Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) 101
No abstract available
Integrated Model-Centric Engineering Environment↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “Integrated Model-Centric Engineering Environment”
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.
An Operations Concept for Integrated Model-Centric Engineering at JPL
As JPL's missions grow more complex, the need for improved systems engineering processes is becoming clear. Of significant promise in this regard is the move toward a more integrated and model-centric approach to mission conception, design, implementation and operations. The Integrated Model-Centric Engineering (IMCE) Initiative, now underway at JPL, seeks to lay the groundwork for these improvements. This paper will report progress on three fronts: articulating JPL's need for IMCE; characterizing the enterprise into which IMCE capabilities will be deployed; and constructing an operations concept for a flight project development in an integrated model-centric environment.
Bayer, Todd J.↗
Reliability Analysis of Complex NASA Systems with Model-Based Engineering
The emergence of model-based engineering, with Model- Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) leading the way, is transforming design and analysis methodologies. The recognized benefits to systems development include moving from document-centric information systems and document-centric project communication to a model-centric environment in which control of design changes in the life cycles is facilitated. In addition, a “single source of truth” about the system, that is up-to-date in all respects of the design, becomes the authoritative source of data and information about the system. This promotes consistency and efficiency in regard to integration of the system elements as the design emerges and thereby may further optimize the design. Therefore Reliability Engineers (REs) supporting NASA missions must be integrated into model-based engineering to ensure the outputs of their analyses are relevant and value-needed to the design, development, and operational processes for failure risks assessment and communication.
FMEA/FMECA↗
Reliability Analysis of Complex NASA Systems with Model Based Engineering
The emergence of model-based engineering, with Model- Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) leading the way, is transforming design and analysis methodologies. The recognized benefits to systems development include moving from document-centric information systems and document-centric project communication to a model-centric environment in which control of design changes in the life cycles is facilitated. In addition, a “single source of truth” about the system, that is up-to-date in all respects of the design, becomes the authoritative source of data and information about the system. This promotes consistency and efficiency in regard to integration of the system elements as the design emerges and thereby may further optimize the design. Therefore Reliability Engineers (REs) supporting NASA missions must be integrated into model-based engineering to ensure the outputs of their analyses are relevant and value-needed to the design, development, and operational processes for failure risks assessment and communication.
Reliability prediction↗
Model-Based SMA Initiative Phase 1 Report: Reliability Tips Excerpt
The emergence of model-based engineering, with Model- Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) leading the way, is transforming design and analysis methodologies. [7] The recognized benefits to systems development include moving from document-centric information systems and document-centric project communication to a model-centric environment in which control of design changes in the life cycles is facilitated. In addition, a “single source of truth” about the system, that is up-to-date in all respects of the design, becomes the authoritative source of data and information about the system. This promotes consistency and efficiency in regard to integration of the system elements as the design emerges and thereby may further optimize the designs. Therefore Reliability Engineers (REs) supporting NASA missions must be integrated into model-based engineering, using these recommended modeling techniques, to ensure the outputs of their analyses are relevant and value-needed to the design, development, and operational processes for failure risk assessment and communication.
