Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Axiomatic design”

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.

13 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1996

The Study of the Relationship between Probabilistic Design and Axiomatic Design Methodology

This program report is the final report covering all the work done on this project. The goal of this project is technology transfer of methodologies to improve design process. The specific objectives are: 1. To learn and understand the Probabilistic design analysis using NESSUS. 2. To assign Design Projects to either undergraduate or graduate students on the application of NESSUS. 3. To integrate the application of NESSUS into some selected senior level courses in Civil and Mechanical Engineering curricula. 4. To develop courseware in Probabilistic Design methodology to be included in a graduate level Design Methodology course. 5. To study the relationship between the Probabilistic design methodology and Axiomatic design methodology.

Onwubiko, Chinyere↗
NASA NTRS1996

The Study of the Relationship between Probabilistic Design and Axiomatic Design Methodology

Structural failure is rarely a "sudden death" type of event, such sudden failures may occur only under abnormal loadings like bomb or gas explosions and very strong earthquakes. In most cases, structures fail due to damage accumulated under normal loadings such as wind loads, dead and live loads. The consequence of cumulative damage will affect the reliability of surviving components and finally causes collapse of the system. The cumulative damage effects on system reliability under time-invariant loadings are of practical interest in structural design and therefore will be investigated in this study. The scope of this study is, however, restricted to the consideration of damage accumulation as the increase in the number of failed components due to the violation of their strength limits.

Onwubiko, Chin-Yere↗
NASA NTRS1996

The Study of the Relationship between Probabilistic Design and Axiomatic Design Methodology

The structural design, or the design of machine elements, has been traditionally based on deterministic design methodology. The deterministic method considers all design parameters to be known with certainty. This methodology is, therefore, inadequate to design complex structures that are subjected to a variety of complex, severe loading conditions. A nonlinear behavior that is dependent on stress, stress rate, temperature, number of load cycles, and time is observed on all components subjected to complex conditions. These complex conditions introduce uncertainties; hence, the actual factor of safety margin remains unknown. In the deterministic methodology, the contingency of failure is discounted; hence, there is a use of a high factor of safety. It may be most useful in situations where the design structures are simple. The probabilistic method is concerned with the probability of non-failure performance of structures or machine elements. It is much more useful in situations where the design is characterized by complex geometry, possibility of catastrophic failure, sensitive loads and material properties. Also included: Comparative Study of the use of AGMA Geometry Factors and Probabilistic Design Methodology in the Design of Compact Spur Gear Set.

Onwubiko, Chin-Yere↗
NASA NTRS2018

Axiomatic Design Based Analysis and Equivalent Mass Comparison of Alternate Air Revitalization Systems

A proposed Photocatalytic Air Processor (PAP) would combine two atmosphere revitalization functions for a crewed spacecraft, carbon dioxide removal and oxygen provision. The axiomatic design method is used to develop the general requirements and alternate system designs that combine these two atmosphere revitalization functions. There are two current atmosphere revitalization approaches. Short missions such as the space shuttle use lithium hydroxide (LiOH) to remove carbon dioxide and tanks to provide oxygen. The ISS (International Space Station) uses the CDRA (Carbon Dioxide Removal Assembly) to remove carbon dioxide and a Sabatier reactor and OGA (Oxygen Generation Assembly) to provide oxygen. The PAP could replace either of these combined systems, LiOH and oxygen tanks or the CDRA, Sabatier, and OGA. Axiomatic design is used to investigate these alternate high level system designs for atmosphere revitalization. The axiomatic design approach develops the requirements and design together from higher to lower system level, using a back-and-forth and top-down process. One objective is to reduce the coupling between design elements, which is a measure of system complexity. The equivalent system mass of the alternate systems is compared.

Jones, Harry W.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Axiomatic Design of Space Life Support Systems

Systems engineering is an organized way to design and develop systems, but the initial system design concepts are usually seen as the products of unexplained but highly creative intuition. Axiomatic design is a mathematical approach to produce and compare system architectures. The two axioms are:- Maintain the independence of the functional requirements.- Minimize the information content (or complexity) of the design. The first axiom generates good system design structures and the second axiom ranks them. The closed system human life support architecture now implemented in the International Space Station has been essentially unchanged for fifty years. In contrast, brief missions such as Apollo and Shuttle have used open loop life support. As mission length increases, greater system closure and increased recycling become more cost-effective.Closure can be gradually increased, first recycling humidity condensate, then hygiene wastewater, urine, carbon dioxide, and water recovery brine. A long term space station or planetary base could implement nearly full closure, including food production. Dynamic systems theory supports the axioms by showing that fewer requirements, fewer subsystems, and fewer interconnections all increase system stability. If systems are too complex and interconnected, reliability is reduced and operations and maintenance become more difficult. Using axiomatic design shows how the mission duration and other requirements determine the best life support system design including the degree of closure.

