Click here to load reader
Upload
vudang
View
223
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Wind Tunnel Testings Future: A Vision of the Next
Generation of Wind Tunnel Test Requirements and Facilities
Mark R. Melanson1
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, Fort Worth, TX 76101, USA
Ming Chang2
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, Palmdale, CA, 93599, USA
and
Wendell M. Baker, II3
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, Fort Worth, TX 76101, USA
Future wind tunnel test requirements are very difficult to forecast due to the
uncertainties of anticipating future direction of national needs, budgetary pressures,
military requirements, and evolving technology. Wind tunnel testing is anticipated to
continue to provide a very significant percentage of development and validation data needed
in pursuit of new technologies and systems of aerospace vehicles. While aerodynamics,
propulsion, and loads development are considered mature disciplines, growing technical
complexities of future air vehicle systems will stress existing wind tunnel and computational
tools that currently provide the bulk of developmental data. As a result, more efficient and
effective wind tunnel test facilities that provide the user with more extensive data and test
capabilities will be required. The authors propose a vision of the future of testing
requirements and possible next-generation wind tunnel test facilities capabilities.
Nomenclature
AFRL = Air Force Research Laboratory
AIAA = American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
AoA = Analysis of Alternatives
ARL = Applied Research Lab
ATD = Advanced Technology Development
CAD = Computer Aided Design
CFD = Computational Fluid Dynamics
CTD = Concept Technology Development
ERA = Environmentally Responsible Aviation
DMM = Direct Metal Manufacturing
FDM = Fuse Deposition Modeling
HPC = High Performance Computing
IDA = Institute for Defense Analysis
ISIS = Integrated Sensor is Structure
ISR = Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance
MDOE = Modern Design of Experiments
NPAT = National Partnership for Aeronautical Testing
1 Manager, Engineering Laboratories, P.O. Box 748, Mail Zone 6449, Fort Worth, TX, 76101, Associate Fellow.
2 LM Fellow, Air Vehicle Sciences & Systems, 1011 Lockheed Way, Mail Zone 1100, Palmdale, CA, 93599, Senior
Member. 3 Research Engineer Senior Staff, Engineering Laboratories, P.O. Box 748, Mail Zone 6449, Fort Worth, TX, 76101,
Senior Member.
48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition4 - 7 January 2010, Orlando, Florida
AIAA 2010-142
Copyright 2010 by Lockheed Martin Corporation. All Rights Reserved. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
teve
n D
unn
on J
une
1, 2
014
| http
://ar
c.ai
aa.o
rg |
DO
I: 1
0.25
14/6
.201
0-14
2
2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
NC = Numerical Control
Rn = Reynolds Number
RP = Rapid Prototyping
SLA = Stereolithography Apparatus
SLS = Selective Laser Sintering
UAV = Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
UCAV = Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle
WT = Wind Tunnel
I. Introduction
OR the past decade and a half the aerospace industry has seen a decline in the overall usage of wind tunnel
testing to acquire aerodynamic and propulsion data for many of the research and development programs. This
decline can be largely attributed to the shrinking number of air vehicle development programs coupled with
improvements in both the speed and accuracy of numerical flow field simulations for complex configurations.
Computational fluid dynamic (CFD) analysis has benefited from the growth in computing power (spurred on by the
computer video game industry), increasing the ability to conduct improved modeling and simulations of complex
problems that give insight to flow phenomenon. These improvements in computational speed and accuracy, coupled
with low developmental budgets on most contemporary programs, have helped grow the increasing reliance on
computational tools during conceptual and preliminary design phases on many programs. Trade studies are often
conducted, isolating likely configurations, based largely on computational solutions. Smaller amounts of validation
wind tunnel testing typically provide the anchor points for these studies.
As a result of these changes in preliminary design processes, wind tunnel testing that follows preliminary design
efforts are typically very focused, targeting validation of the CFD solutions and then expanding to provide the broad
operating envelope data that are well beyond the current speed, accuracy, cost, and throughput for computational
solutions. Wind tunnels remain the only viable source for the volumes of data needed to fully develop and validate
air vehicle systems.
Overall, these factors have reduced the number of wind tunnel entries, impacting the ability to maintain the wind
tunnel infrastructure (which includes not only the test facilities, but also items like wind tunnel model design and
fabrication capabilities, wind tunnel balance providers, instrumentation sources, etc.). Fallout from this reduction in
testing has included the closure of many wind tunnel facilities that have low utilization or high up-keep costs.
