Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Specifiation”

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 127 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The optimum cost-effective test time for redundant systems with specified reliability and confidence

This paper investigates the optimum test time to determine the number of redundant units needed to achieve high reliability with high confidence. Newly designed systems often have high initial failure rates which can be reduced by testing to find failure modes and remove them by redesign. To accurately estimate the required number of redundant units, the test time must be extended to accurately determine the failure rate. If the measured failure rate is used, there is a 50% chance that the actual hardware failure rate is higher. Using the measured failure rate gives only a 50% confidence that the failure rate and number of spares are not too low. After the test, given the measured failure rate and the desired reliability, the number of spares can be determined and the confidence in the reliability computed. Instead of accepting the reliability results of a fixed duration test, it is possible to set the requirements for both the redundant reliability and the confidence level and then compute the test time needed to minimize the total cost required to achieve these requirements. The confidence that the redundant reliability is not too low is increased by using a higher than measured failure rate to increase the number of spares. The higher number of spares increases cost. Longer test time reduces the variance in the failure rate and the increase in the number of spares, so that test cost increases and spares cost decreases. The total cost is the sum of the cost of the test time and the spares. The optimum test time produces the minimum total cost for the system failure rate, mission length, and required reliability and confidence level. Longer testing is justified by reduced cost. Some examples are given.

Harry W Jones↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Trail Creek. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors at Snodgrass Mountain. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format SG-X-Y, where SG refers to Snodgrass Mountain, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, SG-EHS is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and SG-ERTn (upslope n=1) are points along the Snodgrass electrical resistivity tomography transect not associated with the existing site names in the directory. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
NASA NTRS2022

NDARC - NASA Design and Analysis of Rotorcraft: Input and Data Structures - Vol 2

The NDARC code performs design and analysis tasks. The design task involves sizing the rotorcraft to satisfy specified design conditions and missions. The analysis tasks can include off-design mission performance analysis, flight performance calculation for point operating conditions, and generation of subsystem or component performance maps. Figure 1-1 illustrates the tasks. The principal tasks (sizing, mission analysis, flight performance analysis) are shown in the figure as boxes with heavy borders. Heavy arrows show control of subordinate tasks. The aircraft description (figure 1-1) consists of all the information, input and derived, that defines the aircraft. The aircraft consists of a set of components, including fuselage, rotors, wings, tails, and propulsion. This information can be the result of the sizing task; can come entirely from input, for a fixed model; or can come from the sizing task in a previous case or previous job. The aircraft description information is available to all tasks and all solutions (indicated by light arrows). The sizing task determines the dimensions, power, and weight of a rotorcraft that can perform a specified set of design conditions and missions. The aircraft size is characterized by parameters such as design gross weight, weight empty, rotor radius, and engine power available. The relations between dimensions, power, and weight generally require an iterative solution. From the design flight conditions and missions, the task can determine the total engine power or the rotor radius (or both power and radius can be fixed), as well as the design gross weight, maximum takeoff weight, drive system torque limit, and fuel tank capacity. For each propulsion group, the engine power or the rotor radius can be sized. Missions are defined for the sizing task, and for the mission performance analysis. A mission consists of a number of mission segments, for which time, distance, and fuel burn are evaluated. For the sizing task, certain missions are designated to be used for design gross weight calculations; for transmission sizing; and for fuel tank sizing. The mission parameters include mission takeoff gross weight and useful load. For specified takeoff fuel weight with adjustable segments, the mission time or distance is adjusted so the fuel required for the mission (burned plus reserve) equals the takeoff fuel weight. The mission iteration is on fuel weight or energy. Flight conditions are specified for the sizing task, and for the flight performance analysis. For the sizing task, certain flight conditions are designated to be used for design gross weight calculations; for transmission sizing; for maximum takeoff weight calculations; and for antitorque or auxiliary thrust rotor sizing. The flight condition parameters include gross weight and useful load. For flight conditions and mission takeoff, the gross weight can be maximized, such that the power required equals the power available. A flight state is defined for each mission segment and each flight condition. The aircraft performance can be analyzed for the specified state, or a maximum effort performance can be identified. The maximum effort is specified in terms of a quantity such as best endurance or best range, and a variable such as speed, rate of climb, or altitude. The aircraft must be trimmed, by solving for the controls and motion that produce equilibrium in the specified flight state. Different trim solution definitions are required for various flight states. Evaluating the rotor hub forces may require solution of the blade flap equations of motion.

