Results for “automotive electronics” — Page 6

NASA NTRS2015

Carbon Structure Hazard Control

Carbon composite structures are widely used in virtually all advanced technology industries for a multitude of applications. The high strength-to-weight ratio and resistance to aggressive service environments make them highly desirable. Automotive, aerospace, and petroleum industries extensively use, and will continue to use, this enabling technology. As a result of this broad range of use, field and test personnel are increasingly exposed to hazards associated with these structures. No single published document exists to address the hazards and make recommendations for the hazard controls required for the different exposure possibilities from damaged structures including airborne fibers, fly, and dust. The potential for personnel exposure varies depending on the application or manipulation of the structure. The effect of exposure to carbon hazards is not limited to personnel, protection of electronics and mechanical equipment must be considered as well. The various exposure opportunities defined in this document include pre-manufacturing fly and dust, the cured structure, manufacturing/machining, post-event cleanup, and post-event test and/or evaluation. Hazard control is defined as it is applicable or applied for the specific exposure opportunity. The carbon exposure hazard includes fly, dust, fiber (cured/uncured), and matrix vapor/thermal decomposition products. By using the recommendations in this document, a high level of confidence can be assured for the protection of personnel and equipment.

Yoder, Tommy↗

NASA NTRS2004

COTS MEMS Flow-Measurement Probes

As an alternative to conventional tubing instrumentation for measuring airflow, designers and technicians at Glenn Research Center have been fabricating packaging components and assembling a set of unique probes that contain commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) sensor chips. MEMS sensor chips offer some compelling advantages over standard macroscopic measurement devices. MEMS sensor technology has matured through mass production and use in the automotive and aircraft industries. At present, MEMS are the devices of choice for sensors in such applications as tire-pressure monitors, altimeters, pneumatic controls, cable leak detectors, and consumer appliances. Compactness, minimality of power demand, rugged construction, and moderate cost all contribute to making MEMS sensors attractive for instrumentation for future research. Conventional macroscopic flow-measurement instrumentation includes tubes buried beneath the aerodynamic surfaces of wind-tunnel models or in wind-tunnel walls. Pressure is introduced at the opening of each such tube. The pressure must then travel along the tube before reaching a transducer that generates an electronic signal. The lengths of such tubes typically range from 20 ft (approx.= 6 m) to hundreds of feet (of the order of 100 m). The propagation of pressure signals in the tubes damps the signals considerably and makes it necessary to delay measurements until after test rigs have reached steady-state operation. In contrast, a MEMS pressure sensor that generates electronic output can take readings continuously under dynamic conditions in nearly real time. In order to use stainless-steel tubing for pressure measurements, it is necessary to clean many tubes, cut them to length, carefully install them, delicately deburr them, and splice them. A cluster of a few hundred 1/16-in.- (approx.=1.6-mm-) diameter tubes (such clusters are common in research testing facilities) can be several inches (of the order of 10 cm) in diameter and could weigh enough that two technicians are needed to handle it. Replacing hard tubing with electronic chips can eliminate much of the bulk. Each sensor would fit on the tip of a 1/16-in. tube with room to spare. The Lucas NovaSensor P592 piezoresistive silicon pressure sensor was chosen for this project because of its cost, availability, and tolerance to extreme ambient conditions. The sensor chip is 1 mm square by 0.6 mm thick (about 0.039 by 0.039 by 0.024 in.) and includes 0.12-mm (approx.=0.005-in.) wire connection tabs. The figure shows a flow-angularity probe that was built by use of three such MEMS chips. It is planned to demonstrate this MEMS probe as an alternative to a standard tube-type "Cobra" probe now used routinely in wind tunnels and aeronautical hardware. This MEMS probe could be translated across a flow field by use of a suitable actuator, so that its accuracy and the shortness of its response time could be exploited to obtain precise dynamic measurements of a sort that cannot be made by use of conventional tubing-based instrumentation.