Closures of these national assets are setting off concerns within the aerospace community about maintaining
adequate wind tunnel test capability /capacity and skill levels to successfully support future programs. As wind
tunnel facilities and capabilities decrease and test costs almost certainly increase, programs become forced to choose
between accepting increased vehicle development risk through limited testing, utilizing foreign test assets, or
forgoing testing altogether and committing to full dependency on computational modeling. These alternate scenarios
present potential risks of significant design issues and flight failures that can be costly and time consuming to
rectify. Given the present state of the nations wind tunnel test assets and the budgetary constraints, it would be
prudent to understand the industrys future direction and program needs in order to identify our next generational
wind tunnel test requirements and facility needs.
II. Vision of Future Aerospace
If we had a crystal ball providing an accurate projection of the future, there is little doubt that our national focus
would commit the necessary funding to maintain appropriate wind tunnel infrastructure. Since we do not, we are left
with examining the past, reviewing our present program status and health, and projecting our future needs to define
the next generation wind tunnel test capabilities required. Table I lists advanced vehicle concepts being considered
and the time frame for potential development. The table shows a repertoire of vehicle types under study that span
vast speed ranges. As time goes by, the requirements illustrated in Table I will evolve with changing political,
economic, and military environments. Concepts will come, go, manifest into unique needs, or merge to become part
of a bigger program. As a result, the continuing decline in aircraft reaching first flight is shown in Fig. 1.
Several factors appear to be major contributors to this decline. First, as technology has increased, the cost to
develop and field air vehicles has grown exponentially. Norm Augustine, former chairman of Lockheed Martin,
summed it up very eloquently in his book, Augustines Laws: Law Number XVI: In the year 2054, the entire
defense budget will purchase just one aircraft. This aircraft will have to be shared by the Air Force and Navy 3 1/2
days each per week except for leap year, when it will be made available to the Marines for the extra day.1 The
F
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
teve
n D
unn
on J
une
1, 2
014
| http
://ar
c.ai
aa.o
rg |
DO
I: 1
0.25
14/6
.201
0-14
2
3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Airbus A380 and Boeing 787 illustrate the commercial equivalent of the major investment and financial exposure
that a single aircraft program represents to developers today.
Table I. Aerospace Vehicle Concepts through 20202.
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
teve
n D
unn
on J
une
1, 2
014
| http
://ar
c.ai
aa.o
rg |
DO
I: 1
0.25
14/6
.201
0-14
2
4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Contemporary technology gives air vehicle designers flexibility not available 15 to 20 years ago. Todays
onboard computers and active flight controls, advanced light-weight materials and higher performing electronics
enable expansion of many platforms utility, making it possible to design multi-purpose vehicles rather than the
single-purpose vehicles more typical in past decades. Additionally, these technologies have extended the useful life
span of existing platforms such as B-52, C-130, P-3, MD-80/DC-9, eliminating the need to start new programs.
Rough Estimated Number of Aircrafts Designs Reaching First Flight
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1950's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's 2000's 2010's
Decade
Nu
mb
er
of
ne
w d
esig
ns
Planned but not flown (mixed types)
UAVs
major military modifications
New military aircraft
New civilian aircraft
Finally, the historical tradition of wind tunnel testing to gather all necessary data was mainly due to the lack of
alternatives, such as reliable numerical simulation capability. Todays high performance computers coupled with
more reliable CFD modeling has opened avenues to conduct multi-point optimizations driving multi-dimensional
Table I. Aerospace Vehicle Concepts through 20202 (contd).
Figure 1. Estimated number of aircraft designs reaching first flight2.
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
teve
n D
unn
on J
une
1, 2
014
| http
://ar
c.ai
aa.o
rg |
DO
I: 1
0.25
14/6
.201
0-14
2
5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
parameters into an optimal solutions. Faced with ever tightening budget constraints, todays conceptual design teams
typically conduct limited wind tunnel test programs for CFD validation and focus data for baseline analysis.
Wind tunnel testing today also focuses on more diverse data for a baseline concept that can include force and
moment data, pressure data, hinge moments, on- and off-body flow field surveys, and noise surveys for source
detection. The objective is to gather the repertoire of data that will enable engineering analysis and trade studies to
be conducted, narrowing the field to a baseline for full-scale development and deployment. Development that took
five or more rounds of wind tunnel testing in years past now require only one to three rounds of testing before going
to first flight. Therefore, wind tunnel testing has evolved away from extensive concept development to become the
critical process validating vehicle performance prior to first flight. In 2003, Douglas Ball of Boeing reported3 a
decrease in the typical number of developmental wind tunnel tested wing configurations from seventy-seven to
approximately five between 1980 and 2003 due to the use of CFD modeling.
