Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “systemic risk”

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

Managing HRP's External Deliverables: The Process and the Customers

The Human Research Program’s (HRP) external deliverables (EDs) are the final outcomes of the research that the HRP Elements develop and execute. The NASA Human Health and Performance directorate’s primary stakeholders, i.e., the customers for the EDs, include the Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer (OCHMO) (Standards Team, Chief Health and Performance Officers and Chief Medical Officers, Human System Risk Board), and the agency’s System Capability Leadership Teams. The EDs may address the need of a specific customer, a specific design reference mission, or a vehicle lifecycle milestone. HRP’s Maturation and Integration Office External Programs facilitates the process of delivering the EDs to the targeted customers according to the customer’s expectations. This presentation describes this coordinated process and provides an overview of the nature of different types of EDs and how they impact the customers’ products. Successful transfer of the EDs to the customers will help mitigate the health and performance risks that crewmembers will face during NASA’s future exploration missions.

research↗

Research and Technology Activities Supporting Closed-Brayton-Cycle Power Conversion System Development

The elements of Brayton technology development emphasize power conversion system risk mitigation. Risk mitigation is achieved by demonstrating system integration feasibility, subsystem/component life capability (particularly in the context of material creep) and overall spacecraft mass reduction. Closed-Brayton-cycle (CBC) power conversion technology is viewed as relatively mature. At the 2-kWe power level, a CBC conversion system Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of six (6) was achieved during the Solar Dynamic Ground Test Demonstration (SD-GTD) in 1998. A TRL 5 was demonstrated for 10 kWe-class CBC components during the development of the Brayton Rotating Unit (BRU) from 1968 to 1976. Components currently in terrestrial (open cycle) Brayton machines represent TRL 4 for similar uses in 100 kWe-class CBC space systems. Because of the baseline component and subsystem technology maturity, much of the Brayton technology task is focused on issues related to systems integration. A brief description of ongoing technology activities is given.

Barrett, Michael J.↗

Long-Term Health Risk Quantification

Astronauts face hazards during spaceflight, including space radiation exposure, isolation and confinement, traveling far distances from Earth, reduced gravity levels, and closed and hostile environments. These hazards drive the definition of human health and performance risks associated with spaceflight. NASA’s Human System Risk Board maintains the human spaceflight risk posture for in-mission risks, as well as post-flight, Long-Term Health (LTH)risks potentially occurring later in the astronaut’s life. LTH risk encompasses the timeframe from immediately post-flight, through the rest of an astronaut’s career, through retirement, and until death. Possible LTH risk outcomes include the time and interventions needed for the astronaut to return to preflight physiological states after experiencing spaceflight hazards and recovery from any in-mission medical events that persist into the post-flight timeframe. It includes chronic complications that may arise due to experiencing in-flight medical conditions or injuries and medical conditions that occur later in life with a higher probability of occurrence or with more severity because of their spaceflight exposure. Finally, LTH risk outcomes can also include a reduction in life expectancy due to spaceflight exposures. There have been 144 medical conditions identified by NASA’s Lifetime Surveillance of Astronaut Health team to be associated with LTH risk. Epidemiological studies have been performed for some of these conditions to determine if astronauts suffer from an increased prevalence or severity of the condition due to their spaceflight experience compared to a comparable cohort .Differences in astronaut mortality or morbidity due to spaceflight experience were not detected in several of these studies. There were two cases where a modest increase in the incidence rate of astronaut LTH outcomes was detected. The first suggested an increase in the incidence of melanoma cases in astronauts, where the number of cases in astronauts were similar to the elevated number of cases observed in airplane pilots. The second provided some evidence of elevated numbers of cardiovascular disease events in astronauts compared to an appropriate healthy comparator cohort, which may warrant additional investigation. The lack of detection of LTH risk outcomes should not ease concerns about astronaut LTH. The studies highlighted here constitute only a small portion of the potential LTH conditions that could occur. Once epidemiological studies are performed on all conditions, significant findings may be detected. The analysis of astronaut LTH also suffers from limited numbers of data points because of the limited numbers of astronauts overall and the even fewer who have reached an age where LTH outcomes may begin to manifest. As shuttle and ISS astronauts begin to age and increase the feasibility of analysis, LTH outcomes may be detected. An application of risk quantification is the use of risk metrics within trade studies for resource prioritization and decision making. Trade studies regarding countermeasures to LTH risk outcomes would benefit from a quantification of LTH risk. NASA has ground-based processes in place such as astronaut screening and access to continuous medical monitoring and care during and after their astronaut career which are the main methods for mitigating LTH risk. In-mission countermeasures, such as acceptable levels of medical care and available countermeasures to counter spaceflight related physiological decrements, can mitigate a poor health and performance status immediately post-flight. Identifying appropriate risk metrics, obtaining valid quantities for them, and tying them to LTH countermeasures are necessary steps for realizing their use in trade studies. This presentation will highlight the challenges associated with the identification, quantification, and utilization of LTH risk metrics