Axiomatic design↗
NASA NTRS2004

An Exploratory Study of Cost Engineering in Axiomatic Design: Creation of the Cost Model Based on an FR-DP Map

Large complex projects cost large sums of money throughout their life cycle for a variety of reasons and causes. For such large programs, the credible estimation of the project cost, a quick assessment of the cost of making changes, and the management of the project budget with effective cost reduction determine the viability of the project. Cost engineering that deals with these issues requires a rigorous method and systematic processes. This paper introduces a logical framework to a&e effective cost engineering. The framework is built upon Axiomatic Design process. The structure in the Axiomatic Design process provides a good foundation to closely tie engineering design and cost information together. The cost framework presented in this paper is a systematic link between the functional domain (FRs), physical domain (DPs), cost domain (CUs), and a task/process-based model. The FR-DP map relates a system s functional requirements to design solutions across all levels and branches of the decomposition hierarchy. DPs are mapped into CUs, which provides a means to estimate the cost of design solutions - DPs - from the cost of the physical entities in the system - CUs. The task/process model describes the iterative process ot-developing each of the CUs, and is used to estimate the cost of CUs. By linking the four domains, this framework provides a superior traceability from requirements to cost information.

Lee, Taesik↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The System Complexity Metric (SCM) Explains Systems Design and is Correlated with Cost and Failure Rate

The human short term memory span and working capacity is limited to three to five items, especially if they are organized complex “chunks” of information. The impression of complexity occurs when a system is simply difficult to understand, where there is no apparent pattern to predict its behavior. Hierarchical systems design can reduce perceived complexity and increase the amount of information that can be managed. The SCM was developed to measure complexity and help compare proposed overall system architectures before detailed design information is available. The SCM is defined as the sum of the number of major nodes, N, in the system block diagram plus the number of one-way interactions, I, between the nodes. SCM = N + I. SCM’s are easily determined by direct inspection of high-level block diagrams of life support systems. Axiomatic design develops a hierarchy of subsystem requirements and designs together in a top-down, back-and-forth process. A coupling matrix is used to control the relationships between the subsystem functions and design concepts. Axiomatic design can improve system design by decoupling requirements and designs. Axiomatic design was applied to the planning of a closed life support system, similar to that used on the International Space Station. A materially open as opposed to a closed system design was created by removing the interconnections required to close the system. The open system had the same number of designed subsystems as the closed system, but it had many fewer interconnections and its SCM was lower by about half. The costs were estimated and the MTBF (Mean Time Before Failure) tabulated for open and closed space life support systems. The estimated costs were linearly proportional to SCM for the wide variations of SCM in life support, but small differences may not be significant. The flight and preflight MTBF’s both declined exponentially with increasing MTBF, faster than MTBF-2, even though the preflight estimated MTBF’s were about ten times higher than the flight MTBF’s.

System Complexity Metric (SCM)↗
NASA NTRS2018

Improving Reliability and Maintainability (R&M) in Space Life Support

This paper considers how to improve the reliability and maintainability (R&M) of future NASA space life support systems. If these systems are procured under an industry contract, defining the R&M requirements would take precedence over providing technical guidance on designing the system. Imposing a specific R&M design could be over constraining. However, the mission may define the overall R&M approach, as the International Space Station (ISS) did by requiring Orbital Replacement Units (ORUs). Before defining the R&M requirements for the next mission, the life support research program should understand and plan the R&M approach. The recent NASA technical standard on R&M has moved away from requiring specific R&M activities during each of the traditional project phases to instead developing and planning to implement the R&M requirements to meet the top level project R&M objectives. The emphasis is on providing the evidence to show that the R&M requirements are met, rather than on conducting specific prescribed R&M activities. The technical standard on R&M defines a comprehensive hierarchy of specific R&M objectives and identifies particular strategies to implement them at each level. That is, the top level R&M objective is defined and then one or more design strategies to implement it are developed immediately, before the next lower objectives are defined and the strategies to achieve those are designed. This step-by-step, top-down approach is similar to the axiomatic design method. The objectives are the R&M requirements, and the strategies are the hardware designs or operations plans developed to meet these requirements. The new R&M process is aligned with the systems design process and helps ensure that the methods to meet the R&M requirements are built into the design.

Jones, Harry W.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Automated Verification of Design Patterns with LePUS3

Specification and [visual] modelling languages are expected to combine strong abstraction mechanisms with rigour, scalability, and parsimony. LePUS3 is a visual, object-oriented design description language axiomatized in a decidable subset of the first-order predicate logic. We demonstrate how LePUS3 is used to formally specify a structural design pattern and prove ( verify ) whether any JavaTM 1.4 program satisfies that specification. We also show how LePUS3 specifications (charts) are composed and how they are verified fully automatically in the Two-Tier Programming Toolkit.

