Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “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.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

From TPL assessment to design optimization: Wave energy converter control co-design applied to the RM3

The Reference Model (RM) project developed six marine energy converter concepts using a sequential design methodology, which, while widely adopted in the industry, often overlooks interactions between system components, resulting in suboptimal designs. One such example is the Reference Model 3 (RM3), a two-body point absorber wave energy converter (WEC). An assessment using the Technology Performance Level (TPL) revealed that RM3’s low power-to-cost ratio, partly due to expensive steel construction, limits its techno-economic performance. Here, this study aims to redesign RM3 by reducing its scale and employing control co-design to integrate WEC and Power Take-Off (PTO) dynamics, constraints, and cost considerations within an optimization framework. We demonstrate the limitations of RM3’s current PTO design and explore the benefits of scaling down to enhance techno-economic viability by lowering material costs. Using WecOptTool, we conduct a parameter sweep over gear ratios and spring stiffnesses for various Commercial Off-The-Shelf generators in irregular wave conditions. Our findings emphasize the importance of aligning PTO components with WEC dynamics, showing that control co-design and strategic scaling can improve RM3’s power-to-cost ratio. This study presents a transferable example of applied control co-design for other WECs, supporting early-stage developers in their design decisions.

Off the shelf components↗
NASA NTRS2018

Engineering Trade-off Considerations Regarding Design-for-Security, Design-for-Verification, and Design-for-Test

The United States government has identified that application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) and field programmable gate array (FPGA) hardware are at risk from a variety of adversary attacks. This finding affects system security and trust. Consequently, processes are being developed for system mitigation and countermeasure application. The scope of this tutorial pertains to potential vulnerabilities and countermeasures within the ASIC/FPGA design cycle. The presentation demonstrates how design practices can affect the risk for the adversary to: change circuitry, steal intellectual property, and listen to data operations. An important portion of the design cycle is assuring the design is working as specified or as expected. This is accomplished by exhaustive testing of the target design. Alternatively, it has been shown that well established schemes for test coverage enhancement (design-for-verification (DFV) and design-for-test (DFT)) can create conduits for adversary accessibility. As a result, it is essential to perform a trade between robust test coverage versus reliable design implementation. The goal of this tutorial is to explain the evolution of design practices; review adversary accessibility points due to DFV and DFT circuitry insertion (back door circuitry); and to describe common engineering trade-off considerations for test versus adversary threats.

Design for reliability (DFR)↗
NASA NTRS1989

Designers as users - Design supports based on crew system design practices

The behavioral processes in aviation crew system design are theoretically discussed. Interviews with designers concerning actual design experiences were conducted in a structured manner, focusing on the nature of the design problem, the designers's tasks, how decisions governing the human operator's role are made, and how this decision making can be supported. Two taxonomies emerge, one of which summarizes the nature of the design problem and the second of which summarizes the tasks that designers perform toward solving the problem. Combining the taxonomies yields a design problem space that is used to classify existing forms of support. The results of this classification and the implications for needed supports are discussed.

Cody, William J.↗
NASA NTRS1973

Feasibility study of an Integrated Program for Aerospace-vehicle Design (IPAD) system. Volume 5: Design of the IPAD system. Part 2: System design. Part 3: General purpose utilities, phase 1, task 2

Viable designs are presented of various elements of the IPAD framework software, data base management system, and required new languages in relation to the capabilities of operating systems software. A thorough evaluation was made of the basic systems functions to be provide by each software element, its requirements defined in the conceptual design, the operating systems features affecting its design, and the engineering/design functions which it was intended to enhance.