Beth Lewandowski↗

Hazards of lithium thionyl chloride batteries

Two different topics which only relate in that they are pertinent to lithium thionyl chloride battery safety are discussed. The first topic is a hazards analysis of a system (risk assessment), a formal approach that is used in nuclear engineering, predicting oil spills, etc. It is a formalized approach for obtaining assessment of the degree of risk associated with the use of any particular system. The second topic is a small piece of chemistry related to the explosions that can occur with lithium thionyl chloride systems. After the two topics are presented, a discussion is generated among the Workshop participants.

Parry, J. M.↗

ECLSS Does Not Exist in a Vacuum: Integrated Analysis is Necessary to Inform System Architecture Decisions

Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) architecture selection has profound implications for mission cost and mass extending far beyond the ECLSS itself. Similarly, other mission architecture decisions – particularly involving transportation systems – can influence optimal ECLSS architectures. Loop closure influences requirements for water, oxygen, and other consumables. System maintainability and reliability influences spares mass and risk. System, consumables, and spares mass interact with transportation system architectures and propellant demands and propulsion element sizing. All these interactions with other systems must be considered when evaluating ECLSS options. Analyses that focus only on maximizing ECLSS loop closure – or minimizing ECLSS mass, or minimizing ECLSS life cycle cost – may lead to sub-optimal or even counterproductive system architecture and investment decisions at the mission level. For example, an ECLSS architecture that minimizes ECLSS lifecycle cost but results in excessively high logistics mass could lead to significantly increased transportation system costs or make interplanetary transportation infeasible. Increased loop closure could result in higher development costs and higher mass if system/spares mass increases outweigh consumables reduction. In addition, systems mass and consumables mass are not directly comparable and have different impacts on propellant requirements, as consumables mass changes over the course of the mission. This paper presents an integrated analysis examining the overall impact of different ECLSS and transportation architectures on mass for a crewed Mars mission, including the habitat and transportation systems as well as consumables, spares, and propellant. Key observations are discussed, along with opportunities for further sensitivity analysis and model development. Overall, ECLSS development activities must consider their impacts at the mission level, as part of an integrated system, rather than in isolation.

Systems Analysis↗

Integrated Trajectory, Habitat, and Logistics Analysis and Trade Study for Human Mars Missions

Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) architecture selection has profound implications for mission cost and mass extending far beyond the ECLSS itself. Similarly, other mission architecture decisions – particularly involving transportation systems – can influence optimal ECLSS architectures. Loop closure influences requirements for water, oxygen, and other consumables. System maintainability and reliability influences spares mass and risk. System, consumables, and spares mass interact with transportation system architectures and propellant demands and propulsion element sizing. All these interactions with other systems must be considered when evaluating ECLSS options. Analyses that focus only on maximizing ECLSS loop closure – or minimizing ECLSS mass, or minimizing ECLSS life cycle cost – may lead to sub-optimal or even counterproductive system architecture and investment decisions at the mission level. For example, an ECLSS architecture that minimizes ECLSS life cycle cost but results in excessively high logistics mass could lead to significantly increased transportation system costs or make interplanetary transportation infeasible. Increased loop closure could result in higher development costs and higher mass if system/spares mass increases outweigh consumables reduction. In addition, systems mass and consumables mass are not directly comparable and have different impacts on propellant requirements, as consumables mass changes over the course of the mission. This paper presents an integrated analysis examining the overall impact of different ECLSS and transportation architectures on mass for a crewed Mars mission, including the habitat and transportation systems as well as consumables, spares, and propellant. Key observations are discussed, along with opportunities for further sensitivity analysis and model development. Overall, ECLSS development activities must consider their impacts at the mission level, as part of an integrated system, rather than in isolation.

