Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA)”

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 NTRS1988

Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): Assessment of the life support and airlock support systems, volume 1

The results of the Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL) are presented. The IOA effort first completed an analysis of the Life Support and Airlock Support Systems (LSS and ALSS) hardware, generating draft failure modes and potential critical items. To preserve independence, this analysis was accomplished without reliance upon the results contained within the NASA FMEA/CIL documentation. The IOA results were then compared to the NASA FMEA/CIL baseline with proposed Post 51-L updates included. The discrepancies were flagged for potential future resolution. This report documents the results of that comparison for the Orbiter LSS and ALSS hardware. The IOA product for the LSS and ALSS analysis consisted of 511 failure mode worksheets that resulted in 140 potential critical items. Comparison was made to the NASA baseline which consisted of 456 FMEAs and 101 CIL items. The IOA analysis identified 39 failure modes, 6 of which were classified as CIL items, for components not covered by the NASA FMEAs. It was recommended that these failure modes be added to the NASA FMEA baseline. The overall assessment produced agreement on all but 301 FMEAs which caused differences in 111 CIL items.

Arbet, J. D.↗
NASA NTRS1988

Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): Assessment of the Electrical Power Distribution and Control/Electrical Power Generation (EPD and C/EPG) FMEA/CIL

The results of the Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL) are presented. The IOA effort first completed an analysis of the Electrical Power Distribution and Control/Electrical Power Generation (EPD and C/EPG) hardware, generating draft failure modes and potential critical items. To preserve independence, this analysis was accomplished without reliance upon the results contained within the NASA FMEA/CIL documentation. The IOA results were then compared to the NASA FMEA/CIL baseline with proposed Post 51-L updates included. A resolution of each discrepancy from the comparison was provided through additional analysis as required. The results of that comparison is documented for the Orbiter EPD and C/EPG hardware. The IOA product for the EPD and C/EPG analysis consisted of 263 failure mode worksheets that resulted in 42 potential critical items being identified. Comparison was made to the NASA baseline which consisted of 211 FMEA and 47 CIL items.

Mccants, C. N.↗
NASA NTRS1987

Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): Analysis of the electrical power distribution and control/remote manipulator system subsystem

The results of the Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL) are presented. The IOA approach features a top-down analysis of the Electrical Power Distribution and Control (EPD and C)/Remote Manipulator System (RMS) hardware to determine failure modes, criticality, and potential critical items. To preserve independence, this analysis was accomplished without reliance upon the results contained in the NASA FMEA/CIL documentation. This report documents the results of the independent analysis of the EPD and C/RMS (both port and starboard) hardware. The EPD and C/RMS subsystem hardware provides the electrical power and power control circuitry required to safely deploy, operate, control, and stow or guillotine and jettison two (one port and one starboard) RMSs. The EPD and C/RMS subsystem is subdivided into the four following functional divisions: Remote Manipulator Arm; Manipulator Deploy Control; Manipulator Latch Control; Manipulator Arm Shoulder Jettison; and Retention Arm Jettison. The IOA analysis process utilized available EPD and C/RMS hardware drawings and schematics for defining hardware assemblies, components, and hardware items. Each level of hardware was evaluated and analyzed for possible failure modes and effects. Criticality was assigned based on the severity of the effect for each failure mode.

Robinson, W. W.↗
NASA NTRS1988

Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): Assessment of the EPD and C/remote manipulator system FMEA/CIL

The results of the Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL) are presented. The IOA effort first completed an analysis of the Electrical Power Distribution and Control (EPD and C)/Remote Manipulator System (RMS) hardware, generating draft failure modes and potential critical items. To preserve independence, this analysis was accomplished without reliance upon the results contained within the NASA FMEA/CIL documentation. The IOA analysis of the EPD and C/RMS hardware initially generated 345 failure mode worksheets and identified 117 Potential Critical Items (PCIs) before starting the assessment process. These analysis results were compared to the proposed NASA Post 51-L baseline of 132 FMEAs and 66 CIL items.