Despite the change in emphasis and purpose, wind tunnel testing remains the largest and most extensive source
of data for major programs. The continued heavy reliance on wind tunnel testing can be seen in Fig. 2. The increased
complexity and scope of air vehicle designs, coupled with the need to avoid risky and costly problem identification
during flight testing, have actually driven continued increases in wind tunnel testing (on a per-program basis).
It is expected that future programs will rely on highly integrated computational simulation and physical
modeling in the wind tunnel. The most ideal future scenario will include highly integrated computational and
physical simulation capable of rapid evaluation of concepts and configurations. Robust and reliable CFD modeling
simulation will be used to evaluate and narrow the design options to a chosen few. Rapid wind tunnel model design
and fabrication would begin taking advantage of light-weight, easily workable, and high-strength materials to
manufacture modularized model parts for testing. Wind tunnels would be readily available with capabilities
spanning a large speed range and flow visualization at any speed, efficient data gathering process (hardware and
software), automation that reduces model changes, and adaptable to various types of testing, i.e., aero, propulsion,
loads, and noise. Entries in the tunnel will be shorter and more rapid, providing focused physical validation of
analytic estimates and, where appropriate, volumes of data required for extensive control law and flight envelope
expansion.
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
B-52
B-707
DC-8
B-727DC-9
F-111
at CDR
SST
B-737-100
B-747-100
L-1011
F-15
F-16
B-757 @ FF
B-767 @ FF
F-35 thru SDD
(All 3 Variants)
F-22 thru EMD
B-777-200
B-1
DC-10
F-111 All
B-7E7
Te
st
Ho
urs
, U
OH
F/A-18 A/C
F/A-18 E/F
F-14
DC-6
Figure 2. History of Wind Tunnel Testing on Major Aircraft Programs4.
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
teve
n D
unn
on J
une
1, 2
014
| http
://ar
c.ai
aa.o
rg |
DO
I: 1
0.25
14/6
.201
0-14
2
6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Achieving this ideal scenario requires significant progress across many fronts:
Improvements in speed and accuracy of computational simulation
Highly integrated simulation and wind tunnel testing
Rapid development of wind tunnel model hardware
Wind tunnel facilities capable of rapid evaluation of on- and of-body flow physics for identified configurations for a broad range of test types and speed ranges.
Each of these topics is discussed in additional detail below.
A. Future Improvements in Speed and Accuracy of Computational Simulation Over the last few decades, CFD has progressed in leaps and bounds in capability, both in the hardware and
software arena. Twenty years ago developing and running lower order methods were the norm. The focus at that
time was on de-coupling of the inviscid portion of flow from the viscous portion using combinations of Eulers
equation with the boundary layer equations to describe the viscous/inviscid coupling. This was done primarily due to
the limitations in computational speed and memory, forcing trade-offs between the two at a cost to accuracy and
reliability. From an aerodynamic perspective, CFD was of marginal engineering value, with aerodynamic design
determined by extensive wind tunnel studies. CFD, at best, was used as a preliminary design tool and to validate the
results of wind tunnel studies.
Today, supercomputers in a networked ensemble run Navier-Stoke solvers with adjoint methods on overset
grids. This massively parallel supercomputing capability offers trillions of floating point operations and terabytes of
memory to produce high-fidelity, grid-refined CFD simulations in a reasonable amount of time. Again, the cost of
acquiring computers has been reduced by orders of magnitude, enabling low-cost supercomputing to reach a broader
base of CFD researchers in academic and government labs, while also making the technology more affordable for
industry. The application of massively parallel computers enabled 3-D steady and unsteady CFD models to be
applied with increasing confidence in the numerical solution. Today, it is not uncommon to find aerodynamic
models with computational grids up to 100 million cells providing reliable solutions to complex problems. High
performance computing (HPC) has come of age to become a tool that provides programs with predictions, analysis,
and sanity checks of complex designs at cost savings that meet todays budgetary constraints.