Garrocq, C. A.↗
NASA NTRS2004

Tradeoffs in Flight Design Upset Mitigation in State of the Art FPGAs: Hardened by Design vs. Design Level Hardening

This presentation compares and contrasts the effectiveness and the system/designer impacts of the two main approaches to upset hardening: the Actel approach (RTSX-S and RTAX-S) of low-level (inside each flip-flop) triplication and the Xilinx approach (Virtex and Virtex2) of design-level triplication of both functional blocks and voters. The effectiveness of these approaches is compared using measurements made in conjunction with each of the FPGAs' manufacturer: for Actel, published data [1] and for Xilinx, recent results from the Xilinx SEE Test Consortium (note that the author is an active and founding member). The impacts involve Actel advantages in the areas of transistor-utilization efficiency and minimizing designer involvement in the triplication while the Xilinx advantages relate to the ability to custom tailor upset hardness and the flexibility of re-configurability. Additionally, there are currently clear Xilinx advantages in available features such as the number of I/O's, logic cells, and RAM blocks as well as speed. However, the advantage of the Actel anti-fuses for configuration over the Xilinx SRAM cells is that the latter need additional functionality and external circuitry (PROMs and, at least a watchdog timer) for configuration and configuration scrubbing. Further, although effectively mitigated if done correctly, the proton upset-ability of the Xilinx FPGAs is a concern in severe proton-rich environments. Ultimately, both manufacturers' upset hardening is limited by SEFI (single-event functional interrupt) rates where it appears the Actel results are better although the Xilinx Virtex2-family result of about one SEFI in 65 device-years in solar-min GCR (the more intense part of the galactic cosmic-ray background) should be acceptable to most missions

radiation effects↗
NASA NTRS1993

Space transportation vehicle design evaluation using saturated designs

An important objective in the preliminary design and evaluation of space transportation vehicles is to find the best values of design variables that optimize the performance characteristic (e.g. dry weight). For a given configuration, the vehicle performance can be determined by the use of complex sizing and performance evaluation computer programs. These complex computer programs utilize iterative algorithms and they are generally too expensive and/or difficult to use directly in multidisciplinary design optimization. An alternative is to use response surface methodology (RSM) and obtain quadratic polynomial approximations to the functional relationships between performance characteristics and design variables. In RSM, these approximation models are then used to determine optimum design parameter values and for rapid sensitivity studies. Constructing a second-order model requires that 'n' design parameters be studied at least at 3 levels (values) so that the coefficients in the model can be estimated. There, 3(n) factorial experiments (point designs or observations) may be necessary. For small values of 'n' such as two or three, this design works well. However, when a large number of design parameters are under study, the number of design points required for a full-factorial design may become excessive. Fortunately, these quadratic polynomial approximations can be obtained by selecting an efficient design matrix using central composite designs (CCD) from design of experiments theory. Each unique point design from the CCD matrix is then conducted using computerized analysis tools (e.g. POST, CONSIZ, etc.). In the next step, least squares regression analysis is used to calculate the quadratic polynomial coefficients from the data. However, in some multidisciplinary applications involving a large number of design variables and several disciplines, the computerized performance synthesis programs may get too time consuming and expensive to run even with the use of efficient central composite designs. In such cases, it may be preferable to keep the number of design points to an absolute minimum and trade some model accuracy with cost. For this purpose, another class of experimental designs, called saturated D-optimal designs may be utilized for generating a matrix of vehicle designs. A design is called saturated when the number of design points is exactly equal to the number of terms in the model to be fitted. As a result, saturated designs require the absolute minimum number of design points ((n+1)(n+2)/s) to estimate the quadratic polynomial model coefficients. Saturated designs can be generated using the D-optimality criterion. A good saturated design should give rise to least squares estimates with minimum generalized variance.

Unal, Resit↗
NASA NTRS2017

Lessons Learned from Applying Design Thinking in a NASA Rapid Design Study in Aeronautics