Mars↗

Integrated Trajectory, Habitat, and Logistics Analysis and Trade Study for Human Mars Missions

Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) architecture selection has profound implications for mission cost and mass extending far beyond the ECLSS itself. Similarly, other mission architecture decisions – particularly involving transportation systems – can influence optimal ECLSS architectures. Loop closure influences requirements for water, oxygen, and other consumables. System maintainability and reliability influences spares mass and risk. System, consumables, and spares mass interact with transportation system architectures, including propellant demands and propulsion element sizing. All these interactions with other systems must be considered when evaluating ECLSS options. Analyses that focus only on maximizing ECLSS loop closure – or minimizing ECLSS mass, or minimizing ECLSS life cycle cost – may lead to sub-optimal or even counterproductive system architecture and investment decisions at the mission level. For example, an ECLSS architecture that minimizes ECLSS life cycle cost but results in excessively high logistics mass could lead to significantly increased transportation system costs or make interplanetary transportation infeasible. Increased loop closure could result in higher development costs and higher mass if system/spares mass increases outweigh consumables reduction. In addition, systems mass and consumables mass are not directly comparable and have different impacts on propellant requirements, as consumables mass changes over the course of the mission. This paper presents an integrated analysis examining the overall impact of different ECLSS and transportation architectures on Earth departure mass for a crewed Mars mission, including the habitat and transportation systems as well as consumables, spares, and propellant. Key observations are discussed, along with opportunities for further sensitivity analysis and model development. Overall, ECLSS development activities must consider their impacts at the mission level, as part of an integrated system, rather than in isolation.

Mars↗

The Systems Engineering Process for Human Support Technology Development

Systems engineering is designing and optimizing systems. This paper reviews the systems engineering process and indicates how it can be applied in the development of advanced human support systems. Systems engineering develops the performance requirements, subsystem specifications, and detailed designs needed to construct a desired system. Systems design is difficult, requiring both art and science and balancing human and technical considerations. The essential systems engineering activity is trading off and compromising between competing objectives such as performance and cost, schedule and risk. Systems engineering is not a complete independent process. It usually supports a system development project. This review emphasizes the NASA project management process as described in NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) 7120.5B. The process is a top down phased approach that includes the most fundamental activities of systems engineering - requirements definition, systems analysis, and design. NPR 7120.5B also requires projects to perform the engineering analyses needed to ensure that the system will operate correctly with regard to reliability, safety, risk, cost, and human factors. We review the system development project process, the standard systems engineering design methodology, and some of the specialized systems analysis techniques. We will discuss how they could apply to advanced human support systems development. The purpose of advanced systems development is not directly to supply human space flight hardware, but rather to provide superior candidate systems that will be selected for implementation by future missions. The most direct application of systems engineering is in guiding the development of prototype and flight experiment hardware. However, anticipatory systems engineering of possible future flight systems would be useful in identifying the most promising development projects.

Jones, Harry↗

Design reuse experience of space and hazardous operations robots

A comparison of design drivers for space and hazardous nuclear waste operating robots details similarities and differences in operations, performance and environmental parameters for these critical environments. The similarities are exploited to provide low risk system components based on reuse principles and design knowledge. Risk reduction techniques are used for bridging areas of significant differences. As an example, risk reduction of a new sensor design for nuclear environment operations is employed to provide upgradeable replacement units in a reusable architecture for significantly higher levels of radiation.

Oneil, P. Graham↗

Mission Success of U.S. Launch Vehicle Flights from a Propulsion Stage-Based Perspective: 1980-2015

This report documents a study of the historical safety and reliability trends of U.S. space launch vehicles from 1980 to 2015. The launch data history is examined to determine whether propulsion technology choices drove launch system risk and is used to understand how different propulsion system failures manifested into different failure scenarios. The historical data is processed by launch vehicle stage, where a stage is limited by definition to a single propulsion technology, either liquid or solid. Results are aggregated in terms of failure trends and manifestations as a functions of different propulsion stages. Failure manifestations are analyzed in order to understand the types and frequencies of accident environments in which an abort system for a crewed vehicle would be required to operate.

propulsion↗

Risk of Impaired Performance Due to Reduced Muscle Mass, Strength &, Endurance (Short Title: Muscle) and Risk of Reduced Physical Performance Capabilities Due to Reduced Aerobic Capacity (Short Title: Aerobic)