Future CFD applications (shown in Fig. 3) will evolve towards multidisciplinary studies for system design and
optimization. Moving control surfaces, computational maneuverability, and vehicle systems with integrated
propulsion are all prime application areas of interest. The net effect of this new generation of applications will be an
increasing reliance on CFD modeling for aerodynamic design and systems optimization where wind tunnel
modeling cannot be so easily or cost-effectively applied.
CFD Application Trends
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Years
Gri
d S
ize
GFlops
Grid Size (Millions)
3D
Reacting
Flow
Store/Sep
with
Overset
Moving
Surfaces
Integrated
Air Vehicle
Systems
3D
Navier
Stokes
Figure 3. CFD Application Trends.
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
teve
n D
unn
on J
une
1, 2
014
| http
://ar
c.ai
aa.o
rg |
DO
I: 1
0.25
14/6
.201
0-14
2
7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
B. Highly Integrated Simulation and Testing A key challenge has been integrating computational simulation and experimental efforts. Because of the highly
specialized nature of each approach, practitioners have usually either been experimentalists or computationalists.
The well-meaning questions posed in a 1980s article, Will computers replace the wind tunnel? probably did more
to polarize and set back efforts to truly integrate the tools.
The growing speed and improved utility of most computational tools have moved their use from the doctoral
engineer on a supercomputer to an aircraft designer on a PC as a port to networked computing ensemble. Those that
participate in wind tunnel testing now also are often the same personnel that participate in computational simulation.
This expansion has opened the door for highly integrated and streamlined use of both tools in the aircraft
development process.
Simply replacing or supplementing one tool with another does not optimize design efficiency. Use of approaches
like Modern Design of Experiments (MDOE) is required to truly increase the effectiveness of the process.
Integration also requires careful alignment of processes used. As an example, it is not unusual to discover (usually
afterwards) that CFD models do not match the wind tunnel model, thus throwing into question the validity of
computational solutions. Test conditions in the tunnel are often run without regards to the computational simulations
performed beforehand. These seemingly simple process issues often detract from the entire process efficiency.
Both tools, wind tunnels or computational fluid dynamics, are perfectly capable of producing garbage if not
properly used. Expertise and experience are still overriding factors in producing results that are meaningful.
Therefore, it is the integration of these tools, in the hands of knowledgeable experts that ultimately will produce the
improvements required.
C. Rapid Development of Wind Tunnel Model Hardware Traditional wind tunnel models are constructed of metal for high-speed testing, with fiberglass, foam, or wood
added to the mix of materials for low-speed testing. These construction methods are frequently time consuming and
costly requiring long lead times in order to execute model fabrication for a test program.
To better respond to future aircraft design processes, current methods of wind tunnel model fabrication must be
improved to enable a test program to be executed more rapidly. With todays CAD and CFD capabilities, aircraft
design concepts are being evaluated and discarded in one-third of the time that it takes to construct a typical model.
This puts wind tunnel testing in a lagging position, solely to validate predictions.
Tools such as rapid prototyping and high-speed machining are being used to significantly reduce both the cost
and time required for model fabrication. Rapid prototyping is a class of technologies that automates the physical
construction directly from a CAD database. These three-dimensional printers quickly create tangible parts for
purposes from display to test articles. The aerospace industry has adapted a number of these technologies such as
stereolithography (SLA), selective laser sintering (SLS), and fused deposition modeling (FDM) to construct
inexpensive models for primarily low-speed testing or, in more limited cases, in the high-speed test environment.
The RP manufacturing process is an additive process which combines layers of paper, wax, plastic, or resin to
create a solid object. This is in contrast to most machining processes of subtractive, such as milling, drilling,
grinding, etc. that removes material from a solid block to form an object. This allows the creation of complicated
objects with internal features that cannot be manufactured by other means at low cost, making it an ideal process for
aerospace applications (and models in particular).
Direct metal manufacturing (DMM) is a growing subset of the RP world, offering strong potential for high-
strength parts produced directly from RP equipment. After years of development, small volume systems are now
available that can produce metal parts (stainless steel, aluminum, titanium, etc). If the growth trend (see Fig. 4) for
part volume follows similar trends shown in SLS, FDM, and SLA machines, DMM may provide a portion of the
answer for rapid, high-strength models required in the future.
High-speed machining coupled with ever improving CAD design capabilities will be another important
contributor to future reductions in model span time and cost. NC machining currently is generally considered the
critical path process for most metal models. Increases in cutting speeds and improvements in cutters are creating the
capability to produce metal parts quite rapidly with very little hand finishing. Coupled with associative and
parametric CAD design tools that can be employed to rapidly produce designs and machine instructions, machining
cycle times will continue to decrease.