NDARC↗
NASA NTRS2022

NDARC - NASA Design and Analysis of Rotorcraft: Input - Vol 3

The NDARC code performs design and analysis tasks. The design task involves sizing the rotorcraft to satisfy specified design conditions and missions. The analysis tasks can include off-design mission performance analysis, flight performance calculation for point operating conditions, and generation of subsystem or component performance maps. Figure 1-1 illustrates the tasks. The principal tasks (sizing, mission analysis, flight performance analysis) are shown in the figure as boxes with heavy borders. Heavy arrows show control of subordinate tasks. The aircraft description (figure 1-1) consists of all the information, input and derived, that defines the aircraft. The aircraft consists of a set of components, including fuselage, rotors, wings, tails, and propulsion. This information can be the result of the sizing task; can come entirely from input, for a fixed model; or can come from the sizing task in a previous case or previous job. The aircraft description information is available to all tasks and all solutions (indicated by light arrows). The sizing task determines the dimensions, power, and weight of a rotorcraft that can perform a specified set of design conditions and missions. The aircraft size is characterized by parameters such as design gross weight, weight empty, rotor radius, and engine power available. The relations between dimensions, power, and weight generally require an iterative solution. From the design flight conditions and missions, the task can determine the total engine power or the rotor radius (or both power and radius can be fixed), as well as the design gross weight, maximum takeoff weight, drive system torque limit, and fuel tank capacity. For each propulsion group, the engine power or the rotor radius can be sized. Missions are defined for the sizing task, and for the mission performance analysis. A mission consists of a number of mission segments, for which time, distance, and fuel burn are evaluated. For the sizing task, certain missions are designated to be used for design gross weight calculations; for transmission sizing; and for fuel tank sizing. The mission parameters include mission takeoff gross weight and useful load. For specified takeoff fuel weight with adjustable segments, the mission time or distance is adjusted so the fuel required for the mission (burned plus reserve) equals the takeoff fuel weight. The mission iteration is on fuel weight or energy. Flight conditions are specified for the sizing task, and for the flight performance analysis. For the sizing task, certain flight conditions are designated to be used for design gross weight calculations; for transmission sizing; for maximum takeoff weight calculations; and for antitorque or auxiliary thrust rotor sizing. The flight condition parameters include gross weight and useful load. For flight conditions and mission takeoff, the gross weight can be maximized, such that the power required equals the power available. A flight state is defined for each mission segment and each flight condition. The aircraft performance can be analyzed for the specified state, or a maximum effort performance can be identified. The maximum effort is specified in terms of a quantity such as best endurance or best range, and a variable such as speed, rate of climb, or altitude. The aircraft must be trimmed, by solving for the controls and motion that produce equilibrium in the specified flight state. Different trim solution definitions are required for various flight states. Evaluating the rotor hub forces may require solution of the blade flap equations of motion.

