Role and Importance of Experimental and
Computational Fluid Dynamics Capabilities In
the United States Aerospace Industry Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation Process
Working Draft by Dunn
March 1, 2015
1
Content
Subject
Problem
Environment
Vision for 2030
Approach
Background
Progress at SciTech and Path Forward
Tracking Progress
Note on Engagement
References
Backup Slides
Slide #
3
4
5
6
7-13
14-17
18
19
2
Problem
The development of new or updated aerospace products in the
United States requires robust national science and technology
(S&T) research that feeds a development, test, and evaluation
(DT&E) process for that new product. The fundamental
experimental and computational tools of both the S&T and
DT&E processes are not well coordinated at a National level.
This puts capabilities at risk (degraded performance or closure)
and forces use of tools by researchers and developers that
inadequately manage risk.
There is a need to define the integrated S&T and DT&E
capabilities required to support the nation’s needs through the
year 2030 and to ensure that national stakeholders and
decision makers understand how this works and why it is
important.
3
S&T and DT&E Tools: Environment
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Experimental ground test capabilities in the United States, in many cases still at
or among the best in the world, are at risk.
Tightening budgets and reduced workload has driven the closure of excess
capacity and, in some cases, loss of National capability.
a. Capability sustainment decisions are increasingly being made with one to
two year outlooks and often using local budgets that are static or shrinking.
(It is expensive to operate and maintain large ground test facilities.)
b. Aerospace research budgets in government, industry, and academia are at
risk and have significantly declined over the last 30 years.
c. Experimental workload has decreased due to government budget
constraints, industry consolidation, and the changing nature of the RDT&E
process utilization of computational methods.
NASA capabilities are being focused on NASA direct mission support; support of
technologies currently aligned with primarily military application is being
limited.
Expenses for ground testing facilities are often charged directly to customers
while expenses for computational capabilities are often highly subsidized.
There is widespread misunderstanding regarding the ability of computational
methods to predict actual aerodynamic behavior, leading to the belief that
experimental capabilities are no longer needed.
4
Vision for 2030
S&T and DT&E computational and experimental tools are used to
design to and measure against defined requirements. Over time,
many new aerospace products have become more complex, trying
to address multiple needs on a single platform, often with changing
requirements. DT&E life cycles have increased, often with significant
defects found late, impacting time and cost.
The vision for 2030 is that:
• Research has provided usable new technologies,
• New or updated product requirements are stable early,
• The right tools are available and used in an integrated manner to
develop and deliver a product in a timely and cost effective
manner,
• Risks are identified and mitigated to acceptable levels early in the
DT&E life cycle, and
• New or updated product development occurs within a total
systems engineering construct.
5
Approach
Accomplish a national effort that defines the appropriate S&T and
DT&E tools and processes required to support a robust (cost
effective, timely, at needed quality) range of new aerospace product
developments. Develop a map out to the year 2030 that defines
specific actions to be taken in terms of:
•
•
•
•
Computational fluid dynamics,
Experimental fluid dynamics, including both ground and flight
testing,
Risk management, related to both research and specific products
across the DT&E life cycle, and
Assimilation with product total systems engineering.
A wealth of information (reports, studies, papers) already exists that
this effort can draw on to build an integrated vision. Utilize these
sources to produce a formal document and associated briefing by
the end of FY16.
6
Background
The next several slides provide background:
•
•
•
•
•
Research S&T “Engine”
Product DT&E life cycle
Complementary EFD and CFD
Risk Management across the DT&E life cycle
Assimilation within the Total Product System
7
Research (S&T) Engine
Investments required to
establish research capabilities
Research
Element
System
Integration
Experimental Fluid Dynamics
• Basic services infrastructure
• Test capability infrastructure
• Test techniques/capabilities
• Measurement technologies
• People trained & certified
• Calibration and validation
Code Development
• Software tools
• Adaptation to purpose
• Code validation
• Skilled people
• Compute infrastructure
Science & Technology
(S&T) Capabilities
Experimental
Ground Test/
Laboratories
Experimental
Ground Test/
Laboratories
Computational
Methods
Computational
Methods
Prior
Research
Prior
Research
Prior
Products
Prior
Products
Research Element:
Can be aero-based or measurement/ capability/ technique – using EFD, CFD, lab or
(likely) some combination. Includes researcher subject matter expertise.