Robinson, W. W.↗
NASA NTRS1988

Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): Assessment of the orbital maneuvering system FMEA/CIL, volume 1

The results of the Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL) are presented. The IOA effort first completed an analysis of the Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) hardware and Electrical Power Distribution and Control (EPD and C), generating draft failure modes and potential critical items. To preserve independence, this analysis was accomplished without reliance upon the results contained within the NASA FMEA/CIL documentation. The IOA results were then compared to the proposed Post 51-L NASA FMEA/CIL baseline. This report documents the results of that comparison for the Orbiter OMS hardware. The IOA analysis defined the OMS as being comprised of the following subsystems: helium pressurization, propellant storage and distribution, Orbital Maneuvering Engine, and EPD and C. The IOA product for the OMS analysis consisted of 284 hardware and 667 EPD and C failure mode worksheets that resulted in 160 hardware and 216 EPD and C potential critical items (PCIs) being identified. A comparison was made of the IOA product to the NASA FMEA/CIL baseline which consisted of 101 hardware and 142 EPD and C CIL items.

Prust, Chet D.↗
NASA NTRS1988

Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): Assessment of the orbital maneuvering subsystem, volume 2

The results of the Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL) are presented. The IOA effort first completed an analysis of the Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) hardware and electrical power distribution and control (EPD and C), generating draft failure modes and potential critical items. To preserve independence, this analysis was accomplished without reliance upon the results contained within the NASA FMEA/CIL documentation. The IOA results were then compared to the proposed Post 51-L NASA FMEA/CIL baseline. This report documents the results of that comparison for the Orbiter OMS hardware and EPD and C systems. Volume 2 continues the presentation of IOA worksheets and contains the critical items list and the NASA FMEA to IOA worksheet cross reference and recommendations.

Haufler, W. A.↗
NASA NTRS1988

Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): FMEA/CIL assessment

The McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company (MDAC) was selected to perform an Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL). Direction was given by the Orbiter and GFE Projects Office to perform the hardware analysis and assessment using the instructions and ground rules defined in NSTS 22206. The IOA analysis featured a top-down approach to determine hardware failure modes, criticality, and potential critical items. To preserve independence, the analysis was accomplished without reliance upon the results contained within the NASA and Prime Contractor FMEA/CIL documentation. The assessment process compared the independently derived failure modes and criticality assignments to the proposed NASA post 51-L FMEA/CIL documentation. When possible, assessment issues were discussed and resolved with the NASA subsystem managers. Unresolved issues were elevated to the Orbiter and GFE Projects Office manager, Configuration Control Board (CCB), or Program Requirements Control Board (PRCB) for further resolution. The most important Orbiter assessment finding was the previously unknown stuck autopilot push-button criticality 1/1 failure mode. The worst case effect could cause loss of crew/vehicle when the microwave landing system is not active. It is concluded that NASA and Prime Contractor Post 51-L FMEA/CIL documentation assessed by IOA is believed to be technically accurate and complete. All CIL issues were resolved. No FMEA issues remain that have safety implications. Consideration should be given, however, to upgrading NSTS 22206 with definitive ground rules which more clearly spell out the limits of redundancy.

Hinsdale, L. W.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Enhancing Fault Isolation for Health Monitoring of Electric Aircraft Propulsion by Embedding Failure Mode and Effect Analysis into Bayesian Networks

This paper describes a fault isolation approach for electric powertrains of unmanned aerial vehicles. The approach leverages the combination of failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) and Bayesian networks, thus introducing depend-ability structures into a diagnostic framework. Faults and failure events from the FMEA are mapped within a Bayesian network, where network edges replicate the links embedded within FMEAs. This framework helps the fault isolation process by identifying the probability of occurrence of specific faults or root causes given evidence observed through sensor signals. The framework is applied to an electric power-train system of a small, rotary-wing unmanned aerial vehicle, demonstrating how a Bayesian network enhanced by FMEA helps disambiguate between root causes of incipient failures, which would otherwise be considered as equally probable.