NDARC↗
NASA NTRS2023

NDARC - NASA Design and Analysis of Rotorcraft: Input - Appendix 3

The NDARC code performs design and analysis tasks. The design task involves sizing the rotorcraft to satisfy specified design conditions and missions. The analysis tasks can include off-design mission performance analysis, flight performance calculation for point operating conditions, and generation of subsystem or component performance maps. Figure 1-1 illustrates the tasks. The principal tasks (sizing, mission analysis, flight performance analysis) are shown in the figure as boxes with heavy borders. Heavy arrows show control of subordinate tasks. The aircraft description (figure 1-1) consists of all the information, input and derived, that defines the aircraft. The aircraft consists of a set of components, including fuselage, rotors, wings, tails, and propulsion. This information can be the result of the sizing task; can come entirely from input, for a fixed model; or can come from the sizing task in a previous case or previous job. The aircraft description information is available to all tasks and all solutions (indicated by light arrows). The sizing task determines the dimensions, power, and weight of a rotorcraft that can perform a specified set of design conditions and missions. The aircraft size is characterized by parameters such as design gross weight, weight empty, rotor radius, and engine power available. The relations between dimensions, power, and weight generally require an iterative solution. From the design flight conditions and missions, the task can determine the total engine power or the rotor radius (or both power and radius can be fixed), as well as the design gross weight, maximum takeoff weight, drive system torque limit, and fuel tank capacity. For each propulsion group, the engine power or the rotor radius can be sized. Missions are defined for the sizing task, and for the mission performance analysis. A mission consists of a number of mission segments, for which time, distance, and fuel burn are evaluated. For the sizing task, certain missions are designated to be used for design gross weight calculations; for transmission sizing; and for fuel tank sizing. The mission parameters include mission takeoff gross weight and useful load. For specified takeoff fuel weight with adjustable segments, the mission time or distance is adjusted so the fuel required for the mission (burned plus reserve) equals the takeoff fuel weight. The mission iteration is on fuel weight or energy. Flight conditions are specified for the sizing task, and for the flight performance analysis. For the sizing task, certain flight conditions are designated to be used for design gross weight calculations; for transmission sizing; for maximum takeoff weight calculations; and for antitorque or auxiliary thrust rotor sizing. The flight condition parameters include gross weight and useful load. For flight conditions and mission takeoff, the gross weight can be maximized, such that the power required equals the power available. A flight state is defined for each mission segment and each flight condition. The aircraft performance can be analyzed for the specified state, or a maximum effort performance can be identified. The maximum effort is specified in terms of a quantity such as best endurance or best range, and a variable such as speed, rate of climb, or altitude. The aircraft must be trimmed, by solving for the controls and motion that produce equilibrium in the specified flight state. Different trim solution definitions are required for various flight states. Evaluating the rotor hub forces may require solution of the blade flap equations of motion.

NDARC↗
NASA NTRS2016

NDARC NASA Design and Analysis of Rotorcraft - Input, Appendix 4

The NDARC code performs design and analysis tasks. The design task involves sizing the rotorcraft to satisfy specified design conditions and missions. The analysis tasks can include off-design mission performance analysis, flight performance calculation for point operating conditions, and generation of subsystem or component performance maps. The principal tasks (sizing, mission analysis, flight performance analysis) are shown in the figure as boxes with heavy borders. Heavy arrows show control of subordinate tasks. The aircraft description consists of all the information, input and derived, that denes the aircraft. The aircraft consists of a set of components, including fuselage, rotors, wings, tails, and propulsion. This information can be the result of the sizing task; can come entirely from input, for a fixed model; or can come from the sizing task in a previous case or previous job. The aircraft description information is available to all tasks and all solutions. The sizing task determines the dimensions, power, and weight of a rotorcraft that can perform a specified set of design conditions and missions. The aircraft size is characterized by parameters such as design gross weight, weight empty, rotor radius, and engine power available. The relations between dimensions, power, and weight generally require an iterative solution. From the design flight conditions and missions, the task can determine the total engine power or the rotor radius (or both power and radius can be fixed), as well as the design gross weight, maximum takeoff weight, drive system torque limit, and fuel tank capacity. For each propulsion group, the engine power or the rotor radius can be sized. Missions are defined for the sizing task, and for the mission performance analysis. A mission consists of a number of mission segments, for which time, distance, and fuel burn are evaluated. For the sizing task, certain missions are designated to be used for design gross weight calculations; for transmission sizing; and for fuel tank sizing. The mission parameters include mission takeoff gross weight and useful load. For specified takeoff fuel weight with adjustable segments, the mission time or distance is adjusted so the fuel required for the mission equals the takeoff fuel weight. The mission iteration is on fuel weight or energy. Flight conditions are specified for the sizing task, and for the flight performance analysis. For the sizing task, certain flight conditions are designated to be used for design gross weight calculations; for transmission sizing; for maximum takeoff weight calculations; and for anti-torque or auxiliary thrust rotor sizing. The flight condition parameters include gross weight and useful load. For flight conditions and mission takeoff, the gross weight can be maximized, such that the power required equals the power available. A flight state is defined for each mission segment and each flight condition. The aircraft performance can be analyzed for the specified state, or a maximum effort performance can be identified. The maximum effort is specified in terms of a quantity such as best endurance or best range, and a variable such as speed, rate of climb, or altitude.

