Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “geometric & topological phases”

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.

7 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1994

Object recognition and pose estimation of planar objects from range data

The Extravehicular Activity Helper/Retriever (EVAHR) is a robotic device currently under development at the NASA Johnson Space Center that is designed to fetch objects or to assist in retrieving an astronaut who may have become inadvertently de-tethered. The EVAHR will be required to exhibit a high degree of intelligent autonomous operation and will base much of its reasoning upon information obtained from one or more three-dimensional sensors that it will carry and control. At the highest level of visual cognition and reasoning, the EVAHR will be required to detect objects, recognize them, and estimate their spatial orientation and location. The recognition phase and estimation of spatial pose will depend on the ability of the vision system to reliably extract geometric features of the objects such as whether the surface topologies observed are planar or curved and the spatial relationships between the component surfaces. In order to achieve these tasks, three-dimensional sensing of the operational environment and objects in the environment will therefore be essential. One of the sensors being considered to provide image data for object recognition and pose estimation is a phase-shift laser scanner. The characteristics of the data provided by this scanner have been studied and algorithms have been developed for segmenting range images into planar surfaces, extracting basic features such as surface area, and recognizing the object based on the characteristics of extracted features. Also, an approach has been developed for estimating the spatial orientation and location of the recognized object based on orientations of extracted planes and their intersection points. This paper presents some of the algorithms that have been developed for the purpose of recognizing and estimating the pose of objects as viewed by the laser scanner, and characterizes the desirability and utility of these algorithms within the context of the scanner itself, considering data quality and noise.

Pendleton, Thomas W.↗
NASA NTRS1993

An evaluation of three-dimensional sensors for the extravehicular activity helper/retreiver

The Extravehicular Activity Retriever/Helper (EVAHR) is a robotic device currently under development at the NASA Johnson Space Center that is designed to fetch objects or to assist in retrieving an astronaut who may have become inadvertently de-tethered. The EVAHR will be required to exhibit a high degree of intelligent autonomous operation and will base much of its reasoning upon information obtained from one or more three-dimensional sensors that it will carry and control. At the highest level of visual cognition and reasoning, the EVAHR will be required to detect objects, recognize them, and estimate their spatial orientation and location. The recognition phase and estimation of spatial pose will depend on the ability of the vision system to reliably extract geometric features of the objects such as whether the surface topologies observed are planar or curved and the spatial relationships between the component surfaces. In order to achieve these tasks, accurate sensing of the operational environment and objects in the environment will therefore be critical. The qualitative and quantitative results of empirical studies of three sensors that are capable of providing three-dimensional information to the EVAHR, but using completely different hardware approaches are documented. The first of these devices is a phase shift laser with an effective operating range (ambiguity interval) of approximately 15 meters. The second sensor is a laser triangulation system designed to operate at much closer range and to provide higher resolution images. The third sensor is a dual camera stereo imaging system from which range images can also be obtained. The remainder of the report characterizes the strengths and weaknesses of each of these systems relative to quality of data extracted and how different object characteristics affect sensor operation.

Magee, Michael↗
NASA NTRS2010

Optical Modification of Casimir Forces for Improved Function of Micro-and Nano-Scale Devices

Recently, there has been a considerable effort to study the Casimir and van der Waals forces, enabled by the improved ability to measure small forces near surfaces. Because of the continuously growing role of micro- and nanomechanical devices, the focus of this activity has shifted towards the ability to control these forces. Possible approaches to manipulating the Casimir force include development of composite materials, engineered nanostructures, mixed-phase materials, or active elements. So far, practical success has been limited. The role of geometrical factors in the Casimir force is significant. It is known, for example, that the Casimir force between two spherical shells enclosed one into the other is repulsive instead of normal attractive. Unfortunately, nanosurfaces with this topology are very difficult to make. A more direct approach to manipulating and neutralizing the Casimir force is using external mechanical or electromagnetic forces. Unfortunately, the technological overhead of such an approach is quite large. Using electromagnetic compensation instead of mechanical will considerably reduce this overhead and at the same time provide the degree of control over the Casimir force that mechanical springs cannot provide. A mechanical analog behind Casimir forces is shown.

