1

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

2

Content

Subject Slide # Problem 3Environment 4Vision for 2030 5Approach 6Background 7-13Progress at SciTech and Path Forward 14-17Tracking Progress 18Note on Engagement 19ReferencesBackup Slides

3

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.

4

S&T and DT&E Tools: Environment1. Experimental ground test capabilities in the United States, in many cases still at or

among the best in the world, are at risk.2. 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.

3. NASA capabilities are being focused on NASA direct mission support; support of technologies currently aligned with primarily military application is being limited.

4. Expenses for ground testing facilities are often charged directly to customers while expenses for computational capabilities are often highly subsidized.

5. 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.

5

Vision for 2030S&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.

6

ApproachAccomplish 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.

7

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

8

Research (S&T) Engine

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

Research Element: Can be aero-based or measurement/ capability/ technique – using EFD, CFD, lab or (likely) some combination. Includes researcher subject matter expertise.

Investments required to establish research capabilities

Research Element

Experimental Ground Test/ Laboratories

Computational Methods

System Integration

Prior Research

Prior Products

Experimental Ground Test/ Laboratories

Computational Methods

Prior Research

Prior ProductsScience & Technology

(S&T) Capabilities

9

Product Development (DT&E) Life Cycle

Multiple Research Elements, Systems

Research, and Prior Product

Knowledge Base

New Product

Exploration [Concept

Dev’mt and Selection

Product Devel’mt

Flight Test

Initial Production

Configure Form of Product

Integrated Req’mts

and Basic Concept

Integrated Model/

Code Devel’mt

Go/No-go Decision

Utilize EFD/CFD for Development, Test & Evaluation

Market Need

PRODUCT IDEA!Problem Cycle

Problem

Risk Management and Business Case

Develop Fix

Problem: Resulting from inadequate earlier risk management (hazard identification criticality, mitigation, and system integration)

TechnicalIntegrated performanceMarket need and forces (includes competition)

Includes economic climateRegulatory/government environmentFinancial

CapitalizationCost model, product life cycleRevenue model, life cycle

10

Experimental and Computational Tool Needs

Physics Needs

Dependencies

Experimental Capabilities

Com

puta

tiona

l Cap

abili

ties

Aero M

arke

tsan

d Miss

ions

How do we decompose this problem? Identify the required capabilities across the RDT&E life cycle for each major aero market area.

11

Experimental and Computational Development Co-dependencies (Example)Codes

Experimental

Aerodynamics Acoustics Aerothermo-dynamics

Hypersonic Air. Prop.

Materials & Structures

Measurem’t Flow Physics Flight Dynamics Crew Systems Simulators Laser/Lidar Aircraft Flight

Testing

Structures and Materials: Strong (A/E) Low Low Low Strong N/A Low N/A Low N/A Low

Finite Element Methods

Structural Dynamics

Damage Mechanics

Quantum Mechanics

Computational Chemistry

Molecular Dynamics

Physics codes: measurement science N/A N/A Low low Strong N/A Low N/A N/A N/A Low

Thermal

Ultrasonic

Optical (Gausian, Quantum Mechanics)

Electromagnetic

Radiation Transport (GRC)

Flow Physics (CFD codes): Strong Strong Strong Strong Strong (A/E) Strong N/A Low N/A N/A Strong

Navier-Stokes (multiple methods)

Acoustics (noise source/transmission)

Hyp Propulsion (CFD+Combustion)

Aeroelasticity / Aeroservoelasticity (A/E)

Aerothermodynamics

Flight Dynamics and Controls: Moderate N/A Moderate Moderate Low Low Strong Moderate Moderate N/A Strong

GN&C (System ID, Adaptive)

Flight Vehicle/Pilot simulation

CFD for Stability and Control

Aviation Operations: Low Low N/A N/A N/A N/A Strong Strong Strong Low Strong

Air Traffic System & ATM

Wake Vortex Turbulence & Weather

Flight Deck (Vision Sim, Flight Mgmt)

Multidisciplinary Codes: Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate N/A Moderate N/A N/A N/A Low

Systems Concepts

Multidisciplinary Analysis

Design Optimization

Earth’s Atmosphere & Climate Low N/A N/A N/A N/A Low N/A Low N/A Strong Strong

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

12

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)

13

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 processesNEEDS W

ORK

14

Progress at SciTech and Path Forward1. 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 monthsa. Held two formal meetings and several planned one-on-one interactions to

develop support/advocacy and for integration with other efforts

2. Met with a combined CFD and EFD group to develop how we could work together, building on the CFD Vision 2030 reporta. Well attended and good interest in teaming; need a cross-cutting working group

3. 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 completeb. 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 non-engineers based on report foundational info

15

Product 1: EFD (GT) Meta-Analysis1. Logistics

a. Writing team formed at SciTech from current working group membersb. Defined 18 reports/papers to review, including reviewers and a common

review format to support information synthesisc. Reviews planned to be complete by 31 March 2015d. A core writing team was formed to combine reviews and produce the

analysis. e. Draft document by June 1, 2015; complete for presentation at SciTech 2016

2. Form/Producta. Organize the information into a SWOT format (Strengths, Weaknesses,

Opportunities, Threats) assessment over time – project forward toward 2030.

b. Review the CFD Vision 2030 Report to map out primary needs for different product groups

c. Align the GT meta-analysis construct with the CFD Vision 2030 Report construct

d. Prepare a formal conference paper to document the findings.