Rotorcraft Input↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Going beyond reliability to achieve robustness

Reliability is the ability to perform well and consistently. More formally, reliability is defined as the mathematical probability that a system does not fail during a specified time period under its specified operating conditions. The specified operating conditions often go beyond the nominal environment to include variations and challenges encountered in operational use. The difficulty is that systems are often operated outside of their specified operating conditions and, if they fail, the designers are in theory blameless. Unanticipated damaging events include internal failures, external disruptions in supporting systems, accidents, and repurposing. The most common explanation of a system failure is human error, which is usually the first assumption of the system designers. Robustness is the capability to perform without failure under a wide range of conditions that go beyond the specified operating conditions. The first step towards improving robustness would be to expand the system’s specified operating conditions to include a wider range of anticipated challenges, especially human error. Beyond this, there is a need for general approach to reduce the impact of unanticipated future events, the unknown unknowns, by improving the system’s general ability to cope. Robustness can be improved by providing additional processing capacity, larger flow control buffers, increased backup storage, more online redundancy, and more capable supervisory monitoring and control.

Harry W Jones↗
DOE OSTI2025

Test Report for the Regulatory Testing of the Welded Isotek-SFC-W-3 Special Form Capsule

Two prototypes the welded ISOTEK-SFC-W-3 special form capsules (SFCs) of the same design were evaluated to determine if the requirements of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 173.469, Tests for Special Form Class 7 (Radioactive) Materials, were met. The results of the special form tests are documented in this test report. This report describes the special form testing activities performed on the two welded ISOTEK-SFC-W-3 capsules. The test units were designated as TU-1 and TU-2. TU-1 was subjected to leak testing, percussion testing, and impact testing. TU-1 was leak tested using the leak rate test specified in 49 CFR 173.469(a)(4)(i). The impact test on TU-1 was conducted according to the requirements in 49 CFR 173.469 (b)(1). The percussion test that was carried out on TU-1 was conducted in accordance with 49 CFR 173.469 (b)(2). TU-2 was subjected to a leak rate test as specified in 173.469(a)(4)(i) and a heat test as specified in 49 CFR 173.469(b)(4). Each test unit was leak tested before and after these respective tests. The leak rate tests performed were helium back-pressure tests and bubble tests, as specified in American National Standards Institute (ANSI) N14.5-2014. The measured leak rates were converted to standard condition leak rates as specified in American Society for Testing and Measurement (ASTM) E 493. The determined standardized leak rates obtained from the test and the calculations for all the test units met the requirements for special form certification. The testing was performed under the direction of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Package Testing Program (PTP).

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
NASA NTRS1992

Kinematic equations for control of the redundant eight-degree-of-freedom advanced research manipulator 2

The forward position and velocity kinematics for the redundant eight-degree-of-freedom Advanced Research Manipulator 2 (ARM2) are presented. Inverse position and velocity kinematic solutions are also presented. The approach in this paper is to specify two of the unknowns and solve for the remaining six unknowns. Two unknowns can be specified with two restrictions. First, the elbow joint angle and rate cannot be specified because they are known from the end-effector position and velocity. Second, one unknown must be specified from the four-jointed wrist, and the second from joints that translate the wrist, elbow joint excluded. There are eight solutions to the inverse position problem. The inverse velocity solution is unique, assuming the Jacobian matrix is not singular. A discussion of singularities is based on specifying two joint rates and analyzing the reduced Jacobian matrix. When this matrix is singular, the generalized inverse may be used as an alternate solution. Computer simulations were developed to verify the equations. Examples demonstrate agreement between forward and inverse solutions.