Strekalov, Dmitry V.↗
NASA NTRS2002

CAPRI: Using a Geometric Foundation for Computational Analysis and Design

CAPRI (Computational Analysis Programming Interface) is a software development tool intended to make computerized design, simulation and analysis faster and more efficient. The computational steps traditionally taken for most engineering analysis (Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD), structural analysis, etc.) are: Surface Generation, usually by employing a Computer Aided Design (CAD) system; Grid Generation, preparing the volume for the simulation; Flow Solver, producing the results at the specified operational point; Post-processing Visualization, interactively attempting to understand the results. It should be noted that the structures problem is more tractable than CFD; there are fewer mesh topologies used and the grids are not as fine (this problem space does not have the length scaling issues of fluids). For CFD, these steps have worked well in the past for simple steady-state simulations at the expense of much user interaction. The data was transmitted between phases via files. In most cases, the output from a CAD system could go IGES files. The output from Grid Generators and Solvers do not really have standards though there are a couple of file formats that can be used for a subset of the gridding (i.e. PLOT3D) data formats and the upcoming CGNS). The user would have to patch up the data or translate from one format to another to move to the next step. Sometimes this could take days. Instead of the serial approach to analysis, CAPRI takes a geometry centric approach. CAPRI is a software building tool-kit that refers to two ideas: (1) A simplified, object-oriented, hierarchical view of a solid part integrating both geometry and topology definitions, and (2) programming access to this part or assembly and any attached data. The connection to the geometry is made through an Application Programming Interface (API) and not a file system.

Haimes, Robert↗
NASA NTRS2014

Trigger of Standard and Blowout Solar Jets: I. Parametric Studies of the Magnetic Field Geometry

Context. Jets are dynamic, impulsive, well collimated plasma events developing at many different scales and in differentlayers of the solar atmosphere.Aims. Jets are believed to be induced by magnetic reconnection a process central to many astrophysical phenomena.Studying their dynamics can help us to better understand the processes acting in larger eruptive events (e.g. flares andcoronal mass ejection) as well as mass, magnetic helicity and energy transfer at all scale in the solar atmosphere. Therelative simplicity of their magnetic geometry and topology, compared with larger solar active events, makes jets idealcandidate for studying the fundamental role of reconnection in energetic events. Methods. In this study, using our state-of-the-art numerical solver ARMS, we present several parametric studies of anumerical three-dimensional magneto-hydrodynamic model of solar jet-like events. We study the impact of the magneticfield inclination and photospheric field distribution on the generation and properties of two types of observed solar jets:the so-called standard and blowout jets.Results. The present parametric studies validate our model of jets for different geometric properties of the magneticconfiguration. On one hand, a blowout jets is eventually always trigger for the range of parameters that we tested. The3D magnetic null-point configuration is a very robust structure for the energy storage and impulsive release characteristicof blowout jets. On the other hand, the existence of the standard jet depends on the magnetic geometry. We show thatthe reconnection occurring during the standard jet phase influences the properties of the trigger of the blowout jet.Conclusions. Our results allow us to better understand the energization, triggering and driving processes of standardand blowout jets. Our model allows us to predict the impulsiveness and energetics of jets in terms of the surroundingmagnetic field configuration. Finally we discuss the interpretation of standard jets and blowout jets and the physicalfactors that determine which type of jets will occur.

Pariat, E.↗
NASA NTRS1999

Sonic Boom Prediction and Minimization of the Douglas Reference OPT5 Configuration

Conventional CFD methods and grids do not yield adequate resolution of the complex shock flow pattern generated by a real aircraft geometry. As a result, a unique grid topology and supersonic flow solver was developed at Northrop Grumman based on the characteristic behavior of supersonic wave patterns emanating from the aircraft. Using this approach, it was possible to compute flow fields with adequate resolution several body lengths below the aircraft. In this region, three-dimensional effects are diminished and conventional two-dimensional modified linear theory (MLT) can be applied to estimate ground pressure signatures or sonic booms. To accommodate real aircraft geometries and alleviate the burdensome grid generation task, an implicit marching multi-block, multi-grid finite-volume Euler code was developed as the basis for the sonic boom prediction methodology. The Thomas two-dimensional extrapolation method is built into the Euler code so that ground signatures can be obtained quickly and efficiently with minimum computational effort suitable to the aircraft design environment. The loudness levels of these signatures can then be determined using a NASA generated noise code. Since the Euler code is a three-dimensional flow field solver, the complete circumferential region below the aircraft is computed. The extrapolation of all this field data from a cylinder of constant radius leads to the definition of the entire boom corridor occurring directly below and off to the side of the aircraft's flight path yielding an estimate for the entire noise "annoyance" corridor in miles as well as its magnitude. An automated multidisciplinary sonic boom design optimization software system was developed during the latter part of HSR Phase 1. Using this system, it was found that sonic boom signatures could be reduced through optimization of a variety of geometric aircraft parameters. This system uses a gradient based nonlinear optimizer as the driver in conjunction with a computationally efficient Euler CFD solver (NIIM3DSB) for computing the three-dimensional near-field characteristics of the aircraft. The intent of the design system is to identify and optimize geometric design variables that have a beneficial impact on the ground sonic boom. The system uses a simple wave drag data format to specify the aircraft geometry. The geometry is internally enhanced and analytic methods are used to generate marching grids suitable for the multi-block Euler solver. The Thomas extrapolation method is integrated into this system, and hence, the aircraft's centerline ground sonic boom signature is also automatically computed for a specified cruise altitude and yields the parameters necessary to evaluate the design function. The entire design system has been automated since the gradient based optimization software requires many flow analyses in order to obtain the required sensitivity derivatives for each design variable in order to converge on an optimal solution. Hence, once the problem is defined which includes defining the objective function and geometric and aerodynamic constraints, the system will automatically regenerate the perturbed geometry, the necessary grids, the Euler solution, and finally the ground sonic boom signature at the request of the optimizer.