Nancy J. Lindsey↗
Model-based, in-situ, non-destructive qualification and certification of parts made by autonomous additive manufacturing
To address the significant productivity challenges associated with the qualification and certification (Q&C) tasks of additively manufactured (AM) parts, which have traditionally relied on rigorous post‐build inspection and testing, we propose an integrated framework that combines model‐based qualification and certification (MBQ&C) with autonomous additive manufacturing (AAM). MBQ&C employs high‐fidelity predictive models, developed within the Integrated Computational Materials Engineering (ICME) paradigm, to simulate process–structure–property–performance relationships for assessing a part’s fitness for use. Since predictive models are commonly machine learning (ML)-based or reduced-order surrogates of validated physics models, they run efficiently, enabling timely inference. In parallel, the self-driving AAM utilises ML-based adaptive, closed‐loop control strategies to avoid, mitigate, or repair defects and anomalies during fabrication, thereby increasing the likelihood of producing acceptable parts. A key feature of the combined AAM-MBQ&C framework is that predictive models explicitly incorporate defects or anomalies that persist after the build, using instance-specific data captured via in-situ sensing. This customisation enables a build‐specific assessment of fitness for use, rather than relying on nominal or generic parameters. Such individualised evaluation provides a robust basis for Q&C-related acceptance decisions relating to each build. Additionally, the rapid solution capabilities of ML or reduced-order models enable the determination of a part’s suitability for service shortly after build completion. As the framework matures, it has the potential to substantially reduce reliance on conventional point‐design approaches—such as time‐consuming post‐build computed tomography scanning and costly destructive testing. Thus, the AAM-MBQ&C framework represents a transformative, scalable strategy for quality assurance of AM components, as parts produced within a stable, validated, and certified envelope can be certified with reduced testing. Key benefits include: (1) significant gains in Q&C productivity through efficient, model-centric assessment; (2) performance-based classification of defects into critical and non-critical categories; (3) the ability to predict potential deviations in the performance of parts affected by real-time, adaptive process control interventions relative to those produced under a certified process, and (4) the enabling of virtual Q&C for service environments that are difficult, hazardous, or impractical to access or reproduce experimentally. Collectively, these capabilities strengthen the business case for AM, particularly for high‐consequence and mission‐critical applications. Finally, although this work focuses on powder-based AM, the proposed techniques could be extended to AM processes employing alternative feedstock forms.
Gunasegaram, Dayalan↗
A Model-Based Systems Engineering Journey to Developing a Concept of Operations
Starting in 2017, NASA’s Human Research Program (HRP) Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) element began a systems engineering transition from traditional, document-centric development to model-centric development when defining its foundation medical systems. These foundation medical systems define a Concept of Operations (ConOps) and identify the generic requirements for a medical system based on assumptions about a generic crew and mission environments and guidance from NASA standards (e.g., Medical “Levels of Care”). By making the transition, ExMC intends to improve communication among stakeholders about foundation medical system requirements and content. In addition, this transition will enable ExMC to lower both development and crew treatment risks for future, mission-specific medical systems. ExMC followed a Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) paradigm when developing the foundation medical systems. A model-based approach provides several advantages over a traditional, document-centric approach. First, when Systems Engineers (SE) develop diagrams in a model using a standard modeling language, they produce information dense pictures that facilitate understanding much more efficiently with less room for misinterpretation than text. Second, due to the evolving nature of projects, documentation becomes out of date the minute it is published. This can result in people making decisions based on information that is no longer current, especially if they are referencing a locally-stored copy of a document. A model, on the other hand, is always up to date with the latest approved changes and information. It serves as a single point of truth. Third, a model-centric approach centralizes all important information in one place. Rather than having to flip through separate ConOps documents, design specifications, requirements specifications, and the like to coordinate information, a model captures the content in one, integrated spot. This integration makes tracing information from end-to-end easier with greater reliability. The ExMC Systems Engineering Lifecycle follows a well-defined process. ExMC Systems Engineers perform all major steps of the process, regardless of the development methodology. One of the first steps in the process is developing the ConOps that describes the operation of the system from the point of view of the users. It includes a list of the users and their needs, the goals of the medical system, key assumptions about the system, and definitions of the medical system’s operational environments. For this development effort, ExMC chose to replace the traditional text-based ConOps document with a model. While the decision to change the development workflow was not difficult, implementing the structural and organizational workflows were. It required showing ExMC’s users, most of whom are not Systems Engineers, how the information they require would be presented in the model and to gain their acceptance of this approach. This paper documents key lessons learned during the ConOps transformation by focusing on how the model represents information, the agile workflow used by SEs when developing the model and how it integrates into a project plan, how leadership influenced key users to accept the transformation, and how the users interact with the model information.
Jeffrey Robert Cohen↗