SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “matched bound”

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.

93 records · Page 6

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2022

Uncertainty Models for the Hybrid Parametric Variation Method of Uncertainty Quantification; Analysis

There is some level of uncertainty in every finite element model (FEM), which flows to a level of uncertainty in predicted results. The purpose of uncertainty quantification (UQ) is to provide statistical bounds on prediction accuracy based on model uncertainty. This is distinct from model updating, which attempts to modify models to improve their accuracy. UQ does not improve the accuracy of models, but accepts that the models are inherently inaccurate and attempts to quantify the impact of that inaccuracy on predicted results. Previously, an alternate method for UQ, called the Hybrid Parametric Variation (HPV) method, was applied to Space Launch System (SLS) Hurty/Craig-Bampton (HCB) components to predict system-level statistics for launch vehicle attitude control transfer functions and core stage section loads due to buffet. The HPV method combines a parametric variation of the HCB fixed-interface (FI) modal frequencies with a nonparametric variation (NPV) method that randomly varies the HCB mass and stiffness matrices as Wishart random matrix distributions using random matrix theory (RMT). Alternatively, the most common method for modeling uncertainty in the structural dynamics community is a parametric approach, which varies physical parameters in the model. However, there are several disadvantages associated with the parametric method. Determining a reduced set of parameters that have a significant impact on the system response can be time consuming, and the selected parameter probability distributions are rarely reliably known. Therefore, in practice, the parameters are surrogates for the actual errors, and the link to parameter uncertainty is unknown. Another major drawback is that the uncertainty that can be represented is limited to the form of the nominal FEM. It is the experience of the authors that based on numerous aerospace programs, almost all FEM errors are in form rather than parameter values. This hypothesis is supported by the observation of the authors that it is almost never possible to ‘tune’ a FEM to match modal test results by only modifying model parameters. Model-form uncertainty cannot be directly represented by FEM input parameters nor included in a parametric approach. However, model-form uncertainty can be modeled using RMT, where a probability distribution is developed for the matrix ensemble of interest. The major advantage of the NPV method is that it covers errors in model form. The HPV method anchors uncertainty at the HCB component level to component modal test results by matching the HCB and test modes based on mode descriptions or other methods, and then applying differing levels of frequency variation. The specific variations depend on the confidence to which a component FEM has been validated through modal testing. The NPV method is layered on the frequency variation to match modal test self-orthogonality and cross-orthogonality (XO) results. Once the component uncertainty models are identified, they are assembled, and the uncertainty is propagated to the system level using a Monte Carlo (MC) analysis approach that generates statistics for system-level predictions This provides a UQ method that can be traced to test data, which can be updated as additional data and improved correlated models become available. The purpose of this paper is to collect and present all of the theory for HPV that has been previously published in reports and papers and to present examples of its application. Specifically, component uncertainty models based on the dispersion of corresponding mass and stiffness matrices using proposed test/analysis correlation metrics are investigated. The first example is purely academic so that the true answers are known, and the validity of the HPV method and the corresponding uncertainty models can be determined. The purpose of this paper is to collect and present all of the theory for HPV that has been previously published in reports and papers and to present examples of its application. Specifically, component uncertainty models based on the dispersion of corresponding mass and stiffness matrices using proposed test/analysis correlation metrics are investigated. The first example is purely academic so that the true answers are known, and the validity of the HPV method and the corresponding uncertainty models can be determined. The second example is an application to a component that is design specific to the SLS. Based on this work and other assessments, the HPV method provides another tool to the toolset used for complex system UQ analysis. From experience gathered to date using the HPV method, additional design specific applications must be investigated to provide further confidence in the validity of the HPV method of UQ analysis.

Uncertainty quantification↗

NASA NTRS1956

On the Contribution of Turbulent Boundary Layers to the Noise Inside a Fuselage

The following report deals in preliminary fashion with the transmission through a fuselage of random noise generated on the fuselage skin by a turbulent boundary layer. The concept of attenuation is abandoned and instead the problem is formulated as a sequence of two linear couplings: the turbulent boundary layer fluctuations excite the fuselage skin in lateral vibrations and the skin vibrations induce sound inside the fuselage. The techniques used are those required to determine the response of linear systems to random forcing functions of several variables. A certain degree of idealization has been resorted to. Thus the boundary layer is assumed locally homogeneous, the fuselage skin is assumed flat, unlined and free from axial loads and the 'cabin' air is bounded only by the vibrating plate so that only outgoing waves are considered. Some of the details of the statistical description have been simplified in order to reveal the basic features of the problem. The results, strictly applicable only to the limiting case of thin boundary layers, show that the sound pressure intensity is proportional to the square of the free stream density, the square of cabin air density and inversely proportional to the first power of the damping constant and to the second power of the plate density. The dependence on free stream velocity and boundary layer thickness cannot be given in general without a detailed knowledge of the characteristics of the pressure fluctuations in the boundary layer (in particular the frequency spectrum). For a flat spectrum the noise intensity depends on the fifth power of the velocity and the first power of the boundary layer thickness. This suggests that boundary layer removal is probably not an economical means for decreasing cabin noise. In general, the analysis presented here only reduces the determination of cabin noise intensity to the measurement of the effect of any one of our variables (free stream velocity, boundary layer thickness, plate thickness or the characteristic velocity of propagation in the plate). The plate generates noise by vibrating in resonance over a wide range of frequencies and increasing the damping constant is consequently an effective method of decreasing noise generation. One of the main features of the results is that the relevant quantities upon which noise intensity depends are non-dimensional numbers in which boundary layer and plate properties enter as ratios. This is taken as an indication that in testing models of structures for boundary layer noise it is not sufficient to duplicate in the model the structural characteristics of the fuselage. One must match properly the characteristics of the exicitng pressure fluctuations to that of the structure.