8
Product Development (DT&E) Life Cycle
Market Need
Problem: Resulting from inadequate earlier risk management
(hazard identification criticality, mitigation, and system integration)
Problem Cycle
 PRODUCT IDEA!
Multiple
Research
Elements,
Systems
Research, and
Prior Product
Knowledge
Base
Develop
Fix
Configure
Form of
Product
Integrated
Req’mts
and Basic
Concept
Integrated
Model/
Code
Devel’mt
Problem
New
Product
Exploration
[Concept
Dev’mt and
Selection
Product
Devel’mt
Flight
Test
Initial
Production
Go/No-go
Decision
Utilize EFD/CFD for Development, Test & Evaluation
Risk Management and Business Case
Technical
Financial
Integrated performance
Capitalization
Market need and forces (includes
Cost model, product life cycle
competition)
Revenue model, life cycle
Includes economic climate
Regulatory/government environment
9
Computational Capabilities
Experimental and Computational Tool Needs
Dependencies
Physics
Needs
Experimental Capabilities
How do we decompose this problem? Identify the required capabilities
across the RDT&E life cycle for each major aero market area.
10
Experimental and Computational
Development Co-dependencies (Example)
Experimental
Aerodynamics
Acoustics
Aerothermodynamics
Hypersonic Air.
Prop.
Materials &
Structures
Measurem’t Flow
Physics
Flight Dynamics
Crew Systems
Simulators
Laser/Lidar
Aircraft Flight
Testing
Strong (A/E)
Low
Low
Low
Strong
N/A
Low
N/A
Low
N/A
Low
N/A
N/A
Low
low
Strong
N/A
Low
N/A
N/A
N/A
Low
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong (A/E)
Strong
N/A
Low
N/A
N/A
Strong
Moderate
N/A
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Strong
Moderate
Moderate
N/A
Strong
Low
Low
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Strong
Strong
Strong
Low
Strong
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
N/A
Moderate
N/A
N/A
N/A
Low
Low
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Low
N/A
Low
N/A
Strong
Strong
Codes
Structures and Materials:
Finite Element Methods
Structural Dynamics
Damage Mechanics
Quantum Mechanics
Computational Chemistry
Molecular Dynamics
Physics codes: measurement science
Thermal
Ultrasonic
Optical (Gausian, Quantum Mechanics)
Electromagnetic
Radiation Transport (GRC)
Flow Physics (CFD codes):
Navier-Stokes (multiple methods)
Acoustics (noise source/transmission)
Hyp Propulsion (CFD+Combustion)
Aeroelasticity / Aeroservoelasticity (A/E)
Aerothermodynamics
Flight Dynamics and Controls:
GN&C (System ID, Adaptive)
Flight Vehicle/Pilot simulation
CFD for Stability and Control
Aviation Operations:
Air Traffic System & ATM
Wake Vortex Turbulence & Weather
Flight Deck (Vision Sim, Flight Mgmt)
Multidisciplinary Codes:
Systems Concepts
Multidisciplinary Analysis
Design Optimization
Earth’s Atmosphere & Climate
Radiative Transfer
Data Assimilation
Cloud Modeling
Chemistry-transport (gas & aerosol)
Atmospheric Trajectory Analysis
Source: "Integrated Strategy for LaRC Facilities and Laboratories", developed by Charles E. Harris, March 2012
Strong
Moderate
Low
None or N/A
11
DT&E Life Cycle Risk Management
• Risk is managed over the DT&E life cycle WRT:
– Complexity of what is being designed or developed
– Maturity of design
– Level of fidelity based on requirements definition
• If risk is poorly managed, defects migrate to later phases
• Methodology to match EFD and CFD tools to risk scenarios
(Taken from Walker, et. al, 2015)
12
Total Product System Approaches
• The complexity and cost of developing, operating, and
maintaining major aerospace systems is driving efforts by
major producers and owners to manage products from “cradle
to grave” using total system approaches; examples:
– NASA’s Comprehensive Digital Transformation Plan, Strategic Space
Technology Investment Plan, and Virtual Research and Design (Digital
Twin)
– USAF Digital Thread
– [Industry examples . . .]