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
teve
n D
unn
on J
une
1, 2
014
| http
://ar
c.ai
aa.o
rg |
DO
I: 1
0.25
14/6
.201
0-14
2
8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
0
Bu
ild
Vo
lum
e,
cu
. in
D. Future of Rapid Prototyping Development Rapid prototyping is beginning to change the way companies design and build products. On the horizon are
several developments that will help to revolutionize manufacturing as we know it. One such improvement is
increased speed. "Rapid" prototyping machines are still relatively slow. By using faster computers, more complex
control systems, and improved materials, RP manufacturers are working to dramatically reduce build time.
Continued reductions in build time will make rapid manufacturing economical for a wider variety of products.
Another future development is improved accuracy and surface finish. Todays commercially available machines
are accurate to approximately 0.003-inch in the x-y plane, but less in the z (vertical) direction. Improvements in laser
optics and motor control should increase accuracy in all three directions. In addition, RP companies are developing
new polymers that will be less prone to curing and temperature-induced warpage.
The introduction of non-polymeric materials, including metals, ceramics, and composites, represents another
highly anticipated development. These materials would allow RP users to produce higher strength functional parts.
Todays plastic prototypes work well for visualization and fit tests, but they are often too weak for functional
testing. More rugged materials would yield parts that could be subjected to actual service conditions. In addition,
metal and composite materials will expand the range of products that can be made by rapid manufacturing. For
example, the University of Dayton is working with Helisys to produce ceramic matrix composites by laminated
object manufacturing.6 An Advanced Research Projects Agency / Office of Naval Research sponsored project is
investigating ways to make ceramics using fused deposition modeling.7,8
Sandia National Labs and Stanford
University are developing laser based systems that can create solid metal parts. These three groups are just a few of
those working on new RP materials.
Another important development is increased size capacity. Even with the growth of rapid prototyping build
volumes illustrated in Fig. 4, part sizes are still relatively small. To remedy this situation, several "large prototype"
techniques are in the works. The most fully developed is Topographic Shell Fabrication from Formus in San Jose,
CA. In this process, a temporary mold is built from layers of silica powder (high-quality sand) bound together with
paraffin wax. The mold is then used to produce fiberglass, epoxy, foam, or concrete models up to 10.8 ft. x 6.6 ft. x
3.9 ft. in size.7 At the University of Utah, research is continuing to develop systems to cut intricate shapes into 3.9 ft.
x 7.9 ft. sections of foam or paper. Researchers at Penn States Applied Research Lab (ARL) are aiming even
higher: to directly build large metal parts such as tank turrets using robotically guided lasers.
Figure 4. Trends in build volumes for RP5.
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
teve
n D
unn
on J
une
1, 2
014
| http
://ar
c.ai
aa.o
rg |
DO
I: 1
0.25
14/6
.201
0-14
2
9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
III. National Wind Tunnel Infrastructure, Now and in the Future
As stated earlier, the declining government defense and NASA Aeronautics budgets, coupled with industrial
consolidations, have driven the closures of many U.S. wind tunnel facilities. This deterioration of the wind tunnel
test infrastructure can impact our nations ability to develop and field complex aerospace systems, forcing the use of
foreign facilities that may not afford the protection from unauthorized access to technologies being tested. Fig. 5
shows that the number of major U.S. test facilities has been reduced by nearly 50 percent within a 24-year period
(1985 to 2009).
1310 10
58
2
11
5
2
4 3
2
6
3
7
3
17
6
13
6
8
12
2
10
9
4
Subsonic Transonic Supersonic Hypersonic
NASA DOD Industry Academia
291310Academia
1450Industry
1218DOD
2242NASA
20091985
26
13
22
5
42
30
14
1985 2009 1985 2009 1985 2009 1985 2009
Compounding the problem, existing tunnels are experiencing a steady decline in overall usage, forcing cutbacks
that impact facility up-keep and improvements. At present, the repertoire of tunnels still open is adequate to support
existing research and development programs. However, many of these tunnels are in need of maintenance and
upgrade to meet the needs of future programs. With average facility ages nearing fifty years (illustrated in Fig. 6),
maintenance and upgrades are an ever increasing and largely unfunded issue with the current tunnel suite.