Corcos, G. M.↗

NASA NTRS2021

LOFTID Heat Flux Gauge Calibration: What is Truth?

The Low-Earth Orbit Flight Test of an Inflatable Decelerator (LOFTID) is a demonstration of Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator (HIAD) technology, which may enable the delivery of heavy payloads to Mars, Venus, and Titan, as well as return to Earth. Unlike rigid aeroshells that are constrained by the size of the rocket’s shroud, inflatable aeroshells can be deployed to a much larger scale, thus allowing a spacecraft to begin its deceleration earlier and experience less heating. On LOFTID, there will be 4 total heat flux gauges (HFG) with a range of 70 W/cm2 and 1 radiometer with a range of 3 W/cm2, arranged as shown in Fig. 1. Both the radiometer and total HFGs are Schmidt-Boelter gauges purchased from an external vendor. Radiative calibrations were performed in-house at NASA Ames’ Sensors and TPS Advanced Research Laboratories (STAR Labs) before and after environmental testing to investigate how the testing affected the sensors' response. Additional rounds of radiative calibration at STAR Labs were also performed in order to investigate the large uncertainties associated with these tests. For example, a survey of multiple calibration facilities concluded that the uncertainty within a given facility was +/-3% [1]. An additional NIST study that calibrated heat flux gauges at 7 different facilities also found the variation in calibration coefficients to be up to ~3% within a given facility, but up to 15% between facilities, suggesting systematic differences between test setups [2]. Finally, the response of heat flux gauges to radiative versus convective heat flux has shown to differ by up to 20% [3],[4]. Because the heat flux gauges on LOFTID will predominantly experience convective heat flux during flight, a convective calibration study was performed at Boeing's Large-Core Arc Tunnel (LCAT) facility. Radiative Calibration Procedure The calibrations performed at STAR Labs utilize a quartz lamp bank (QLB) that provides a maximum heat flux of 50 W/cm2, which bounds the expected LOFTID flight environment. The calibration involves exposing a water-cooled Gardon gauge (reference) and then the unit-under-test (UUT) to 5 different heat fluxes multiple times for 10 seconds each, and then calculating a linear fit. The test setup is shown in Fig. 2. The total HFGs were calibrated at STAR Labs 3 times, denoted as STAR 1 (before environmental testing), STAR 2 (after protoflight vibration and thermal-vacuum testing), and STAR 3 (no change from previous test). All 8 flight-lot total HFGs showed a decrease in full-scale output from STAR 1 to STAR 2 by between 0.5% and 10. The first portion of this investigation was to determine whether the change could be due to differences in temperature between the two calibration runs. A typical linear fit to the calibration data was performed using Eq. 1 where q’ is the heat flux in W/cm2, c is the calibration coefficient, and mV is the sensor output. To account for temperature, the data were fit to a nonlinear function that included both the sensor output (mV) and the temperature from the thermocouple embedded inside the HFG near the surface (T): q'=mV/(c1* T + c0}. The residuals between the fits and the actual data points were calculated for every point, and proven to be much smaller for the temperature-compensated fits than for the linear fits for all sensors. An example is shown in Fig. 3. When the temperature-compensated fits from STAR 1 were applied to the STAR 2 data, the residuals did not improve, suggesting that the change in sensitivity between these two calibration runs was not due to temperature. A third round of calibration (STAR 3) was conducted to further address the temperature dependence of the total HFGs, and the resulting sensitivities matched closely to STAR 2 (within 2%). Temperature-compensated calibration curves were once again fit to the data. In this case, when the temperature-compensated fits from STAR 3 were applied to STAR 2 data, the residuals between the fits and STAR 2 data were much lower than the residuals due to the linear fits. This suggests that the changes seen between STAR 1 and STAR 2 were likely due to actual changes in the sensors caused by the environmental testing between the two calibrations. A modification of the original calibration process, in which the UUT was exposed to each heat flux for just 3 seconds (instead of 10) to reduce the temperature increase during the test, was additionally performed on several of the HFGs. In general, the sensitivities were 1-1.5% lower than from the 10-second tests, but the temperatures were also significantly lower. When the temperature-compensated fits from the 10-second tests were applied to the 3-second test data, the residuals were greatly improved than when just using the linear fits, further suggesting that the temperature-compensated fits may lead to better accuracy than the linear fits in flight. Convective Calibration The second portion of this study was to create a mapping between the radiative and convective calibration coefficients. The majority of the heating during flight will be convective, so it is important to understand how the HFG response differs under these conditions. However, there are no standardized methods for convective calibration [5]. Because the TPS aerothermal response models were validated at LCAT, the same facility was chosen for convective calibration of two of the total HFGs (Fig. 4). Preliminary results showed that the full-scale output was 3% and 8% higher in convective heat flux as compared to radiative heat flux. However, tunnel variation may have contributed to noise and uncertainty in the measurements, and more testing and analysis remains to be done. Scope of Presentation The presentation will include an overview of the changes seen in HFG calibration before and after environmental testing, differences between radiative and convective calibrations, the modeling work done to aid in understanding the sensor response to varying environments, and recommended future work.

H S Alpert↗