SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Failure Mechanism Traceability”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

3 records

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2013

Goal-Function Tree Modeling for Systems Engineering and Fault Management

This paper describes a new representation that enables rigorous definition and decomposition of both nominal and off-nominal system goals and functions: the Goal-Function Tree (GFT). GFTs extend the concept and process of functional decomposition, utilizing state variables as a key mechanism to ensure physical and logical consistency and completeness of the decomposition of goals (requirements) and functions, and enabling full and complete traceabilitiy to the design. The GFT also provides for means to define and represent off-nominal goals and functions that are activated when the system's nominal goals are not met. The physical accuracy of the GFT, and its ability to represent both nominal and off-nominal goals enable the GFT to be used for various analyses of the system, including assessments of the completeness and traceability of system goals and functions, the coverage of fault management failure detections, and definition of system failure scenarios.

Johnson, Stephen B.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Workflow to Rapidly Interrogate Multiscale Model Simulation Results Across Multiple Length Scales

Many tools can be used to visualize field and state variables for a single scale analysis so that the influence of relevant mechanisms can be evaluated. Finite element software is often utilized to simulate a unit cell of a material and visualize results at that scale. Material properties can be homogenized from individual constituents and local deformation, damage, and failure mechanisms can be evaluated within the unit cell due to globally applied boundary conditions. Such solutions can produce satisfactory results if a user is only interested in analyzing a single scale. But materials in general contain features across multiple length scales, and assumptions must be made when attempting to account for lower length scale phenomena within a higher length scale model. Multiscale modeling is an attractive means to model materials because detailed material responses can be tracked across multiple disparate length scales while reducing the amount of required assumptions. However, as the complexity of these models increases, a large amount of data can be produced, and data traceability can become increasingly more difficult. Field and state variables, which are naturally dependent on spatial position, may themselves be calculated from one or more lower length scale unit cell models each with their own appropriate field and state variables. The NASA Multiscale Analysis Tool (NASMAT) is one software that can be used to perform a multiscale analysis efficiently and output requested data at all length scales in the analysis. A companion open-source Python software, NASMAT PrePost, can be used to visualize NASMAT model results and rapidly interrogate multiscale data across multiple length scales. This presentation will demonstrate some of the key features of NASMAT PrePost on two multiscale problems by quickly displaying and demonstrating connectivity among multiscale results from large datasets.

Python↗

NASA NTRS2003

PEM-INST-001: Instructions for Plastic Encapsulated Microcircuit (PEM) Selection, Screening, and Qualification

Potential users of plastic encapsulated microcircuits (PEMs) need to be reminded that unlike the military system of producing robust high-reliability microcircuits that are designed to perform acceptably in a variety of harsh environments, PEMs are primarily designed for use in benign environments where equipment is easily accessed for repair or replacement. The methods of analysis applied to military products to demonstrate high reliability cannot always be applied to PEMs. This makes it difficult for users to characterize PEMs for two reasons: 1. Due to the major differences in design and construction, the standard test practices used to ensure that military devices are robust and have high reliability often cannot be applied to PEMs that have a smaller operating temperature range and are typically more frail and susceptible to moisture absorption. In contrast, high-reliability military microcircuits usually utilize large, robust, high-temperature packages that are hermetically sealed. 2. Unlike the military high-reliability system, users of PEMs have little visibility into commercial manufacturers proprietary design, materials, die traceability, and production processes and procedures. There is no central authority that monitors PEM commercial product for quality, and there are no controls in place that can be imposed across all commercial manufacturers to provide confidence to high-reliability users that a common acceptable level of quality exists for all PEMs manufacturers. Consequently, there is no guaranteed control over the type of reliability that is built into commercial product, and there is no guarantee that different lots from the same manufacturer are equally acceptable. And regarding application, there is no guarantee that commercial products intended for use in benign environments will provide acceptable performance and reliability in harsh space environments. The qualification and screening processes contained in this document are intended to detect poor-quality lots and screen out early random failures from use in space flight hardware. However, since it cannot be guaranteed that quality was designed and built into PEMs that are appropriate for space applications, users cannot screen in quality that may not exist. It must be understood that due to the variety of materials, processes, and technologies used to design and produce PEMs, this test process may not accelerate and detect all failure mechanisms. While the tests herein will increase user confidence that PEMs with otherwise unknown reliability can be used in space environments, such testing may not guarantee the same level of reliability offered by military microcircuits. PEMs should only be used where due to performance needs there are no alternatives in the military high-reliability market, and projects are willing to accept higher risk.

Teverovsky, Alexander↗