Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Transverse tensile failure”

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.

94 records · Page 6
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2026

Reliability Models and Demonstration of a Fault-Tolerant Motor Concept for Vertical Takeoff and Landing Vehicles

This report documents the completion of the Revolutionary Vertical Lift Technology Project Annual Performance Indicator 24-3.2.4.1: “Apply and document reliability prediction for high reliability motor concept.” Two modeling tools were completed for calculation of reliability of fault-tolerant (FT) motors, and key FT operations of a modular FT motor were demonstrated experimentally. The two models are complementary tools for the stakeholder and user community. Both models employ Markov chain theory. The first model is a time-homogeneous Markov chain model, and the second is a time-inhomogeneous Markov-Weibull model. This report’s main sections are as follows: 1.0 Introduction, 2.0 Theory, 3.0 Motor Reliability Models, 4.0 Validation of FT Operation by Hardware Demonstration, and 5.0 Concluding Remarks. Novel contributions to the field include development of a modular FT motor concept for electrified vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) application, solution methods to solve the reliability calculations, development of figures of merit, and the introduction of “linked chains” to formulate a building-block approach for time-inhomogeneous Markov-Weibull modeling of motor reliability. Example case studies have been completed, and results are provided and discussed herein. A four-module FT motor concept was developed to a preliminary-design level of detail. This eVTOL FT motor concept was designed for galvanic, magnetic, and thermal isolation of stator winding faults. The reliability of the concept motor was calculated using a time-inhomogeneous Markov chain model. Employing average failure rate as a metric, 570 times greater reliability was achieved as compared to a baseline motor without fault tolerance. A demonstrator motor was built and tested. The testing demonstrated the key features of FT operation and validated the essential premises of the FT motor concepts presented herein. The experiments included successful demonstration of the feasibility of the following four key FT features: (1) terminal open-circuit operation, (2) thermal isolation after fault, (3) terminal short-circuit operation, and (4) internal short-circuit operation. These works indicate that FT modular motor drives offer promise for addressing the daunting reliability gap that electric aircraft propulsor drives are facing relative to the best conventional motor drive technology that is available today.

Electric Motor↗
NASA NTRS2020

Evaluation of Fatigue Damage Accumulation Functions for Delamination Initiation and Propagation

The present report follows on the cohesive fatigue damage model methodology proposed in NASA-TP-2018-219838. In that report, an empirical function describing the incremental damage due to cyclic loading was used to calculate fatigue damage within a cohesive formulation. The form of the function was developed such that, when integrated at a constant stress amplitude from no damage to failure, it produces a life versus load response that is consistent with an S-N diagram. Therefore, the parameters of the damage model could be obtained by fitting the model predictions to an S-N diagram. The finite element analyses performed demonstrate that the cohesive fatigue accumulation function provides a link between the S-N diagram that describes crack initiation, and the Paris law that characterizes the rate of crack propagation. However, when the model was proposed, it was not known whether the form of the damage accumulation function associated with a desired S-N diagram is unique and, if not, if the link between S-N and the Paris law is unique and independent of the fatigue function selected. In the effort described herein, several alternative forms of the damage function that reproduce the desired features of S-N diagrams were found and evaluated. The effects of each of these functions on the predicted parameters of the Paris law and the propagation threshold are discussed. The results indicate that the predicted exponent m of the Paris law is indeed independent of the damage accumulation function. However, different functions predict different values for the pre-factor C of the Paris law. Therefore, the proper damage accumulation function must be selected by comparison with experiments. One of the new damage accumulation functions proposed herein was found to be particularly useful for analysis because of the ease with which the model parameters can be determined with a minimal amount of experimental information. The effectiveness of the proposed methodology and damage function was demonstrated by conducting analyses of a double cantilever beam test, a mixed-mode bending test, and a three-point bending test of a skin/doubler specimen. The results indicate that the same set of model parameters can provide accurate predictions of the rate of fatigue crack propagation for a variety of material interfaces, mode mixities, load levels, and stress ratios.