This report reviews the scientific literature regarding the human system risks to the microgravity environment of space flight in relation to human performance. The primary human performance-related risks involve deconditioning of the cardiovascular and skeletal muscles systems due to prolonged exposure to the reduced gravitational input. The chronological history of U.S. space flight is reviewed as a starting point to inform and understand the gaps in the knowledge to these risks. Maintenance of physical performance capabilities involves understanding the health of many organ systems (peripheral [vascular, heart, blood volume, skeletal muscle] and central [brain]) that ultimately contribute to the submaximal and maximal capacity of the aerobic (VO2peak), skeletal muscle (strength and endurance) systems. Maintaining astronaut VO2peak, muscle mass, strength, and endurance before, during, and after space flight is a significant priority to NASA for the current International Space Station (ISS) era, as well as for future exploration missions. A growing research database from both space flight and ground-based analog studies finds that the cardiorespiratory system is compromised and skeletal muscles (predominantly postural muscles of the lower limbs) undergo atrophy. These structural and metabolic responses to living in microgravity conditions contribute to physiological deconditioning during space flight that potentially increase the risks to astronauts returning to surface operations (i.e., Moon, Mars, or Earth). The time course changes from short to long-duration space flight and the relationships between in-flight performance deconditioning levels are not well characterized. Moreover, there are large interindividual variabilities that may be dependent on genetics, age, sex, preflight fitness levels, and individual exercise prescriptions that need further careful evaluations. Efforts should be made to understand the current status of preflight, in-flight, and postflight exercise performance capability and to define the operational goals and target areas for protection with the in-flight exercise program. There is a bi-directional relationship between exercise prescription and hardware countermeasures that need further understanding in-flight. For example, hardware with limited capabilities/modalities may be counterbalanced by changes in exercise prescription (i.e., frequency, time, intensity, volume) for providing effective responses to maintain fitness. Importantly, the minimal requirements for exercise prescription on ISS hardware may not translate to lower capability hardware on exploration missions. Due to limited volume on exploration vehicles, future Artemis missions to the Lunar surface will not have similar exercise hardware capabilities as ISS. This may alter the effectiveness of hardware to provide adequate physiological stress on bodily systems allowing for adaptations to maintain aerobic capacity, strength, and bone density. Thus, it will be important to understand the exercise responses of current ISS countermeasures to develop individualized exercise prescriptions that minimize aerobic and muscular risks, accounting for the large variability of responses among crewmembers. Newer exploration exercise hardware is currently being evaluated that is more compact (i.e., E4D and Orion Flywheel) and will require careful evaluation of the hardware on the stressor (i.e., metabolic rate, oxygen uptake, and heart rate work relationships, and force plate load profiles) needed the human body to protect and maintain crew health and performance. Moreover, exercise responses on the hardware need careful evaluation on the chronic adaptations. Lastly, in-flight evaluation of hardware exercise response may differ in 0-g or partial-g compared to 1-g. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the stress on the body will be the same in each environment. Understanding this has a direct impact on exercise prescriptions. This document provides an overview of key scientific investigations that have been conducted before, during, and after human space flight missions, as well as from human ground-based analog studies that contribute to the evidence base on changes in aerobic capacity and muscle mass, strength, and endurance. Additional data from rodent and nonhuman primate experiments of skeletal muscle unloading completed during space flight or ground-based flight-simulations provide supportive information about this risk topic. Most importantly, a recent, large dataset from long-duration ISS crew has been added to give improved insight into the variability of exercise response of crew, demonstrating that a large portion of the crew population return to Earth with greater than 10-20% loss of aerobic capacity and muscle strength and endurance. Data from human space flight and ground-based studies are narrowing in on the required exercise paradigms but thus far still provide an incomplete answer to an effective approach for maintaining skeletal muscle function and aerobic fitness of all human space travelers. Finally, the relationship of this risk topic to various space flight operational scenarios is examined and discussed.

Eric Rivas↗

Assessing the Effect of Spaceflight on the Propensity for Astronauts to Develop Disc Herniation

A previous study reported that the instantaneous risk of developing a Herniated Nucleus Pulposus (HNP) was higher in astronauts who had flown at least one mission, as compared with those in the corps who had not yet flown. However, the study only analyzed time to HNP after the first mission (if any) and did not account for the possible effects of multiple missions. While many HNPs occurred well into astronauts' careers or in somecases years after retirement, the higher incidence of HNPs relatively soon after completion of space missions appears to indicate that spaceflight may lead to an increased risk of HNP. In addition, when an HNP occurs after spaceflight, is it related to previous spaceflight exposure? The purpose of this study was to investigate whether multiple missions, sex, age, vehicle landing dynamics, and flight duration affect the risk of developing an HNP usinga competing risks model. The outcome of the study will inform the Human System Risk Board assessment of back pain, inform the risk of injury due to dynamic loads, and update the previous dataset, which contained events up to December 31, 2006.