Fault Isolation↗
NASA NTRS1988

Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): Assessment of the reaction control system, volume 1

The results of the Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL) are presented. The IOA effort first completed an analysis of the aft and forward Reaction Control System (RCS) hardware, and Electrical Power Distribution and Control (EPD and C), generating draft failure modes and potential critical items. To preserve independence, this analysis was accomplished without reliance upon the results contained within the NASA FMEA/CIL documentation. The IOA results were then compared to the proposed Post 51-L NASA FMEA/CIL baseline. This report documents the results of that comparison for the Orbiter RCS hardware and EPD and C systems. The IOA product for the RCS analysis consisted of 208 hardware and 2064 EPD and C failure mode worksheets that resulted in 141 hardware and 449 EPD and C potential critical items (PCIs) being identified. A comparison was made of the IOA product to the NASA FMEA/CIL baseline. After comparison and discussions with the NASA subsystem manager, 96 hardware issues, 83 of which concern CIL items or PCIs, and 280 EPD and C issues, 158 of which concern CIL items or PCIs, and 280 EPD and C issues, 158 of which concern CIL items or PCIs, remain unresolved. Volume 1 contains the subsystem description, assessment results, and some of the IOA worksheets.

Prust, Chet D.↗
NASA NTRS1988

Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): Assessment of the reaction control system, volume 2

The results of the Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL) are presented. The IOA effort first completed an analysis of the aft and forward Reaction Control System (RCS) hardware and Electrical Power Distribution and Control (EPD and C), generating draft failure modes and potential critical items. The IOA results were then compared to the proposed Post 51-L NASA FMEA/CIL baseline. This report documents the results of that comparison for the Orbiter RCS hardware and EPD and C systems. Volume 2 continues the presentation of IOA worksheets.

Prust, Chet D.↗
NASA NTRS1988

Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): Assessment of the reaction control system, volume 3

The results of the Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL) are presented. The IOA effort first completed an analysis of the aft and forward Reaction Control System (RCS) hardware and Electrical Power Distribution and Control (EPD and C), generating draft failure modes and potential critical items. The IOA results were then compared to the proposed Post 51-L NASA FMEA/CIL baseline. This report documents the results of that comparison for the Orbiter RCS hardware and EPD and C systems. Volume 3 continues the presentation of IOA worksheets.

Prust, Chet D.↗
NASA NTRS1988

Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): Assessment of the reaction control system, volume 4

The results of the Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL) are presented. The IOA effort first completed an analysis of the aft and forward Reaction Control System (RCS) hardware and Electrical Power Distribution and Control (EPD and C), generating draft failure modes and potential critical items. The IOA results were then compared to the proposed Post 51-L NASA FMEA/CIL baseline. This report documents the results of that comparison for the Orbiter RCS hardware and EPD and C systems. Volume 4 continues the presentation of IOA worksheets and contains the potential critical items list.

Prust, Chet D.↗
NASA NTRS1988

Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): Assessment of the reaction control system, volume 5

The results of the Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL) are presented. The IOA effort first completed an analysis of the aft and forward Reaction Control System (RCS) hardware and Electrical Power Distribution and Control (EPD and C), generating draft failure modes and potential critical items. The IOA results were then compared to the proposed Post 51-L NASA FMEA/CIL baseline. This report documents the results of that comparison for the Orbiter RCS hardware and EPD and C systems. Volume 5 contains detailed analysis and superseded analysis worksheets and the NASA FMEA to IOA worksheet cross reference and recommendations.

Prust, Chet D.↗
NASA NTRS1988

Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): FMEA/CIL assessment

The results of the Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL) are presented. Direction was given by the Orbiter and GFE Projects Office to perform the hardware analysis and assessment using the instructions and ground rules defined in NSTS 22206. The IOA analysis features a top-down approach to determine hardware failure modes, criticality, and potential critical items. To preserve independence, the anlaysis was accomplished without reliance upon the results contained within the NASA and prime contractor FMEA/CIL documentation. The assessment process compares the independently derived failure modes and criticality assignments to the proposed NASA Post 51-L FMEA/CIL documentation. When possible, assessment issues are discussed and resolved with the NASA subsystem managers. The assessment results for each subsystem are summarized. The most important Orbiter assessment finding was the previously unknown stuck autopilot push-button criticality 1/1 failure mode, having a worst case effect of loss of crew/vehicle when a microwave landing system is not active.