Nicholson, Jonathan↗
NASA NTRS1986

Some design constraints required for the assembly of software components: The incorporation of atomic abstract types into generically structured abstract types

It is nearly axiomatic, that to take the greatest advantage of the useful features available in a development system, and to avoid the negative interactions of those features, requires the exercise of a design methodology which constrains their use. A major design support feature of the Ada language is abstraction: for data, functions processes, resources, and system elements in general. Atomic abstract types can be created in packages defining those private types and all of the overloaded operators, functions, and hidden data required for their use in an application. Generically structured abstract types can be created in generic packages defining those structured private types, as buildups from the user-defined data types which are input as parameters. A study is made of the design constraints required for software incorporating either atomic or generically structured abstract types, if the integration of software components based on them is to be subsequently performed. The impact of these techniques on the reusability of software and the creation of project-specific software support environments is also discussed.

Johnson, Charles S.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Presentation Annotated

This Report is not the latest word on an old idea but the first word on a new one. The new idea reverses the old one, the axiom that the best primary objective for an astronomical telescope exhibits the least chromatic aberration. That axiomatic distinction goes back to a young Isaac Newton who knew from experiments with prisms and mirrors in the 1660's that magnification with a reflection primary was completely free of the dispersion he saw with refraction. The superiority of reflection primary objectives for eyeball or photographic viewing is now considered obvious. It was this piece of wisdom on achromatic primary objectives that led to the dominance of the parabolic mirror as the means to collect star light. Newton was aware of the problem when he introduced his telescope to the scientific world in 1670.This Report is not the latest word on an old idea but the first word on a new one. The new idea reverses the old one, the axiom that the best primary objective for an astronomical telescope exhibits the least chromatic aberration. That axiomatic distinction goes back to a young Isaac Newton who knew from experiments with prisms and mirrors in the 1660's that magnification with a reflection primary was completely free of the dispersion he saw with refraction. The superiority of reflection primary objectives for eyeball or photographic viewing is now considered obvious. Actually, Newton's design innovation was in a secondary mirror, a plane mirror far more easily fabricated than Gregory's embodiment of 1663 which required two curved mirrors.

Astronomical telescope↗
NASA NTRS1994

A Formal Approach to Domain-Oriented Software Design Environments

This paper describes a formal approach to domain-oriented software design environments, based on declarative domain theories, formal specifications, and deductive program synthesis. A declarative domain theory defines the semantics of a domain-oriented specification language and its relationship to implementation-level subroutines. Formal specification development and reuse is made accessible to end-users through an intuitive graphical interface that guides them in creating diagrams denoting formal specifications. The diagrams also serve to document the specifications. Deductive program synthesis ensures that end-user specifications are correctly implemented. AMPHION has been applied to the domain of solar system kinematics through the development of a declarative domain theory, which includes an axiomatization of JPL's SPICELIB subroutine library. Testing over six months with planetary scientists indicates that AMPHION's interactive specification acquisition paradigm enables users to develop, modify, and reuse specifications at least an order of magnitude more rapidly than manual program development. Furthermore, AMPHION synthesizes one to two page programs consisting of calls to SPICELIB subroutines from these specifications in just a few minutes. Test results obtained by metering AMPHION's deductive program synthesis component are examined. AMPHION has been installed at JPL and is currently undergoing further refinement in preparation for distribution to hundreds of SPICELIB users worldwide. Current work to support end-user customization of AMPHION's specification acquisition subsystem is briefly discussed, as well as future work to enable domain-expert creation of new AMPHION applications through development of suitable domain theories.

Lowry, Michael↗
NASA NTRS2022

TruePAL – An AI Assistant for First Responder Safety

This paper presents the development of an AI assistant, Trusted and Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Saving Lives (TruePAL), to provide real-time warning of risks of potential crashes to the first responders. The TruePAL system employs an AI and deep learning technology for saving first responders and roadside crews lives in and around active traffic. A deep neural network (DNN) and a Non-Axiomatic Reasoning System (NARS) are implemented as an AI system. A mobile app with AI interface is developed to perform verbal communication with the first responders. The TruePAL team has developed an explainable AI approach by opening up the DNN blackbox to extract the activation filters of various features and parts of the targeted objects. The combination of DNN and NARS makes the TruePAL system explainable to the users. TruePAL ingests on-board cameras, radar, and other sensor signals, analyzes the environment and traffic patterns to generate timely warning to drivers and roadside crews to avoid crashes. The TruePAL team, in collaboration with the Miami/Dade Police Dept., has designed five use cases and multiple sub-scenarios in a CARLA driving simulator to test the capability of TruePAL in timely warning to the first responder drivers in potential crash scenarios. We have successfully demonstrated its capability of timely warning in over a dozen scenarios based on the use cases. The preliminary test simulation results show that TruePAL could provide the drivers and crew members advanced warning before a crash occurs.

Chow, Edward↗