Rev 4/2/15
Document Review Criteria for the “Future of Ground Testing” Working Group
Draft by Dunn, 4/2/15




I.
The focus of this report is ground testing. We will include information on flight testing as it is
included in our reference material. We may need an additional effort to beef up the FT info.
This is organized in a gap analysis structure: future vision, current state, opportunities and
challenges (including “grand challenges”)
The first part of this document lists the criteria for review. Please scan these prior to reviewing the
paper. This is intended to show the intent of the type of info to be documented.
The second part of this document lists topic areas. Please add your comments to each, as applicable.
Write as much or as little as you want; we will be combining inputs for each paper. We really want
to capture the author’s intent, add anything additional that you feel is important that is not
captured by these topic areas.
Vision for Experimental Fluid Dynamics – Ground (and Flight, as mentioned) Testing
a. Expected/Projected Needs
i. Military
1. Fixed wing
2. Rotorcraft
3. UAV/Missile
4. Other
ii. Commercial
1. Fixed wing
2. Rotorcraft
iii. General Aviation
iv. Space transportation delivery and return systems
v. Fundamental research
b. Capabilities
i. Mission-related performance requirements
ii. Degree/Mix of Work Done by EFD or CFD
iii. Ownership/Stewards and Cost Models
iv. Operational Models
c. Integration
i. Risk Management during Development
1. EFD/CFD tool selection
2. EFD Quality versus Cost
3. CFD Quality versus Cost
4. Tool Interfacing
5. “Good Enough” for
ii. Efficient, Cost-effective
d. Grand Challenge Problems
1
Rev 4/2/15
II. Current State of EFD
a. Performance/Benchmark
i. Fundamental Research, Elemental and System
ii. Design
1. Conceptual Design
2. Preliminary/Detailed Design
3. Product Validation and Certification
b. Capabilities
i. Mission area(s) Performance Availability
1. Physical condition
a. Good or better condition
b. Past design life
c. Issues and at risk
2. Capability sustainment efficacy (maintenance, investments, skill
management, operations and maintenance processes, budgets and business
processes)
3. Improvement and modernization alignment with future market needs
4. Customer focus (for all customers
ii. Staffing and Knowledge Management
c. Integration
i. Computational methods
1. Maturation of computational processes
2. How GT techniques and processes must evolve to support integration
ii. Support to flight testing
iii. Measurement and instrumentation technologies maturation, including teaming to
define needs to measurement developers and producers (again, integrated with CFD
and flight test)
iv. Government and industry development, proprietary versus open source
III. EFD/Ground Testing Technology Gaps and Impediments
a. [Note: This is likely a work product from assessing the first two sections. Included to capture
anything already identified in the references.]
IV. Technology Development Plan
a. [Address the gaps]
Additional Considerations
There will be additional info that doesn’t fit into the above categories and we still need to capture that
and then figure out how it fits into our paper. The following is a start at some of this potential info.
V. Internal and External Environments
a. Interdependencies within the RDT&E process and risks associated with potential loss of GT
capabilities
2
Rev 4/2/15
b.
b.
c.
d.
e.
i. Example: Accepting higher risk by not understanding product performance such that
defects appear late in the RDT&E life cycle -- very costly to fix late
Facility owner needs and issues
i. Mission requirements and priorities
ii. Condition of facilities
iii. Capability sustainment efficacy (maintenance, investments, skill management,
operations and maintenance processes, budgets and business processes
iv. Improvement and modernization alignment with future market needs
v. Customer focus/service
Producer risk management needs and issues
i. [Definition note: risk management is the definition of hazards, the probability a
hazard will happen, the potential severity/impact when it happens, an initial risk
level assessment, development and application of specific mitigators to a high risk
hazard, and a reassessment of risk with mitigators in place. Process continues until
hazards are well understood and risk levels have been mitigated down to acceptable
levels.]
ii. Always a trade to define GT and CFD requirements to drive risk down for specific
hazards
iii. CFD mostly requires validation (typically via GT or FT)
iv. GT and CFD also used to define some hazards
Economic impacts
i. United States, EU and Great Britain, Japan
ii. Breakouts based on GDP, jobs, net imports/exports
iii. Technology spin-offs, estimate of additional positive impact on GDP
Education impact (STEM support,
Environmental headwinds and support (in addition to cited above, add geopolitical
considerations, overall economic indicators, national and international politics
(regulations/laws, taxation, market support or not, more)
VI. Needs and Capabilities
a. Computational methods
i. Code validation
ii. Interactive development
b. Flight testing investigations
c. In service product anomaly investigations
d. Measurement and instrumentation technologies development
e. Role in RDT&E process, at each stage; percent and relative importance of knowledge
gained at each stage; degree of risk identified and managed at each stage for different
kinds of systems at different levels of maturation
f. Market environment, growing, stagnant/mature, declining, cyclical
i. Low/subsonic speed
ii. Transonic speed
iii. Supersonic speed
iv. Hypersonic speed
3
Rev 4/2/15
Document Review Form for Capturing Information from Selected GT References


References and reviewers were identified at the SciTech meeting. Each reviewer should use this
form – hand or type written – to capture info as a document is reviewed.