Williams, Robert L., II↗
NASA NTRS2000

Supporting Scientific Analysis within Collaborative Problem Solving Environments

Collaborative problem solving environments for scientists should contain the analysis tools the scientists require in addition to the remote collaboration tools used for general communication. Unfortunately, most scientific analysis tools have been designed for a "stand-alone mode" and cannot be easily modified to work well in a collaborative environment. This paper addresses the questions, "What features are desired in a scientific analysis tool contained within a collaborative environment?", "What are the tool design criteria needed to provide these features?", and "What support is required from the architecture to support these design criteria?." First, the features of scientific analysis tools that are important for effective analysis in collaborative environments are listed. Next, several design criteria for developing analysis tools that will provide these features are presented. Then requirements for the architecture to support these design criteria are listed. Sonic proposed architectures for collaborative problem solving environments are reviewed and their capabilities to support the specified design criteria are discussed. A deficiency in the most popular architecture for remote application sharing, the ITU T. 120 architecture, prevents it from supporting highly interactive, dynamic, high resolution graphics. To illustrate that the specified design criteria can provide a highly effective analysis tool within a collaborative problem solving environment, a scientific analysis tool that contains the specified design criteria has been integrated into a collaborative environment and tested for effectiveness. The tests were conducted in collaborations between remote sites in the US and between remote sites on different continents. The tests showed that the tool (a tool for the visual analysis of computer simulations of physics) was highly effective for both synchronous and asynchronous collaborative analyses. The important features provided by the tool (and made possible by the specified design criteria) are: 1. The tool provides highly interactive, dynamic, high resolution, 3D graphics. 2. All remote scientists can view the same dynamic, high resolution, 3D scenes of the analysis as the analysis is being conducted. 3. The responsiveness of the tool is nearly identical to the responsiveness of the tool in a stand-alone mode. 4. The scientists can transfer control of the analysis between themselves. 5. Any analysis session or segment of an analysis session, whether done individually or collaboratively, can be recorded and posted on the Web for other scientists or students to download and play in either a collaborative or individual mode. 6. The scientist or student who downloaded the session can, individually or collaboratively, modify or extend the session with his/her own "what if" analysis of the data and post his/her version of the analysis back onto the Web. 7. The peak network bandwidth used in the collaborative sessions is only 1K bit/second even though the scientists at all sites are viewing high resolution (1280 x 1024 pixels), dynamic, 3D scenes of the analysis. The links between the specified design criteria and these performance features are presented.

Watson, Velvin R.↗
NASA NTRS2004

Reconditioning of Batteries on the International Space Station

Primary source of electric power for the International Space Station (ISS) is the photovoltaic module (PVM). At assembly complete stage, the ISS will be served by 4 PVMs. Each PVM contains two independent power channels such that one failure will result in loss of only one power channel. During early stages of assembly, the ISS is served by only one PVM designated as P6. Solar arrays are used to convert solar flux into electrical power. Nickel hydrogen batteries are used to store electrical power for use during periods when the solar input is not adequate to support channel loads. Batteries are operated per established procedures that ensure that they are maintained within specified temperature limits, charge current is controlled to conform to a specified charge profile, and battery voltages are maintained within specified limits. Both power channels on the PVM P6 have been operating flawlessly since December 2000 with 100 percent power availability. All components, including batteries, are monitored regularly to ensure that they are operating within specified limits and to trend their wear out and age effects. The paper briefly describes the battery trend data. Batteries have started to show some effects of aging and a battery reconditioning procedure is being evaluated at this time. Reconditioning is expected to reduce cell voltage divergence and provide data that can be used to update the state of charge (SOC) computation in the software to account for battery age. During reconditioning, each battery, one at a time, will be discharged per a specified procedure and then returned to a full state of charge. The paper describes the reconditioning procedure and the expected benefits. The reconditioning procedures have been thoroughly coordinated by all affected technical teams and approved by all required boards. The reconditioning is tentatively scheduled for September 2004.