16

Product 2: RDT&E EFD/CFD Vision 20301. Logistics

a. Form a core writing team and an advisory review team from multiple (related) technical communitiesi. Computational modeling/simulationii. Experimental ground testingiii. Experimental flight testingiv. Advanced measurement techniques

b. 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

c. Builds on CFD Vision 2030 report, the GT meta-analysis, and other information sources. Discussions about possibly holding a workshop; TBD.i. Aligned with other efforts (i.e., DoD digital thread)

d. Define audience and expected report impact

2. Form/Producta. Start in Summer or Fall 2015; funding dependent.b. Support a panel discussion at AIAA SciTech 2015 Forum 360c. Produce a “reach for” reference report document for decision makers and

stakeholders

17

Product 3: RDT&E Information Advocacy Briefing1. Logistics

a. Build an information advocacy briefing on the technical foundation of the RDT&E EFD/CFD Vision 2030 report

b. 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 Nationi. Based on the expectation that most stakeholders and decision-makers don’t

understand the EFD/CFD tools required for the RDT&E processc. Communicates in forms financial and political (non-engineering) people can

understand and use – why this is important to themi. Interact with educator and political functionaries for advise, review, and input -- need

to produce in a form that will be understoodd. Produced by representatives from multiple AIAA TC’s (cannot be part of the

funded report effort)a. Utilize and support AIAA public policy function

2. Form/Producta. Product is sourced, peer-reviewed Powerpoint briefingb. Present at Aviation 2016 or SciTech 2017 Forum 360c. Disseminate for use across AIAA

18

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

19

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 decision-makers 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!

20

Backup Slides

21

Aero Industry Markets

RESEARCH (Academia, Industry, Government)

FIXED WING

SPACE LAUNCH TRANSPORATION, SUBORBITAL TRANSPORTATION

MISSILES

UAVs

GEN. AVIATION

FIGHTERS, ISR, HS BOMBERS

ENTRY, DESCENT, LANDING FROM SPACE

SUBSONIC TRANSONIC SUPERSONIC HYPERSONIC0 0.7 1.2 5(Mach Number) 18+

ROTORCRAFT

Commercial Transports, Some Bombers

Annual Market* ($B)USA World

[Note: Where to include RDT&E capability investment and sustainment? Embedded or separate?]

XX.X

XX.X

X.X

XX.X

X.X

X.X

XX.X

XX.X

XX.XX.X

X.X XX.X

X.X XX.X

X.X XX.X

X.X X.X

XXX.XXXX.X

* Data Source: Teal Group/Aboulafia

22

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

Research New Product Development

US Economy

World Economy

Spin-offs (non-aero)- Technologies - New Products

Aerospace Industry Economic Engine

23

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)*o $1.3 trillion in total U.S. economic activityo 10.2 million direct and indirect jobso $47.2B positive trade balanceo >5% of USA GDPo >$1.5 Trillion in freight transport per year

– Aerospace Total**– $63.5B positive trade balance

• National defense– 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

24

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.

25

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

26

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

27

ChallengesNotional Organizational Alignment

(Each organization has a strategy and associated plans)

LaRC WFF & GFSC

ARC GRC

AFRC

Other

sNASA

AEDC

Edw

ards

AF

B

Eglin

AFB

AFTCAFRL

DARPA

MDA

Army Missiles

Rotorcraft

Armaments

Navy Missiles

Aircraft

Armaments

Others

US DoD

FAAOthers

US Government

Industry

• Multiple Markets – See chart• Many with RDT&E Capabilities

AcademiaInternational

• Fundamental Research• Military Applications• Civilian Applications

28

Economics of Ground TestingA 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

29

Working Group Literature ReviewInitial 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

30

Possible Work Breakdown Structure for the Integrated CFD/EFD Role in the RDT&E Process

I. Product ProcessA. ResearchB. DevelopmentC. TestD. Evaluation

II. Market Areas, Mission Needs, Projections

III. Tools Overview A. Experimental Testing and Measurement

1. Ground Testing2. Flight Testing3. Measurement Technologies

B. Computational Modeling and Simulation

IV. Ground Test Computational DependenciesA. Computational Discipline Trajectory (CFD

Vision 2030)B. Ground Test Discipline Trajectory (Ongoing

Lit Review and Meta-Analysis)C. Overlay

D. Flight Test InterfacesE. Measurement Technologies Integration

V. Define the Path Forward: Prepare the Integrated Roadmap to 2030A. Develop an Integrated Master Schedule

1. Related (and adjustable) to needs2. Identified dependencies3. Major milestones4. Specific, actionable products5. 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. National needs2. Technical Risk3. Business Case4. Organizational Needs

C. Develop an initial (even notional) product responsibility matrix

D. Propose how this work product will be maintained and updated