• The S&T and DT&E tools addressed in this effort typically are
embedded as part of these comprehensive system life cycle
management processes
13
Progress at SciTech and Path Forward
1.
The goal at SciTech was to expand the skill base to include computational
expertise, update the scope to define specific deliverables, and define
detailed activities for the next six months
a.
2.
Met with a combined CFD and EFD group to develop how we could work
together, building on the CFD Vision 2030 report
a.
3.
Held two formal meetings and several planned one-on-one interactions to
develop support/advocacy and for integration with other efforts
Well attended and good interest in teaming; need a cross-cutting working group
Met for a full team meeting and mapped out plan and actions (more info on
following three pages)
a.
EFD team to develop GT meta-analysis based on major publications assessing
the GT environment; defined specific actions to complete
b.
In parallel, assemble joint team to organize the approach for producing an
integrated assessment of EFD and CFD requirements across the RDT&E life
cycle. Seeking funded effort.
c.
AIAA cross-cutting team to develop information advocacy briefing for nonengineers based on report foundational info
14
Product 1: EFD (GT) Meta-Analysis
1. Logistics
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Writing team formed at SciTech from current working group members
Defined 18 reports/papers to review, including reviewers and a common
review format to support information synthesis
Reviews planned to be complete by 31 March 2015
A core writing team was formed to combine reviews and produce the
analysis.
Draft document by June 1, 2015; complete for presentation at SciTech 2016
2. Form/Product
a.
b.
c.
d.
Organize the information into a SWOT format (Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities, Threats) assessment over time – project forward toward
2030.
Review the CFD Vision 2030 Report to map out primary needs for different
product groups
Align the GT meta-analysis construct with the CFD Vision 2030 Report
construct
Prepare a formal conference paper to document the findings.
15
Product 2: RDT&E EFD/CFD Vision 2030
1. Logistics
a.
Form a core writing team and an advisory review team from multiple (related)
technical communities
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
b.
c.
Proposing a funded effort with a National chair and significant participation
from industry, academia, and government across the technical disciplines; CFD
Vision 2030 report cost $350k
Builds on CFD Vision 2030 report, the GT meta-analysis, and other information
sources. Discussions about possibly holding a workshop; TBD.
i.
d.
Computational modeling/simulation
Experimental ground testing
Experimental flight testing
Advanced measurement techniques
Aligned with other efforts (i.e., DoD digital thread)
Define audience and expected report impact
2. Form/Product
a.
b.
c.
Start in Summer or Fall 2015; funding dependent.
Support a panel discussion at AIAA SciTech 2015 Forum 360
Produce a “reach for” reference report document for decision makers and
stakeholders
16
Product 3: RDT&E Information Advocacy Briefing
1. Logistics
a.
b.
Build an information advocacy briefing on the technical foundation of the
RDT&E EFD/CFD Vision 2030 report
Purpose is to educate about the importance of EFD and CFD capabilities in
the new/updated product RDT&E process and the resulting aero industry
role and contribution to the Nation
i.
c.
Based on the expectation that most stakeholders and decision-makers don’t
understand the EFD/CFD tools required for the RDT&E process
Communicates in forms financial and political (non-engineering) people can
understand and use – why this is important to them
i.
Interact with educator and political functionaries for advise, review, and input -- need
to produce in a form that will be understood
d. Produced by representatives from multiple AIAA TC’s (cannot be part of the
funded report effort)
a.
2.
Utilize and support AIAA public policy function
Form/Product
a.
b.
c.