Send completed reviews to Steve Dunn at steven.c.dunn@nasa.gov.
Reviewer: _Eric Schuch___________________________
Reference Document Title: __Revitalizing AEDC Workforce Tech Exc AIAA2008-1611__
Date of Review: _5/31/2015__________
Please fill in each topic area, as applicable (add space as needed):
I.
Vision for Experimental Fluid Dynamics – Ground (and Flight, as mentioned) Testing
a. List/describe future technologies/configurations in terms of Expected/Projected Needs
b. What capabilities will be needed and how will they need to work and be managed?
c. Integration of CFD and Ground/Flight Testing (includes risk management during research
and product development)
d. Grand Challenge Problems
II. Current State of EFD
a. Performance/Benchmark – types of capabilities/test techniques, where it works best, best
practices, how do we know
b. Capabilities
i. Mission area(s) Performance Availability (strengths and weaknesses associated with
condition, investments, capability sustainment, reliability, customer
focus/satisfaction)
ii. Staffing and knowledge management
This paper provides a robust approach to managing and revitalizing workforce knowledge. The 6 key
attributes below are expanded on in the paper.
“In reviewing the almost six-decade history of AEDC, the teams found that several key attributes that historically
contributed to building technical excellence are still in evidence:
A. Excitement in and innovation potential of the mission
B. Organizational and leadership emphasis on technical excellence
C. Opportunities for the staff to be technical and create knowledge
D. Technical collaboration
E. Focused emphasis on developing technical people
F. Knowledge archiving
These six attributes link directly to the four strategic thrusts defined by the steering committee.”
4
Rev 4/2/15
Which are:
“1. Management and Availability of Technical Knowledge
2. Development of the Technical Workforce
3. Enhancement of the Depth/Breadth of AEDC Technical Contributions
4. Establishment and Management of an Environment Conducive to Technical Enhancement”
c. Integration
i. Computational methods
1. Maturation of computational processes
2. How GT techniques and processes must evolve to support integration
ii. Support to flight testing
iii. Measurement and instrumentation technologies maturation, including teaming to
define needs to measurement developers and producers (again, integrated with CFD
and flight test)
iv. Government and industry development, proprietary versus open source
III. EFD/Ground Testing Technology Gaps and Impediments
a. [Note: This is likely a work product from assessing the first two sections. Included to capture
anything already identified in the references.]
“Several areas that need extensive reengineering include:
1. Early integrated use of high-fidelity physics modeling with ground testing to determine system integration issues
(e.g., airframe/structure, airframe/propulsion) as early as possible in the development cycle. Integration issues are a
common cause of late defect discovery.
2. A complete reexamination of flight system, aeropropulsion system, and space & missile system ground-test
approaches to try to reduce significantly the traditional number of hours used.
3. A comprehensive understanding of the impact of ground testing on late defect discovery and a corresponding
development of improved testing methodologies and processes for scaling of ground data to flight conditions robust
enough to avoid late defect discovery.”
Under the “Fostering Technical Collaboration” section the author suggests three areas that could be
focused on:
An integrated use of advanced computational fluid dynamics (CFD) codes, modern design of experiments
(MDOE), and "fly the mission" testing techniques to reduce the overall test hours in a wind tunnel “campaign”.
Today it takes approximately 2.5 million data points in a wind tunnel test program to develop the stability and
control (S&C) and performance laws database for a SUT. This amount of wind tunnel testing drives cycle time for
system development, which is one of the key D&SWS effectiveness measures.
A basic theoretical/experimental/computational study of scaling principles for vortex-dominated or massively
separated flows. Current wind tunnel scaling principles are based on circa 1975 studies of Reynolds Number scaling
of attached flows on transport configurations. For military aircraft, high angle of attack (alpha) is a more common
state and can have a strong influence on structures, control response, and other design parameters (e.g., vortex
breakdown on vertical tails, control surface effectiveness, control system gains).
Concomitant with the high-alpha study above, the same collaborative effort could help develop a database for
validation of the next generation of CFD codes.
5
Rev 4/2/15
IV. Technology Development Plan
a. [Address the gaps – include anything already identified in the references.]
Additional Considerations
There will be additional info that doesn’t fit into the above categories and we still need to capture that
and then figure out how it fits into our paper. The following is a start at some of this potential info.
V. Internal and External Environments
An interesting comment on cost & schedule overruns due to the lack of maturity of new technologies. I
feel this makes a good case for ground test.
“One of the key factors contributing to cost and schedule overruns in major acquisition programs has been the lack
of maturity of new technologies injected into the system design. Recent General Accounting Office (GAO) reports
have clearly illustrated the impact of immature technologies on acquisition program cost and schedule. For new
technologies with a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) (Ref 7) of six or greater, cost overruns average less than
three percent. On the other hand, for those acquisition programs with immature technologies, cost overruns on
average approach 30 percent. (Ref 8)”
VII. Needs and Capabilities (not covered above)
6