In late 2015, NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) funded an experiment in rapid design and rapid teaming to explore new approaches to solving challenging design problems in aeronautics in an effort to cultivate and foster innovation. This report summarizes several lessons learned from the rapid design portion of the study. This effort entailed learning and applying design thinking, a human-centered design approach, to complete the conceptual design for an open-ended design challenge within six months. The design challenge focused on creating a capability to advance experimental testing of autonomous aeronautics systems, an area of great interest to NASA, the US government as a whole, and an entire ecosystem of users and developers around the globe. A team of nine civil servant researchers from three of NASA's aeronautics field centers with backgrounds in several disciplines was assembled and rapidly trained in design thinking under the guidance of the innovation and design firm IDEO. The design thinking process, while used extensively outside the aerospace industry, is less common and even counter to many practices within the aerospace industry. In this report, several contrasts between common aerospace research and development practices and design thinking are discussed, drawing upon the lessons learned from the NASA rapid design study. The lessons discussed included working towards a design solution without a set of detailed design requirements, which may not be practical or even feasible for management to ascertain for complex, challenging problems. This approach allowed for the possibility of redesigning the original problem statement to better meet the needs of the users. Another lesson learned was to approach problems holistically from the perspective of the needs of individuals that may be affected by advances in topic area instead of purely from a technological feasibility viewpoint. The interdisciplinary nature of the design team also provided valuable experience by allowing team members from different technological backgrounds to work side-by-side instead of dividing into smaller teams, as is frequently done in traditional multidisciplinary design. The team also learned how to work with qualitative data obtained primarily through the 70-plus interviews that were conducted over the course of this project, which was a sharp contrast to using quantitative data with regards to identifying, capturing, analyzing, storing, and recalling the data. When identifying potential interviewees who may have useful contributions to the design subject area, the team found great value in talking to non-traditional users and potential beneficiaries of autonomous aeronautics systems whose impact on the aeronautics autonomy ecosystem is growing swiftly. Finally, the team benefitted from using "sacrificial prototyping," which is a method of rapidly prototyping draft concepts and ideas with the intent of enabling potential users to provide significant feedback early in the design process. This contrasts the more common approach of using expensive prototypes that focus on demonstrating technical feasibility. The unique design approach and lessons learned by the team throughout this process culminated in a final design concept that was quite different than what the team originally assumed would be the design concept initially. A summary of the more usercentered final design concept is also provided.

McGowan, Anna-Maria↗
NASA NTRS2012

A Design Rationale Capture Tool to Support Design Verification and Re-use

A design rationale tool (DR tool) was developed to capture design knowledge to support design verification and design knowledge re-use. The design rationale tool captures design drivers and requirements, and documents the design solution including: intent (why it is included in the overall design); features (why it is designed the way it is); information about how the design components support design drivers and requirements; and, design alternatives considered but rejected. For design verification purposes, the tool identifies how specific design requirements were met and instantiated within the final design, and which requirements have not been met. To support design re-use, the tool identifies which design decisions are affected when design drivers and requirements are modified. To validate the design tool, the design knowledge from the Taxiway Navigation and Situation Awareness (T-NASA; Foyle et al., 1996) system was captured and the DR tool was exercised to demonstrate its utility for validation and re-use.

design verification↗
NASA NTRS1973

Feasibility study of an Integrated Program for Aerospace-vehicle Design (IPAD) system. Volume 4: Design of the IPAD system. Part 1: IPAD system design requirements, phase 1, task 2

System requirements, software elements, and hardware equipment required for an IPAD system are defined. An IPAD conceptual design was evolved, a potential user survey was conducted, and work loads for various types of interactive terminals were projected. Various features of major host computing systems were compared, and target systems were selected in order to identify the various elements of software required.

Garrocq, C. A.↗
NASA NTRS1990

Design optimization for cost and quality: The robust design approach

Designing reliable, low cost, and operable space systems has become the key to future space operations. Designing high quality space systems at low cost is an economic and technological challenge to the designer. A systematic and efficient way to meet this challenge is a new method of design optimization for performance, quality, and cost, called Robust Design. Robust Design is an approach for design optimization. It consists of: making system performance insensitive to material and subsystem variation, thus allowing the use of less costly materials and components; making designs less sensitive to the variations in the operating environment, thus improving reliability and reducing operating costs; and using a new structured development process so that engineering time is used most productively. The objective in Robust Design is to select the best combination of controllable design parameters so that the system is most robust to uncontrollable noise factors. The robust design methodology uses a mathematical tool called an orthogonal array, from design of experiments theory, to study a large number of decision variables with a significantly small number of experiments. Robust design also uses a statistical measure of performance, called a signal-to-noise ratio, from electrical control theory, to evaluate the level of performance and the effect of noise factors. The purpose is to investigate the Robust Design methodology for improving quality and cost, demonstrate its application by the use of an example, and suggest its use as an integral part of space system design process.