Redding, Chip↗

NASA NTRS2008

Electron Beam Freeform Fabrication: A Fabrication Process that Revolutionizes Aircraft Structural Designs and Spacecraft Supportability

The technological inception and challenges, as well as current applications of the electron beam freeform fabrication (EBF3) process are outlined. The process was motivated by the need for a new metals technology that would be cost-effective, enable the production of new alloys and that would could be used for efficient, lightweight structures. EBF3 is a rapid metal fabrication, layer-additive process that uses no molds or tools and which yields properties equivalent to wrought. The benefits of EBF3 include it near-net shape which minimizes scrap and reduces part count; efficiency in design which allows for lighter weight and enhanced performance; and, its "green" manufacturing process which yields minimal waste products. EBF3 also has a high tensile strength, while a structural test comparison found that EBF3 panels performed 5% lower than machined panels. Technical challenges in the EBF3 process include a need for process control monitoring and an improvement in localized heat response. Currently, the EBF3 process can be used to add details onto forgings and to construct and form complex shapes. However, it has potential uses in a variety of industries including aerospace, automotive, sporting goods and medical implant devices. The novel structural design capabilities of EBF3 have the ability to yield curved stiffeners which may be optimized for performance, low weight, low noise and damage tolerance applications. EBF3 has also demonstrated its usefulness in 0-gravity environments for supportability in space applications.

Taminger, Karen M.↗

NASA NTRS2009

Compact, Miniature MMIC Receiver Modules for an MMIC Array Spectrograph

A single-pixel prototype of a W-band detector module with a digital back-end was developed to serve as a building block for large focal-plane arrays of monolithic millimeter-wave integrated circuit (MMIC) detectors. The module uses low-noise amplifiers, diode-based mixers, and a WR10 waveguide input with a coaxial local oscillator. State-of-the-art InP HEMT (high electron mobility transistor) MMIC amplifiers at the front end provide approximately 40 dB of gain. The measured noise temperature of the module, at an ambient temperature of 300 K, was found to be as low as 450 K at 95 GHz. The modules will be used to develop multiple instruments for astrophysics radio telescopes, both on the ground and in space. The prototype is being used by Stanford University to characterize noise performance at cryogenic temperatures. The goal is to achieve a 30-50 K noise temperature around 90 GHz when cooled to a 20 K ambient temperature. Further developments include characterization of the IF in-phase (I) and quadrature (Q) signals as a function of frequency to check amplitude and phase; replacing the InP low-noise amplifiers with state-of-the-art 35-nm-gate-length NGC low-noise amplifiers; interfacing the front-end module with a digital back-end spectrometer; and developing a scheme for local oscillator and IF distribution in a future array. While this MMIC is being developed for use in radio astronomy, it has the potential for use in other industries. Applications include automotive radar (both transmitters and receivers), communication links, radar systems for collision avoidance, production monitors, ground-penetrating sensors, and wireless personal networks.

Kangaslahti, Pekka P.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

How to Educate Decision Makers on the Value and Necessity of Modal Testing and Model Correlation: Tips for Young Engineers

Engineers need to effectively communicate the justification and value of their modal testing and model correlation in terminology familiar to decision makers as it relates to the program’s risk tolerance. This communication must relate to the program’s risk tolerance and the metrics used to judge the performance of both the program and individual decision makers. The challenge is the terminologies familiar to engineers and decision makers are quite different and seemingly unrelated. The engineering profession has developed a specific terminology to solve highly technical issues, which are many times themselves unique to very specific engineering problems. It is all too easy for engineers to believe that everyone in their organization, including the decision makers, has an intrinsic understanding of what they do and the value it brings to the program’s success. This is especially true for young engineers who have recently spent the last four plus years in an academic engineering learning environment, which has a highly technical research oriented atmosphere. Effective communication with decision makers is increasingly important as the technical breadth and practical program and project experience level for up and coming decision makers diminishes. It is not unusual for the decision makers to have technical knowledge in a domain different from structural dynamics (e.g., electronics or systems). Competition among satellite manufactures has increased the focus on programmatic cost and ability to deliver on schedule. NASA programs are also seeing more restrictive programmatic cost and schedule constraints, which impact both analysis and testing. It should also be noted that a comprehensive suite of tests are required to verify a satellite’s design capability with some margin. These tests include static strength verification tests, shock, acoustic, and vibration tests (sine and random) of systems, subsystems, and components. Each of these verification tests provide opportunities for model correlation and risk reduction. It is important to recognize dynamic loads/modal test models may not include all of the flight hardware (i.e., harness, coax, waveguides, connectors, etc.) and the previously mentioned tests are still required for qualification/verification of the design. This paper provides tips to young engineers on how to bridge this communications gap, have a better understanding of the environment in which decision makers operate, and assist them to better support successful missions. While this paper primarily focuses on modal testing and model correlation as related to spacecraft missions, the concepts and recommendations presented here are equally applicable to other fields such as aeronautics, automotive, power generation, etc.