Product is sourced, peer-reviewed Powerpoint briefing
Present at Aviation 2016 or SciTech 2017 Forum 360
Disseminate for use across AIAA
17
Tracking Progress
1. This plan, including additional detail and periodic progress reports,
will be posted on a website created to support this effort at:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/ASG/GTTC/Future%20of%20Ground%20Test
%20Working%20Group/Forms/AllItems.aspx
2. Monthly progress phone calls will occur from March through the end
of the 2015
3. Progress will be tracked by Dunn and interim work products will be
posted on the website
Please direct any questions and/or comments to Dr. Steven
Dunn at steven.c.dunn@nasa.gov
18
Note on Engaging
This could be great work and excellent reports and briefings –
that nobody reads or uses.
We must define our audience – what stakeholders and decisionmakers need this information to help with what they do?
Thus, we also must develop an engagement plan. Not just for the
authors, major players, and “higher-ups”, but for how we can
build a groundswell of support so people from all walks and
stations will engage locally!
19
Backup Slides
20
Aero Industry Markets
Annual Market* ($B)
USA World
XXX.X
SUBSONIC TRANSONIC
XXX.X
0
0.7
1.2
SUPERSONIC
(Mach Number)
[Note: Where to include RDT&E
capability investment and
sustainment? Embedded or separate?]
HYPERSONIC
5
X.X
XX.X
X.X
X.X
XX.X
XX.X
FIXED WING
XX.X
XX.X
FIGHTERS, ISR, HS BOMBERS
X.X
XX.X
GEN. AVIATION
X.X
XX.X
UAVs
X.X
XX.X
MISSILES
X.X
XX.X
SPACE LAUNCH TRANSPORATION, SUBORBITAL TRANSPORTATION
X.X
X.X
18+
RESEARCH (Academia, Industry, Government)
ROTORCRAFT
* Data Source: Teal Group/Aboulafia
Commercial Transports, Some Bombers
ENTRY, DESCENT, LANDING FROM SPACE
21
Aerospace Industry Economic Engine
Research
New Product
Development
US
Economy
World
Economy
Spin-offs (non-aero)
- Technologies
- New Products
Environment
• Market (customer) needs
• Safety requirements and expectations
• Stovepiped national capabilities
• Uncertain space strategy
• Sluggish US economy
• Gov’t regulation generally increasing
• Uncertain gov’t economic policies
Forces
• National defense and force projection needs
• US and international competition
• Speed to market
• Minimalist budget thinking
• Government vs. industry roles
• Low initial cost vs. life cycle best value
22
Why Is This Important?
The aerospace/aeronautics industry is critical to the well-being of the
United States in terms of the:
•
•
Economy
–
Aviation (Civil and General)*
–
Aerospace Total**
•
–
$1.3 trillion in total U.S. economic activity
10.2 million direct and indirect jobs
$47.2B positive trade balance
>5% of USA GDP
>$1.5 Trillion in freight transport per year
$63.5B positive trade balance
National defense
–
•
o
o
o
o
o
–
–
Provides for many of the strategic and tactical needs of the warfighter, including strike; air
superiority; command, control, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; and airlift
Homeland defense and security (air and space)
Initial product/capability development before transitioning to commercial applications
Quality of life
–
Aviation safety
–
Provides a key component to disaster recovery and law enforcement activity, as
well as humanitarian operations.
–
Spin-off technologies used for a variety of purposes
–
Earth climate investigation tools and technologies
Exploration and learning (education and growth)
– Provides inspiration for STEM education fields
– Learn more, to figure out things we don't understand, and to explore the
unknown
* NASA ARMD Strategic Vision 2013
** Aerospace Industries Association, 2013
23
Consider . . .
"As part of my participation in the military, my conviction is that even if the
research and development is made for military purposes, the experience
shows in civil aviation profits. So I believe that what will help in the military is
not only for making war, but contributes very much to the progress of
technology in general.“
Dr. Theodore Von Karmin in 1944
“Remember that the seed comes first; if you are to reap a harvest of
aeronautical development, you must plant the seed called experimental
research.”
Col Hap Arnold in 1937
"research is a peace-time thing and ...moves too slowly to be done after you
get into trouble.“
Dr. Robert Milliken in 1934
All taken from sourced quotes in Daso, 1996.
24
Engaging . . .