Unal, Resit↗
NASA NTRS1992

Design sensitivity analysis and optimization tool (DSO) for sizing design applications

The DSO tool, a structural design software system that provides the designer with a graphics-based menu-driven design environment to perform easy design optimization for general applications, is presented. Three design stages, preprocessing, design sensitivity analysis, and postprocessing, are implemented in the DSO to allow the designer to carry out the design process systematically. A framework, including data base, user interface, foundation class, and remote module, has been designed and implemented to facilitate software development for the DSO. A number of dedicated commercial software/packages have been integrated in the DSO to support the design procedures. Instead of parameterizing an FEM, design parameters are defined on a geometric model associated with physical quantities, and the continuum design sensitivity analysis theory is implemented to compute design sensitivity coefficients using postprocessing data from the analysis codes. A tracked vehicle road wheel is given as a sizing design application to demonstrate the DSO's easy and convenient design optimization process.

Chang, Kuang-Hua↗
NASA NTRS1996

Using Design Capability Indices to Satisfy Ranged Sets of Design Requirements

For robust design it is desirable to allow the design requirements to vary within a certain range rather than setting point targets. This is particularly important during the early stages of design when little is known about the system and its requirements. Toward this end, design capability indices are developed in this paper to assess the capability of a family of designs, represented by a range of top-level design specifications, to satisfy a ranged set of design requirements. Design capability indices are based on process capability indices from statistical process control and provide a single objective, alternate approach to the use of Taguchi's signal-to- noise ratio which is often used for robust design. Successful implementation of design capability indices ensures that a family of designs conforms to a given ranged set of design requirements. To demonstrate an application and the usefulness of design capability indices, the design of a solar powered irrigation system is presented. Our focus in this paper is on the development and implementation of design capability indices as an alternate approach to the use of the signal-to-noise ratio and not on the results of the example problem, per se.

Chen, Wei↗
NASA NTRS2016

Application of Design of Experiments and Surrogate Modeling within the NASA Advanced Concepts Office, Earth-to-Orbit Design Process

Decisions made during early conceptual design have a large impact upon the expected life-cycle cost (LCC) of a new program. It is widely accepted that up to 80% of such cost is committed during these early design phases.1 Therefore, to help minimize LCC, decisions made during conceptual design must be based upon as much information as possible. To aid in the decision making for new launch vehicle programs, the Advanced Concepts Office (ACO) at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) provides rapid turnaround pre-phase A and phase A concept definition studies. The ACO team utilizes a proven set of tools to provide customers with a full vehicle mass breakdown to tertiary subsystems, preliminary structural sizing based upon worst-case flight loads, and trajectory optimization to quantify integrated vehicle performance for a given mission.2 Although the team provides rapid turnaround for single vehicle concepts, the scope of the trade space can be limited due to analyst availability and the manpower requirements for manual execution of the analysis tools. In order to enable exploration of a broader design space, the ACO team has implemented an Advanced Design Methods (ADM) based approach. This approach applies the concepts of Design of Experiments (DOE) and surrogate modeling to more exhaustively explore the trade space and provide the customer with additional design information to inform decision making. This paper will first discuss the automation of the ACO tool set, which represents a majority of the development e ort. In order to t a surrogate model within tolerable error bounds a number of DOE cases are needed. This number will scale with the number of variable parameters desired and the complexity of the system's response to those variables. For all but the smallest design spaces, the number of cases required cannot be produced within an acceptable timeframe using a manual process. Therefore, automation of the tools was a key enabler for the successful application of an ADM approach to an ACO design study. Following the overview of the tool set automation, an example problem will be given to illustrate the implementation of the ADM approach. The example problem will first cover the inclusion of Ground Rules and Assumptions (GR&A) for a study. The GR&A are very important to the study as they determine the constraints within which a trade study can be conducted. These trades must ultimately reconcile with the customer's desired output and any anticipated \what if" questions. The example problem will then illustrate the setup and execution of a DOE through the automated ACO tools. This process is accomplished more efficiently in this work by splitting the tools into two separate environments. The first environment encompasses the structural optimization and mass estimation tools, while the second is focused on trajectory optimization. Surrogate models are t to the outputs of each environment and are integrated via connection of the surrogate equations. Throughout this process, checks are implemented to compare the output of the surrogates to the output of manually run cases to ensure that the error of the final surrogates is at an acceptable level. The conclusion of the example problem demonstrates the utility of the ADM based approach. Using surrogate models gives the ACO team the ability to visualize vehicle sensitivities to various design parameters and identify regions of interest within the design space. The ADM approach can thus be used to inform concept down selection and isolate promising vehicle configurations to be explored in more detail through the manual design process. In addition it provides the customer with an almost instantaneous turnaround on any \what if" questions that may arise within the bounds of the surrogate model. This approach ultimately expands the ability of the ACO team to provide its customer with broad and rapid turnaround trade studies for launch vehicle conceptual design. The ability to identify a selection of designs which can meet the customer requirements will have the potential to lower LCC of launch vehicle designs originating from ACO.