DKIN/Stiffener Debonding↗
NASA NTRS2010

Evaluation of Anomaly Detection Capability for Ground-Based Pre-Launch Shuttle Operations

This chapter will provide a thorough end-to-end description of the process for evaluation of three different data-driven algorithms for anomaly detection to select the best candidate for deployment as part of a suite of IVHM (Integrated Vehicle Health Management) technologies. These algorithms were deemed to be sufficiently mature enough to be considered viable candidates for deployment in support of the maiden launch of Ares I-X, the successor to the Space Shuttle for NASA's Constellation program. Data-driven algorithms are just one of three different types being deployed [3],[5]. The other two types of algorithms being deployed include a "rule-based" expert system, and a "model-based" system. Within these two categories, the deployable candidates have already been selected based upon qualitative factors such as flight heritage. For the rile-based system, SHINE (Spacecraft High-speed Inference Engine) has been selected for deployment, which is a component of BEAM (Beacon-based Exception Analysis for Multimissions) [4], a patented technology developed at NASA's JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) and serves to aid in the management and identification of operational modes. For the "model-based" system, a commercially available package developed by QSI (Qualtech Systems, Inc.), TEAMS (Testability Engineering and Maintenance System) [1] has been selected for deployment to aid in diagnosis. In the context of this particular deployment, distinctions among the use of the terms "data-driven," "rule-based," and "model-based," call found in [5]. Although there are three different categories of algorithms that have been selected for deployment, our main focus in this chapter will be on the evaluation of three candidates for data-driven anomaly detection. These algorithms will be evaluated upon their capability for robustly detecting incipient faults or failures in the ground-based phase of pre-launch space shuttle operations, rather than based oil heritage as performed in previous studies [5]. Robust detection will allow for the achievement of pre-specified minimum false alarm and/or missed detection rates in the selection of alert thresholds. All algorithms will also be optimized with respect to all of these same criteria. Our study relies upon the use of Shuttle data to act as was a proxy for and in preparation for application to Ares I-X data, which uses a very similar hardware platform for the subsystems that are being targeted (TVC - Thrust Vector Control subsystem for the SRB (Solid Rocket Booster)).

False Alarms↗
NASA NTRS2005

Chapter 12 - Flight Envelope

The term "flight envelope" is used to refer to the boundaries of aircraft loading and flight conditions within which operation of the aircraft is satisfactory, and beyond which some aspect becomes unacceptable. This flight envelope represents, in fact, the limiting conditions arising from a matrix of inter-related flight envelopes covering the appropriate variables. Thus, for each loading (i.e., external stores configuration and its associated range of weight and center of gravity (c.g.) position) and aircraft configuration (i.e., position of undercarriage (u/c), flaps, slats, etc.), the envelopes of airspeed versus altitude, airspeed versus load factor, angle of attack versus angle of sideslip, etc., must be investigated to establish the limits within which all aspects such as handling qualities, engine behavior, structural loads, etc., remain acceptable. Flight testing of new or derivative aircraft models is carried out with the initial purpose of defining a flight envelope which is, first and foremost, safe and secondarily, which enables the effective use of the vehicle for its intended purpose. Flight testing occurs only after numerous reviews of the design and review of results from ground tests and predictions of flight characteristics in such areas as structures, aerodynamics, stability and control, flight controls (particularly fly-by-wire control systems, propulsion, etc.). Accordingly, opening and expanding the envelope is a task that must be approached cautiously, systematically, and with coordination and cooperation of the many disciplines involved in the design and test of an airplane. (Sections 8 and 10 cover test planning and safety of flight considerations, respectively). The fundamental tenet in establishing a flight envelope via flight test is risk reduction. This is reflected in the typical sequence of events leading to initial flight test - design reviews (both hardware and software), then ground test involving singular disciplines (windtunnel tests for aerodynamics, structurally loading the wing/fuselage/nacelle on a ground test article with loads anticipated to occur in flight, flight control system control law checkout, propulsion test cell runs and/or flying test bed tests, etc.), and then ground tests involving multi-disciplines (See Section 9). Only after these have been accomplished will an initial, limited, low-risk, flight envelope be established. The limited envelope will typically be in the middle of the projected final flight envelope. Subsequent flight tests will then be devoted to expanding the initial envelope by operating the airplane at increasing ranges - representing increasing risk - of engine operation, airspeeds both fast and slow, altitude, load factor both above and below 1g, centers of gravity (fore and aft), and with system/subsystem failures. Whether flight tests are to define a flight envelope on a new model airplane with the attendant new airframe, new engine(s), and new subsystems (hydraulics, pressurization, etc.), or on an airplane involving only a few of these areas such as new engines in an old airframe, the fundamental approach to establishing an envelope is the same.

H Walgemoed↗