Decision Maker↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

How to Educate Decision Makers on the Value and Necessity of Modal Testing and Model Correlation: Tips for Young Engineers

Engineers need to effectively communicate the justification and value of their modal testing and model correlation in terminology familiar to decision makers as it relates to the program’s risk tolerance. This communication must relate to the program’s risk tolerance and the metrics used to judge the performance of both the program and individual decision makers. The challenge is the terminologies familiar to engineers and decision makers are quite different and seemingly unrelated. The engineering profession has developed a specific terminology to solve highly technical issues, which are many times themselves unique to very specific engineering problems. It is all too easy for engineers to believe that everyone in their organization, including the decision makers, has an intrinsic understanding of what they do and the value it brings to the program’s success. This is especially true for young engineers who have recently spent the last four plus years in an academic engineering learning environment, which has a highly technical research oriented atmosphere. Effective communication with decision makers is increasingly important as the technical breadth and practical program and project experience level for up and coming decision makers diminishes. It is not unusual for the decision makers to have technical knowledge in a domain different from structural dynamics (e.g., electronics or systems). Competition among satellite manufactures has increased the focus on programmatic cost and ability to deliver on schedule. NASA programs are also seeing more restrictive programmatic cost and schedule constraints, which impact both analysis and testing. It should also be noted that a comprehensive suite of tests are required to verify a satellite’s design capability with some margin. These tests include static strength verification tests, shock, acoustic, and vibration tests (sine and random) of systems, subsystems, and components. Each of these verification tests provide opportunities for model correlation and risk reduction. It is important to recognize dynamic loads/modal test models may not include all of the flight hardware (i.e., harness, coax, waveguides, connectors, etc.) and the previously mentioned tests are still required for qualification/verification of the design. This paper provides tips to young engineers on how to bridge this communications gap, have a better understanding of the environment in which decision makers operate, and assist them to better support successful missions. While this paper primarily focuses on modal testing and model correlation as related to spacecraft missions, the concepts and recommendations presented here are equally applicable to other fields such as aeronautics, automotive, power generation, etc.

Decision Maker↗

NASA NTRS2005

Process Developed for Generating Ceramic Interconnects With Low Sintering Temperatures for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells

Solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) have been considered as premium future power generation devices because they have demonstrated high energy-conversion efficiency, high power density, and extremely low pollution, and have the flexibility of using hydrocarbon fuel. The Solid-State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) initiative, supported by the U.S. Department of Energy and private industries, is leading the development and commercialization of SOFCs for low-cost stationary and automotive markets. The targeted power density for the initiative is rather low, so that the SECA SOFC can be operated at a relatively low temperature (approx. 700 C) and inexpensive metallic interconnects can be utilized in the SOFC stack. As only NASA can, the agency is investigating SOFCs for aerospace applications. Considerable high power density is required for the applications. As a result, the NASA SOFC will be operated at a high temperature (approx. 900 C) and ceramic interconnects will be employed. Lanthanum chromite-based materials have emerged as a leading candidate for the ceramic interconnects. The interconnects are expected to co-sinter with zirconia electrolyte to mitigate the interface electric resistance and to simplify the processing procedure. Lanthanum chromites made by the traditional method are sintered at 1500 C or above. They react with zirconia electrolytes (which typically sinter between 1300 and 1400 C) at the sintering temperature of lanthanum chromites. It has been envisioned that lanthanum chromites with lower sintering temperatures can be co-fired with zirconia electrolyte. Nonstoichiometric lanthanum chromites can be sintered at lower temperatures, but they are unstable and react with zirconia electrolyte during co-sintering. NASA Glenn Research Center s Ceramics Branch investigated a glycine nitrate process to generate fine powder of the lanthanum-chromite-based materials. By simultaneously doping calcium on the lanthanum site, and cobalt and aluminum on the chromium site, we could sinter the materials below 1400 C. The doping concentrations were adjusted so that the thermal expansion coefficient matched that of the zirconia electrolyte. Also, the investigation was focused on stoichiometric compositions so that the materials would have better stability. Co-sintering and chemical compatibility with zirconia electrolyte were examined by X-ray diffraction, scanning electron microscopy, and energy dispersive spectroscopy (line scanning and dot map). The results showed that the materials bond well, but do not react, with zirconia electrolyte. The electric conductivity of the materials measured at 900 C in air was about 20 S/cm.

Zhong, Zhi-Min↗