Hajela, Gyan↗
NASA NTRS2009

A Physics-Based Temperature Stabilization Criterion for Thermal Testing

Spacecraft testing specifications differ greatly in the criteria they specify for stability in thermal balance tests. Some specify a required temperature stabilization rate (the change in temperature per unit time, dT/dt), some specify that the final steady-state temperature be approached to within a specified difference, delta T , and some specify a combination of the two. The particular values for temperature stabilization rate and final temperature difference also vary greatly between specification documents. A one-size-fits-all temperature stabilization rate requirement does not yield consistent results for all test configurations because of differences in thermal mass and heat transfer to the environment. Applying a steady-state temperature difference requirement is problematic because the final test temperature is not accurately known a priori, especially for powered configurations. In the present work, a simplified, lumped-mass analysis has been used to explore the applicability of these criteria. A new, user-friendly, physics-based approach is developed that allows the thermal engineer to determine when an acceptable level of temperature stabilization has been achieved. The stabilization criterion can be predicted pre-test but must be refined during test to allow verification that the defined level of temperature stabilization has been achieved.

Rickman, Steven L.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Watching Without Seeing a Tool to Surveil Astronaut Health Outcomes While Maintaining Astronaut Medical Privacy

BACKGROUND The Privacy Act of 1974 regulates the use a nd disclosure of personally identifiable information by US Federal agencies. The Act applies to biographical, financial, a nd other identity-linked information, a s well a s personal health information (PHI). As such, the use of astronaut PHI is limited to authorized personnel for preapproved uses, with data reporting often limited to aggregated information about groups. These limitations on the use a nd reporting of astronaut PHI complicates surveillance efforts, wherein epidemiologists a t the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)monitor the incidence of targeted health conditions in the astronaut population, or to discover emerging trends of aging and disease. Stratification on one or more covariates –particularly time-period, sex, a nd mission participation –can lead to extremely small datasets such that the reporting of results is potentially attributable to individuals. An additional challenge is the small size of the astronaut population, both in terms of numbers of individuals a s well a s in terms of density of exposure time. Such small datasets yield volatile rate estimates that are difficult to interpret. To a id the epidemiological surveillance efforts, a surveillance tool is required that can (a) satisfy the need for rapid computation of condition-specific incidence and mortality rates; (b) improve the statistical estimates of these estimated rates; and (c) maintain astronaut privacy. Here we describe a nd demonstrate such a tool. METHODS We devised a system that models incidence a nd mortality rates rather than calculating them directly. This ha s the advantage of using all the available data to derive the estimates, lea ding to rates that a re not attributable to any one individual, a nd a re a s numerically stable a s they can be given the extremely limited data. The system models disease endpoints using a Poisson regression model with exposure density (measured in person-years) a s a n offset term. By doing so the model is estimating event counts per person-year, equivalent to modeling the rates directly. It uses a standard (pre-specified)set of covariates; the system does not engage in “model-building” as model parsimony is not the goa l. Instead, it is explicitly recognized that if a covariate is not statistically significant a nd not a confounder then it will likely have very little effect on the estimate of the incidence a nd mortality rates. Users are able to specify the disease endpoint of interest and the covariates over which they would like to stratify. The system then uses the resulting model to compute the estimated rates for the user-chosen configuration of variables as visualizes those either over an age range within a specified time-period, or over time for astronauts with a specified age range. RESULTS The first iteration of the tool computes incidence a nd mortality rates for cardiovascular conditions and cancers. Code ha s been developed to retrieve the appropriate data from the IMPALA analysis platform, compute the models for incidence a nd mortality, a nd then use those models to generate the corresponding rate curves. A companion graphical user interface allows the user to specify the curves and visualize the results. CONCLUSIONS It is important to note that the rapid surveillance tool described here is neither meant to be a definitive assessment of the incidence or mortality of any particular disease or condition in the astronaut population, nor is it meant to be used for research purposes. Rather, it is meant as an early indicator that in-depth investigation may be warranted. By automating a repetitive process and leveraging carefully curated astronaut health outcomes, the tool makes possible a rapid “first look” into known areas of concern, and, if used judiciously, may surface new areas of concern for long-term astronaut health. This work is supported in part by the Translational Research Institute for Space Health (TRISH) through NASA Cooperative Agreement NNX16AO69A.

R J Reynolds↗