Zwack, Mathew R.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Application of Design of Experiments and Surrogate Modeling within the NASA Advanced Concepts Office, Earth-to-Orbit Design Process

Decisions made during early conceptual design have a large impact upon the expected life-cycle cost (LCC) of a new program. It is widely accepted that up to 80% of such cost is committed during these early design phases. Therefore, to help minimize LCC, decisions made during conceptual design must be based upon as much information as possible. To aid in the decision making for new launch vehicle programs, the Advanced Concepts Office (ACO) at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) provides rapid turnaround pre-phase A and phase A concept definition studies. The ACO team utilizes a proven set of tools to provide customers with a full vehicle mass breakdown to tertiary subsystems, preliminary structural sizing based upon worst-case flight loads, and trajectory optimization to quantify integrated vehicle performance for a given mission. Although the team provides rapid turnaround for single vehicle concepts, the scope of the trade space can be limited due to analyst availability and the manpower requirements for manual execution of the analysis tools. In order to enable exploration of a broader design space, the ACO team has implemented an advanced design methods (ADM) based approach. This approach applies the concepts of design of experiments (DOE) and surrogate modeling to more exhaustively explore the trade space and provide the customer with additional design information to inform decision making. This paper will first discuss the automation of the ACO tool set, which represents a majority of the development effort. In order to fit a surrogate model within tolerable error bounds a number of DOE cases are needed. This number will scale with the number of variable parameters desired and the complexity of the system's response to those variables. For all but the smallest design spaces, the number of cases required cannot be produced within an acceptable timeframe using a manual process. Therefore, automation of the tools was a key enabler for the successful application of an ADM approach to an ACO design study. Following the overview of the tool set automation, an example problem will be given to illustrate the implementation of the ADM approach. The example problem will first cover the inclusion of ground rules and assumptions (GR&A) for a study. The GR&A are very important to the study as they determine the constraints within which a trade study can be conducted. These trades must ultimately reconcile with the customer's desired output and any anticipated "what if" questions. The example problem will then illustrate the setup and execution of a DOE through the automated ACO tools. This process is accomplished more efficiently in this work by splitting the tools into two separate environments. The first environment encompasses the structural optimization and mass estimation tools, while the second is focused on trajectory optimization. Surrogate models are fit to the outputs of each environment and are "integrated" via connection of the surrogate equations. Throughout this process, checks are implemented to compare the output of the surrogates to the output of manually run cases to ensure that the error of the final surrogates is at an acceptable level. The conclusion of the example problem demonstrates the utility of the ADM based approach. Using surrogate models gives the ACO team the ability to visualize vehicle sensitivities to various design parameters and identify regions of interest within the design space. The ADM approach can thus be used to inform concept down selection and isolate promising vehicle configurations to be explored in more detail through the manual design process. In addition it provides the customer with an almost instantaneous turnaround on any ''what if" questions that may arise within the bounds of the surrogate model. This approach ultimately expands the ability of the ACO team to provide its customer with broad and rapid turnaround trade studies for launch vehicle conceptual design. The ability to identify a selection of designs which can meet the customer requirements will help ensure lower LCC of launch vehicle designs originating from ACO.