“We learn by hooking into what we already know.“
“… scientists being able to explain what they do and why it is
important.”
From a seminar at the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science, at Stony Brook University,
New York, 2013
25
Risk of Losing Key National EFD Capabilities Is Increasing
• Factors driving risk
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Aging and inefficient physical infrastructure
Workforce demographics
Maintenance stretched across old and repurposed facilities
New/updated capability and productivity investments
Organizational stovepiping by capability owners
Funding models/methods variability/inconsistency
Cyclical and declining workloads
Tightening sustainment budgets
Understanding (lack) of role of GT in the aero RDT&E process
Short term outlooks for political cycles and business performance
• Demonstrated responses to these risks
– Reduced sustainment and investment (degrades capabilities)
– Reduced availability (block, sequential, spaced, limited operations)
– Reduced or eliminated capabilities and/or capacities
• Facility/capability stand down or mothball
• Facility/capability abandonment/closure
26
Challenges
Notional Organizational Alignment
(Each organization has a strategy and associated plans)
US DoD
NASA
AFRL
US
Government
LaRC
AFTC
WFF &
GFSC
DARPA
AEDC
MDA
Others
Rotorcraft
Others
FAA
Industry
•
•
Multiple Markets – See chart
Many with RDT&E Capabilities
Army
Armaments
International
•
•
•
Missiles
Fundamental Research
Military Applications
Civilian Applications
Aircraft
Navy
Missiles
Armaments
Academia
27
Economics of Ground Testing
A Possible Scenario
Equation: Capability Development and Sustainment Costs versus Direct and
Indirect Benefit to the US and the World
• Assume
–
–
–
–
Market economy  complete product turnover over next 30 years
Average 2% annual growth across all market segments
Baseline is FY2012
Existing GT capabilities are sunk cost
• Costs
– Develop and sustain capabilities
– Invest in new technologies and applications (capabilities and efficiencies)
•
Benefits
– GT contribution to research  feeds new product development
– GT contribution to new product risk management [show relative to contribution at
each step of the RDT&E process]
– Estimate range and dollar value of impacts
 Extreme case: All EFD facilities are closed/mothballed by 2020
 Likely case: EFD workload will continue to decline and capabilities and
capacities will decline by a like amount
28
Working Group Literature Review
Initial Draft of Topic Areas
From literature and personal experience/opinion
• Build on legacy of today and yesterday; project forward
– Research needs
– Product development needs
• Workload projections by market, US and world
– By speed range, mission (within market), new products
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Evolving roles and use of EFD and CFD
Detections of product problems, early and for remediation
Aero market spin-offs/contributions to other markets
Facility/capability risk factors: status, how being addressed, impacts
Environment factors and market forces over next years
EFD as part of the product business case
Capability investment projections
Why are facilities being/have been closed? Why is work not there?
Misconceptions in the public domain.
Risk posture/allowable risk
29
Possible Work Breakdown Structure for the
Integrated CFD/EFD Role in the RDT&E Process
I. Product Process
A.
B.
C.
D.
Research
Development
Test
Evaluation
II. Market Areas, Mission Needs,
Projections
III. Tools Overview
A. Experimental Testing and Measurement
1. Ground Testing
2. Flight Testing
3. Measurement Technologies
B. Computational Modeling and
Simulation
IV. Ground Test Computational
Dependencies
A. Computational Discipline Trajectory
(CFD Vision 2030)
B. Ground Test Discipline Trajectory
(Ongoing Lit Review and Meta-Analysis)
C. Overlay
D. Flight Test Interfaces
E. Measurement Technologies Integration
V. Define the Path Forward: Prepare
the Integrated Roadmap to 2030
A. Develop an Integrated Master Schedule
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Related (and adjustable) to needs
Identified dependencies
Major milestones
Specific, actionable products
Cost estimates where available; further
study will be required as scope and timing
becomes more specific
B. Develop a work prioritization
methodology that balances:
1.
2.
3.
4.
National needs
Technical Risk
Business Case
Organizational Needs
C. Develop an initial (even notional)
product responsibility matrix
D. Propose how this work product will be
maintained and updated
30