth studies of semiconductor materials, and research in ceramics and glasses. The MSRR-1 is a joint venture between NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) to study the behavior of different materials during high temperature processing in a low gravity environment. The planned MSRR-1 mission duration is five (5) years on-orbit and the total design life is ten (IO) years. The MSRR-1 launch is scheduled on the third Utilization Flight (UF-3) to ISS, currently in February of 2003). The objective of MSRR-1 is to provide an early capability on the ISS to conduct material science, materials technology, and space product research investigations in microgravity. It will provide a modular, multi-user facility for microgravity research in materials crystal growth and solidification. An intelligent software model of MSRR-1 is under development and will serve multiple purposes to support the engineering analysis, testing, training, and operational phases of the MSRR-1 life cycle development. The G2 real-time expert system software environment developed by Gensym Corporation was selected as the intelligent system shell for this development work based on past experience gained and the effectiveness of the programming environment. Our approach of multi- uses of the simulation model and its intuitive graphics capabilities is providing a concurrent engineering environment for rapid prototyping and development. Operational schematics of the MSRR-1 electrical, thermal control, vacuum access, and gas supply systems, and furnace inserts are represented graphically in the environment. Logic to represent first order engineering calculations is coded into the knowledge base to simulate the operational behavior of the MSRR-1 systems. An example of engineering data provided includes electrical currents, voltages, operational power, temperatures, thermal fluid flow rates. pressures, and component status indications. These type of data are calculated and displayed at appropriate instrumentation points, and the schematics are animated to reflect the simulated operational status of the MSRR-1. The software control functions are also simulated to represent appropriate operational behavior based on automated control and response to commands received by the crew or ground controllers. The first benefit of this simulation environment is being realized in the high fidelity engineering analysis results from the electrical power system G2 model. Secondly, the MSRR-1 simulation model will be embedded with a hardware mock-up of the MSRR-1 to provide crew training on MSRR-1 integrated payload operations. G2 gateway code will output the simulated instrumentation values, termed as telemetry, in a flight-like data stream so that the crew has realistic and accurate simulated MSRR-1 data on the flight displays which will be designed for crew use. The simulation will also respond appropriately to crew or ground initiated commands, which will be part of normal facility operations. A third use of the G2 model is being planned; the MSRR-1 simulation will be integrated with additional software code as part of the test configuration of the primary onboard computer, or Master Controller, for MSRR-1. We will take advantage of the G2 capability to simulate the flight like data stream to test flight software responses and behavior. A fourth use of the G2 model will be to train the Ground Support Personnel that will monitor the MSRR-1 systems and payloads while they are operating aboard the ISS. The intuitive, schematic based environment will provide an excellent foundation for personnel to understand the integrated configuration and operation of the MSRR-1, and the anticipated telemetry feedback based on operational modes of the equipment. Expert monitoring features will be enhanced to provide a smart monitoring environment for the operators. These features include: (1) Animated, intuitive schematic-based displays which reflect telemetry values, (1) Real-time plotting of simulated or incoming sensor values, (3) High/Low exception monitoring for analog data, (4) Expected state monitoring for discrete data, (5) Data trending, (6) Automated malfunction procedure execution to diagnose problems, (7) Look ahead capability to planned MSRR-1 activities in the onboard timeline. And finally, the logic to calculate telemetry values will be deactivated, and the same environment will interface to the incoming data for the real-time telemetry stream to schematically represent the onboard hardware configuration. G2 will be the foundation for the real-time monitoring and control environment. In summary, our MSRR-1 simulation model spans many elements of the life cycle development of this project: Engineering Analysis, Test and Checkout, Training of Crew and Ground Personnel, and Real-time monitoring and control. By utilizing the unique features afforded by an expert system development environment, we have been able to synergize a powerful tool capable of addressing our project needs at every phase of project development.

Rice, Amanda↗
NASA NTRS1995

Development of a Prototype Simulation Executive with Zooming in the Numerical Propulsion System Simulation

A major difficulty in designing aeropropulsion systems is that of identifying and understanding the interactions between the separate engine components and disciplines (e.g., fluid mechanics, structural mechanics, heat transfer, material properties, etc.). The traditional analysis approach is to decompose the system into separate components with the interaction between components being evaluated by the application of each of the single disciplines in a sequential manner. Here, one discipline uses information from the calculation of another discipline to determine the effects of component coupling. This approach, however, may not properly identify the consequences of these effects during the design phase, leaving the interactions to be discovered and evaluated during engine testing. This contributes to the time and cost of developing new propulsion systems as, typically, several design-build-test cycles are needed to fully identify multidisciplinary effects and reach the desired system performance. The alternative to sequential isolated component analysis is to use multidisciplinary coupling at a more fundamental level. This approach has been made more plausible due to recent advancements in computation simulation along with application of concurrent engineering concepts. Computer simulation systems designed to provide an environment which is capable of integrating the various disciplines into a single simulation system have been proposed and are currently being developed. One such system is being developed by the Numerical Propulsion System Simulation (NPSS) project. The NPSS project, being developed at the Interdisciplinary Technology Office at the NASA Lewis Research Center is a 'numerical test cell' designed to provide for comprehensive computational design and analysis of aerospace propulsion systems. It will provide multi-disciplinary analyses on a variety of computational platforms, and a user-interface consisting of expert systems, data base management and visualization tools, to allow the designer to investigate the complex interactions inherent in these systems. An interactive programming software system, known as the Application Visualization System (AVS), was utilized for the development of the propulsion system simulation. The modularity of this system provides the ability to couple propulsion system components, as well as disciplines, and provides for the ability to integrate existing, well established analysis codes into the overall system simulation. This feature allows the user to customize the simulation model by inserting desired analysis codes. The prototypical simulation environment for multidisciplinary analysis, called Turbofan Engine System Simulation (TESS), which incorporates many of the characteristics of the simulation environment proposed herein, is detailed.

Reed, John A.↗
NASA NTRS1994

Composite chronicles: A study of the lessons learned in the development, production, and service of composite structures

A study of past composite aircraft structures programs was conducted to determine the lessons learned during the programs. The study focused on finding major underlying principles and practices that experience showed have significant effects on the development process and should be recognized and understood by those responsible for using of composites. Published information on programs was reviewed and interviews were conducted with personnel associated with current and past major development programs. In all, interviews were conducted with about 56 people representing 32 organizations. Most of the people interviewed have been involved in the engineering and manufacturing development of composites for the past 20 to 25 years. Although composites technology has made great advances over the past 30 years, the effective application of composites to aircraft is still a complex problem that requires experienced personnel with special knowledge. All disciplines involved in the development process must work together in real time to minimize risk and assure total product quality and performance at acceptable costs. The most successful programs have made effective use of integrated, collocated, concurrent engineering teams, and most often used well-planned, systematic development efforts wherein the design and manufacturing processes are validated in a step-by-step or 'building block' approach. Such approaches reduce program risk and are cost effective.

Vosteen, Louis F.↗