Saiidi, Mo J.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Uncovering Hazards Using a Multi-Objective Optimization to Explore the Faulty State-Space

Considering resilience when designing complex engineered systems is crucial to ensure the system is safe under unexpected hazardous scenarios. Traditional risk-based approaches, such as Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) are useful for designing the system to mitigate hazardous scenarios that can be identified by the designer, but often require experience or prior knowledge of system failures to generate. More recently, researchers have developed simulation tools that enable the designer to model large sets of hazardous scenarios (driven by both internal faults and external factors) through simulation. While these tools enable a wider scope of fault modes to be evaluated (e.g., by injecting combined set of fault modes or injecting modes at different times), the resulting assessments (like FMEA) still require knowledge of the specific modes to be evaluated. However, failure to analyze a wide variety of fault scenarios can lead to an incomplete picture of the system resilience, especially to "surprise events'' which may be difficult for the designer to identify and predict beforehand. To overcome this challenge, previous work developed a fault sampling approach for resilience simulations which would procedurally-generate a wide variety of potential faults by systematically perturbing the health states of the system. While the resulting fault modes generated covered a much larger space hazards than would be otherwise considered (and identified many unique failure trajectories which would not have otherwise been identified), it also significantly increased the computational cost of the analysis and resulted in the simulation and analysis of a large set of essentially duplicate scenarios. Additionally, as the number of dimensions in the faulty state-space increases, the full elaboration of possible modes becomes computationally infeasible, justifying the use of a more targeted search. To resolve this limitation, this work proposes the use of a multiobjective optimization algorithm to search the health state space for potential fault modes that are both (1) hazardous and (2) unique. To solve this type of problem, this work proposes the use of a cooperative co-evolutionary algorithm. To demonstrate this approach, it will be applied to a model of an autonomous rover which uses line markings to navigate, focusing on potential hazards in the drive system which could cause the rover to crash. To determine the merit of the approach, it will further be compared with the previously-presented range elaboration approach and a random mode generation approach on the basis of computational efficiency and found modes.

Resilience↗
NASA NTRS2018

Initial Criticality Assessments to Guide FMEAs on Rocket Engine Hot Fire Testing

Presented is an explanation of the use of the Initial Criticality Assessment (ICA) technique, a triage process for prioritizing required Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEAs), for the European Service Module's main propulsion system's hot-fire test bed at White Sands New Mexico. Rather than instinctively performing many FMEAs of subsystems, or one large system level FMEA where every subcomponent is analyzed, the ICA guided an informed analysis of only the hardware that had a large impact to hazards. The low criticality hardware was documented via the ICA and no FMEA was performed; the work could then focus on the high criticality hardware. Thus a savings of Program resources was achieved. The experiences gained in creating these ICAs for this international collaborative project confirmed that the need for continuous communication across the technical teams is one of the greatest areas of emphasis. The European Space Agency (ESA) is developing the European Service Module (ESM), with its primary contractor, Airbus Defence and Space in Germany, for delivery to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The module will be equipped with a total of 21 engines to support NASA’s Orion spacecraft: one U.S. Space Shuttle Orbital Maneuvering System-Engine (OMS-E), eight auxiliary thrusters and 12 smaller RCS (Reaction Control System) thrusters. The main ESM propulsion system, used for large translational maneuvers, consists of one OMS-E... To qualify the design of the ESM propulsion subsystem (PSS) an all-steel Propulsion Qualification Module (PQM) structure is used to test the propulsion systems on Orion, including “hot firing” of the OMS engine, thrusters, and RCS. The PQM has been developed as a hot-fire test bed to be tested at the NASA White Sands Test Facility (WSTF). One of the objectives of the testing is to assure that the OMS-E can be safely operated with the PQM. Testing will also demonstrate that the PQM can set the proper upstream pressures and temperatures for the OMS-E to operate nominally given the PQM has never been tested in hot-fire operation with OMS-E before. In order to safely conduct the test campaign, hardware such as the engine subassembly, fluid feed lines, valves, electrical power lines, instrumentation, stiff links, installation Ground Support Equipment (GSE), and diffuser [whose objectives are to collect the exhaust of the OMS-E to actively cool down the exhaust gases, reduce thermal exchanges, and create a vacuum at OMS-E level before igniting], had to be analyzed for any hazards and failure modes.