Feiveson, A.↗

Model Based Engineering for Software Assurance

NASA's successful development of next generation space vehicles, habitats, and robotic systems will require reliable hardware and software systems. The aim of this initiative is to develop modeling methodology and tools to support Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) for software assurance and reliability analysis. This effort expands the Unified Modeling Language (UML) software design models to include fault data for the extraction of Failure Modes and Effects Criticality Analysis (FMECA) and Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) for software. We explored different modeling approaches to integrate the UML software design models with the Systems Modeling Language (SysML) system models to generate an integrated model and reliability tools that take into account software and hardware interfaces.The benefits of this concept directly affect the safety community with quick turnarounds to produce software assurance and reliability analysis artifacts and the ability to visualize failure effects, both hardware and software. The result is enhanced system design integrity and early identification of system risks. This initiative will enable software assurance activities early in the system design lifecycle, facilitating the discovery of design weaknesses and enhancing the capability to produce safe, hazard-free systems

Wang, Lui↗

Demystification of Processes that Effect Prioritization of Space Radiation Element Research

In an effort to demystify how research funding priorities are established , the Space Radiation Element will present an introduction to the Human Space Risk Board (HSRB) framework that is that used to inform Human System Risk and can be found at https://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/Risks/. These risks are based on the consequences of hazards (space radiation, altered gravity, isolation & confinement, distance from earth and hostile/closed environment) a human body is exposed to during spaceflight. The HSRB regularly evaluates risks to humans in space which includes updating the knowledge base to reflect emerging research, the development of effective countermeasures, and evolving operational approaches toward addressing those risks. To increase understanding and clarity, this talk will step through how risks (with the focus on Risk of Radiation Carcinogenesis) are assigned a rating (and color code) based on design reference missions, likelihood, and consequence. Further, The Space Radiation Element will discuss how risks, including the magnitude/rating, required technical deliverables, and expected products from current research efforts affect our element strategy and prioritization of research. In addition, navigation of the publicly available www.nasa.gov/hrp, will be demonstrated to inform principal investigators where this information can be readily accessed. Our primary objectives for this presentation/demonstration are to demystify The Space Radiation Element’s internal processes and to educate researchers concerning publicly available documents that can be used to better align their proposed objectives with Element priorities.

J A Zawaski↗

Assessing the Effect of Spaceflight on the Propensity for Astronauts to Develop Disk Herniation

A previous study [1] reported the instantaneous risk of developing a Herniated Nucleus Pulosus (HNP) was higher in astronauts who had flown at least one mission, as compared with those in the corps who had not yet flown. However, the study only analyzed time to HNP after the first mission (if any) and did not account for the possible effects of multiple missions. While many HNP's occurred well into astronauts' careers or in some cases years after retirement, the higher incidence of HNPs relatively soon after completion of space missions appears to indicate that spaceflight may lead to an increased risk of HNP. The purpose of this study was to support the Human System Risk Boards assessment of back pain, assess the risk of injury due to dynamic loads, and update the dataset analyzed which contained data through December 31, 2006.

Feiveson, Alan H.↗

Assessing the Effect of Spaceflight on the Propensity for Astronauts to Develop Disk Herniation