Siclari, Michael J.↗
NASA NTRS1998

A Geometry Based Infra-Structure for Computational Analysis and Design

The computational steps traditionally taken for most engineering analysis suites (computational fluid dynamics (CFD), structural analysis, heat transfer and etc.) are: (1) Surface Generation -- usually by employing a Computer Assisted Design (CAD) system; (2) Grid Generation -- preparing the volume for the simulation; (3) Flow Solver -- producing the results at the specified operational point; (4) Post-processing Visualization -- interactively attempting to understand the results. For structural analysis, integrated systems can be obtained from a number of commercial vendors. These vendors couple directly to a number of CAD systems and are executed from within the CAD Graphical User Interface (GUI). It should be noted that the structural analysis problem is more tractable than CFD; there are fewer mesh topologies used and the grids are not as fine (this problem space does not have the length scaling issues of fluids). For CFD, these steps have worked well in the past for simple steady-state simulations at the expense of much user interaction. The data was transmitted between phases via files. In most cases, the output from a CAD system could go to Initial Graphics Exchange Specification (IGES) or Standard Exchange Program (STEP) files. The output from Grid Generators and Solvers do not really have standards though there are a couple of file formats that can be used for a subset of the gridding (i.e. PLOT3D data formats). The user would have to patch up the data or translate from one format to another to move to the next step. Sometimes this could take days. Specifically the problems with this procedure are:(1) File based -- Information flows from one step to the next via data files with formats specified for that procedure. File standards, when they exist, are wholly inadequate. For example, geometry from CAD systems (transmitted via IGES files) is defined as disjoint surfaces and curves (as well as masses of other information of no interest for the Grid Generator). This is particularly onerous for modern CAD systems based on solid modeling. The part was a proper solid and in the translation to IGES has lost this important characteristic. STEP is another standard for CAD data that exists and supports the concept of a solid. The problem with STEP is that a solid modeling geometry kernel is required to query and manipulate the data within this type of file. (2) 'Good' Geometry. A bottleneck in getting results from a solver is the construction of proper geometry to be fed to the grid generator. With 'good' geometry a grid can be constructed in tens of minutes (even with a complex configuration) using unstructured techniques. Adroit multi-block methods are not far behind. This means that a million node steady-state solution can be computed on the order of hours (using current high performance computers) starting from this 'good' geometry. Unfortunately, the geometry usually transmitted from the CAD system is not 'good' in the grid generator sense. The grid generator needs smooth closed solid geometry. It can take a week (or more) of interaction with the CAD output (sometimes by hand) before the process can begin. One way Communication. (3) One-way Communication -- All information travels on from one phase to the next. This makes procedures like node adaptation difficult when attempting to add or move nodes that sit on bounding surfaces (when the actual surface data has been lost after the grid generation phase). Until this process can be automated, more complex problems such as multi-disciplinary analysis or using the above procedure for design becomes prohibitive. There is also no way to easily deal with this system in a modular manner. One can only replace the grid generator, for example, if the software reads and writes the same files. Instead of the serial approach to analysis as described above, CAPRI takes a geometry centric approach. This makes the actual geometry (not a discretized version) accessible to all phases of the analysis. The connection to the geometry is made through an Application Programming Interface (API) and NOT a file system. This API isolates the top-level applications (grid generators, solvers and visualization components) from the geometry engine. Also this allows the replacement of one geometry kernel with another, without effecting these top-level applications. For example, if UniGraphics is used as the CAD package then Parasolid (UG's own geometry engine) can be used for all geometric queries so that no solid geometry information is lost in a translation. This is much better than STEP because when the data is queried, the same software is executed as used in the CAD system. Therefore, one analyzes the exact part that is in the CAD system. CAPRI uses the same idea as the commercial structural analysis codes but does not specify control. Software components of the CAD system are used, but the analysis suite, not the CAD operator, specifies the control of the software session. This also means that the license issues (may be) minimized and individuals need not have to know how to operate a CAD system in order to run the suite.

Haimes, Robert↗