Zwack, Mathew R.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Design Under Uncertainty with Design-Dependent Uncertain Variables

Uncertainty quantification (UQ) can provide a more robust understanding of a system, leading to better informed decisions earlier in the design process. The additional information that UQ provides can be leveraged during a design optimization process known as design under uncertainty that, when incorporated with multidisciplinary design and optimization, can become computationally infeasible due to the large number of responses required for meaningful results. Previous work addressed reducing the computational expense in design under uncertainty by incorporating analytic derivatives throughout polynomial chaos expansion. Although this allows design under uncertainty to be feasible for more systems, some multidisciplinary systems have design-dependent uncertain variables. This paper details an implementation of design dependent uncertain variables in a manner than preserves derivatives required for efficient gradient-based optimization throughout the process. Two analytic examples of design-dependent uncertain variables are given: the first transforms a uniform uncertain variable with one design variable and the second transforms a normal uncertain variable with two design variables. The polynomial chaos expansion (PCE) results are comparable to both the Monte Carlo (MC) results and the analytic results for the two examples. A case study that maximizes the lift-to-drag ratio with a design-dependence between the wing leading edge sweep angle and uncertain parameter percentage of laminar flow is compared to a MC and alternative optimization formulations. This paper demonstrates that design-dependent uncertain variables are valid and hold throughout PCE.

robust design↗
NASA NTRS1993

Design efficiency evaluation for transonic airfoil optimization - A case for Navier-Stokes design

A constrained-optimization design method which improves the aerodynamic performance of transonic airfoils is evaluated from a design-quality and design-efficiency viewpoint. Design efficiency is a measure of the performance improvement and the design time (CPU time). Total-airfoil design and upper-surface design are performed using the Euler and Navier-Stokes equations with several grids, and are evaluated using the Navier-Stokes equations to determine the anticipated physical design response. Even though the cost of the Euler design is lower than Navier-Stokes design, the Navier-Stokes evaluation indicates that the Euler design does not necessarily improve the aerodynamic performance. Therefore, the design optimization should be based on an accurate flow simulation to achieve an actual performance improvement, and the design time is a secondary concern.

Hager, J. O.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Comparison of Traditional Design Nonlinear Programming Optimization and Stochastic Methods for Structural Design

Structural design generated by traditional method, optimization method and the stochastic design concept are compared. In the traditional method, the constraints are manipulated to obtain the design and weight is back calculated. In design optimization, the weight of a structure becomes the merit function with constraints imposed on failure modes and an optimization algorithm is used to generate the solution. Stochastic design concept accounts for uncertainties in loads, material properties, and other parameters and solution is obtained by solving a design optimization problem for a specified reliability. Acceptable solutions were produced by all the three methods. The variation in the weight calculated by the methods was modest. Some variation was noticed in designs calculated by the methods. The variation may be attributed to structural indeterminacy. It is prudent to develop design by all three methods prior to its fabrication. The traditional design method can be improved when the simplified sensitivities of the behavior constraint is used. Such sensitivity can reduce design calculations and may have a potential to unify the traditional and optimization methods. Weight versus reliabilitytraced out an inverted-S-shaped graph. The center of the graph corresponded to mean valued design. A heavy design with weight approaching infinity could be produced for a near-zero rate of failure. Weight can be reduced to a small value for a most failure-prone design. Probabilistic modeling of load and material properties remained a challenge.

Patnaik, Surya N.↗