BACKGROUND: A previous study [1] reported that the instantaneous risk of developing a Herniated Nucleus Pulposus (HNP) was higher in astronauts who had flown at least one mission, as compared with those in the corps who had not yet flown. However, the study only analyzed time to HNP after the first mission (if any) and did not account for the possible effects of multiple missions. While many HNP's occurred well into astronauts' careers or in some cases years after retirement, the higher incidence of HNPs relatively soon after completion of space missions appears to indicate that spaceflight may lead to an increased risk of HNP. The purpose of this study was to support the Human System Risk Board assessment of back pain, evaluate the risk of injury due to dynamic loads, and update the previous dataset which contained events up to December 31, 2006. METHODS: Data was queried from the electronic medical record and provided by the Lifetime Surveillance of Astronaut Health. The data included all 330 United States astronauts from 1959 through February 2014. Cases were confirmed by Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Computerized Tomography, Myelography, operative findings, or through clinical confirmation with a neurologist or neurosurgeon. In this analysis, astronauts who had an HNP at selection into the corps or had an HNP diagnosis prior to their first flight were excluded. The statistical challenges in using the available data to separate effects of spaceflight from those associated with general astronaut training and lifestyle on propensity to develop HNPs are many. The primary outcome is reported date of first HNP (if any), which at best is only an approximation to the actual time of occurrence. To properly analyze this data with a survival analysis model, one must also know the "exposure" time - i.e. how long each astronaut has been at risk for developing an HNP. If an HNP is reported soon after a mission, is it mission caused or general? If the former, exposure time should be counted from the time of landing (assuming the risk of HNP occurring during a mission is zero). If the latter, exposure time should be counted from the time of selection; however we can't directly know which one to use. In our analysis we take both of these possibilities into account with a competing risks model, wherein two distinct stochastic processes are going on: TG = time to HNP (general) and TS = time to HNP (spaceflight). Under this type of model, whichever of these occurs first is what we observe; in other words we don't observe TG or TS, only min(TG, TS). Here, we parameterized the model in terms of separate Weibull hazard functions for each process and estimated all parameters using maximum likelihood. In addition, we allowed for a "cured fraction" - i.e. the possibility that some astronauts may never develop an HNP. RESULTS: Results will include a depiction of the competing hazard functions as well as a probability curve for the relative likelihood that an HNP reported at a given time after a mission is actually mission caused. Other factors, such as dwell time in microgravity and vehicle landing environment will be explored. An overall assessment as to whether spaceflight truly exacerbates HNP risk will be made.

Feiveson, A. H.↗

Human Systems Integration: Managing Risk in Anesthesia

The practice of anesthesia relies on clinicians’ ability to safely manage increasingly complex equipment. Devices such as ventilators, drug infusion pumps, and physiologic monitors use sophisticated algorithms to deliver care, but most clinicians are only trained to manage automated systems during normal operation. Few if any receive training on how to manage system failures. Although manufacturers are required to consult with human factors engineers as part of the equipment design process, most pieces of equipment are ultimately brought to market without extensive input from clinicians. Systems in the operating room can be as simple as an oxygen tank, or as complex as a multi-institutional healthcare organization. Humans are also a complex system, and play a critical role in the domains of operations, design, fabrication, maintenance, repair, and ultimately, dismantling and closeout. HSI seeks to provide a means for advocating the human side of the system. Human Systems Integration (HSI) is the cross disciplinary process used as part of the Systems Engineering process to reduce risk in systems. HSI professionals consider the human, hardware, and software elements of system design to optimize system performance and improve safety. HSI professionals work in domains of study that include training, management, human factors engineering, safety, and occupational health, among others. This article discusses the role of systems in the practice of anesthesia, and how consideration of the human during all phases of the system life cycle helps manage risks and promote a better patient outcome.

Human Factors↗

Evaluating Manufacturing and Assembly Errors in Rotating Machinery to Enhance Component Performance

Manufacturing and assembly phases play a crucial role in providing products that meet the strict functional specifications associated with rotating machinery components. The errors resulting during the manufacturing and assembly of such components are correlated with the vibration and noise emanating from the final system during its operational lifetime. Vibration and noise are especially unacceptable elements in high-risk systems such as helicopters, resulting in premature component degradation and an unsafe flying environment. In such applications, individual components often are subject to 100% inspection prior to assembly, as well as during operation through rigorous maintenance, resulting in increased product development cycles and high production and operation costs. In this work, we focus on providing designers and manufacturing engineers with a technique to evaluate vibration modes and levels for each component or subsystem prior to putting them into operation. This paper presents a preliminary investigation of the correlation between vibrations and manufacturing and assembly errors using an experimental test rig, which simulates a simple bearing and shaft arrangement. A factorial design is used to study the effects of: 1) different manufacturing instances; 2) different assembly instances; and, 3) varying shaft speeds. The results indicate a correlation between manufacturing or assembly errors and vibrations measured from accelerometers. Challenges in developing a tool for DFM are identified, followed by a discussion of future work, including a real-world application to helicopter transmission vibrations.

Tumer, Irem Y.↗