Fault Tolerance↗
NASA NTRS1990

Model-OA wind turbine generator - Failure modes and effects analysis

The results failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) conducted for wind-turbine generators are presented. The FMEA was performed for the functional modes of each system, subsystem, or component. The single-point failures were eliminated for most of the systems. The blade system was the only exception. The qualitative probability of a blade separating was estimated at level D-remote. Many changes were made to the hardware as a result of this analysis. The most significant change was the addition of the safety system. Operational experience and need to improve machine availability have resulted in subsequent changes to the various systems, which are also reflected in this FMEA.

Klein, William E.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Reliability and Maintainability Analysis for the Amine Swingbed Carbon Dioxide Removal System

I have performed a reliability & maintainability analysis for the Amine Swingbed payload system. The Amine Swingbed is a carbon dioxide removal technology that has gone through 2,400 hours of International Space Station on-orbit use between 2013 and 2016. While the Amine Swingbed is currently an experimental payload system, the Amine Swingbed may be converted to system hardware. If the Amine Swingbed becomes system hardware, it will supplement the Carbon Dioxide Removal Assembly (CDRA) as the primary CO2 removal technology on the International Space Station. NASA is also considering using the Amine Swingbed as the primary carbon dioxide removal technology for future extravehicular mobility units and for the Orion, which will be used for the Asteroid Redirect and Journey to Mars missions. The qualitative component of the reliability and maintainability analysis is a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA). In the FMEA, I have investigated how individual components in the Amine Swingbed may fail, and what the worst case scenario is should a failure occur. The significant failure effects are the loss of ability to remove carbon dioxide, the formation of ammonia due to chemical degradation of the amine, and loss of atmosphere because the Amine Swingbed uses the vacuum of space to regenerate the Amine Swingbed. In the quantitative component of the reliability and maintainability analysis, I have assumed a constant failure rate for both electronic and nonelectronic parts. Using this data, I have created a Poisson distribution to predict the failure rate of the Amine Swingbed as a whole. I have determined a mean time to failure for the Amine Swingbed to be approximately 1,400 hours. The observed mean time to failure for the system is between 600 and 1,200 hours. This range includes initial testing of the Amine Swingbed, as well as software faults that are understood to be non-critical. If many of the commercial parts were switched to military-grade parts, the expected mean time to failure would be 2,300 hours. Both calculated mean times to failure for the Amine Swingbed use conservative failure rate models. The observed mean time to failure for CDRA is 2,500 hours. Working on this project and for NASA in general has helped me gain insight into current aeronautics missions, reliability engineering, circuit analysis, and different cultures. Prior my internship, I did not have a lot knowledge about the work being performed at NASA. As a chemical engineer, I had not really considered working for NASA as a career path. By engaging in interactions with civil servants, contractors, and other interns, I have learned a great deal about modern challenges that NASA is addressing. My work has helped me develop a knowledge base in safety and reliability that would be difficult to find elsewhere. Prior to this internship, I had not thought about reliability engineering. Now, I have gained a skillset in performing reliability analyses, and understanding the inner workings of a large mechanical system. I have also gained experience in understanding how electrical systems work while I was analyzing the electrical components of the Amine Swingbed. I did not expect to be exposed to as many different cultures as I have while working at NASA. I am referring to both within NASA and the Houston area. NASA employs individuals with a broad range of backgrounds. It has been great to learn from individuals who have highly diverse experiences and outlooks on the world. In the Houston area, I have come across individuals from different parts of the world. Interacting with such a high number of individuals with significantly different backgrounds has helped me to grow as a person in ways that I did not expect. My time at NASA has opened a window into the field of aeronautics. After earning a bachelor's degree in chemical engineering, I plan to go to graduate school for a PhD in engineering. Prior to coming to NASA, I was not aware of the graduate Pathways program. I intend to apply for the graduate Pathways program as positions are opened up. I would like to pursue future opportunities with NASA, especially as my engineering career progresses.

Dunbar, Tyler↗