In the near future, many existing programs will have progressed past their ground test phase and will be in flight
test or are in final certification. As previously discussed, programs currently in the conceptual phase are not utilizing
the tunnels to a high degree, which results in putting many of the test facilities in a low-use state. Therefore, for
those tunnel facilities that are seen to have low utilization will be in danger of closure, further degrading the nations
capability to maintain our global leadership in aerospace.
The challenges of maintaining this infrastructure center on required costs and perceived value. The cost of
owning and operating these facilities is substantial, and the burden is heavier when the facility is not fully used.
Their value, at the national level, is our ability to effectively develop and field leading-edge technologies both for
commercial and military aeronautical systems. This value, in our current wind tunnel business model, is not
reflected in the operating budgets that sustain our existing capabilities. This is analogous to the national highway
system which does not generate income directly but without which we would not have a viable economy. The
continued decline in our wind tunnel infrastructure is similar to closing several national interstate highways each
year; soon there will be no way to effectively move our industry forward. The aerospace industry (both government
and private sector) must adapt to a strategy of maintaining and operating key and critical wind tunnels as essential
assets which insures the nations leadership in the aerospace field.
Figure 5. Reduction in number of major U.S. wind tunnel test facilities in operation from 1985 to 2009.
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
teve
n D
unn
on J
une
1, 2
014
| http
://ar
c.ai
aa.o
rg |
DO
I: 1
0.25
14/6
.201
0-14
2
10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
45
58
57
53
54
55
53
27
39
61
41
50
65
69
45
51.5
LARC 8' High Temperature Tunnel
LARC Aerothermaldynamics Lab
GRC Propulsion Systems Lab
ARC 9x7 Supersonic Wind Tunnel
GRC 10x10 Supersonic Wind Tunnel
LARC 4' Supersonic UPWT
ARC 11' Transonic
LARC National Transonic Facility
LARC 14x22 Supsonic Wind Tunnel
GRC 8x6 Supersonic Propulsion WT
GRC 9x15 low speed Propulsion WT
LARC Transonic Dynamics Tunnel
GRC Icing Research Tunnel
LARC Vertical Spin Tunnel
Dryden Flight Loads Laboratory
Average
Various government agencies and private industry have begun to engage in strategies to revitalize the wind
tunnel test infrastructure. A good example of strategic collaboration is the National Partnership for Aeronautical
Testing (NPAT), which brings together key Department of Defense and NASA test infrastructure leaders. This
partnership reviews laboratory facilities and capabilities and coordinates issues (including planned closures and
investments) between the two primary owners of most U.S. government wind tunnels.
Throughout, most national infrastructure forums have made a number of key recommendations for the future of
wind tunnel testing. Highly representative of those recommendations, the AIAA Ground Test Technical Committee
(GTTC) made the following recommendations9:
1) Development of a knowledgeable test workforce is critical for the national infrastructure. 2) Improved test technology is crucial to enabling future system development. 3) Maintenance and improvement of key test assets is a vital component of enabling future test capabilities. 4) Divestment of redundant and nonessential test infrastructure is required to focus limited resources on
critical capabilities and new infrastructure requirements.
5) New high-speed test infrastructure is required to meet anticipated requirements for future systems.
Currently, no champion has stepped up to accept these challenges. Until one does, the nations wind tunnel
testing capability will continue to decline.
IV. Future Aircraft Design Process Evolution
In the past, wind tunnel testing has been the pacing item on aircraft development programs. The critical path for
most wind tunnel tests typically involves design and fabrication of the model (i.e., the long pole). As modeling and
simulation techniques have become more reliable, faster, and cost-effective to use, program managers are more
willing to rely on CFD to provide first-order answers to conduct conceptual and preliminary design studies prior to
committing to a wind tunnel test effort. Wind tunnel testings purpose is then to provide an anchor point with which
to validate predictions or to provide incremental corrections to existing designs instead of helping to drive the
design. This practice can be acceptable for a one-of-a-kind design with limited operability for demonstration
purposes, but is not acceptable for production programs.
More and more, test programs will consist of CFD simulations, coupled with wind tunnel testing in an integrated
fashion, to help reduce cost and shorten schedules. Technologies that are used to provide HPC are being adapted to
the model design and fabrication process in a rapid prototyping fashion for faster and lower-cost models. The faster
computing power and the larger storage capacities are providing throughput for automation in the test environment,
making test operations more efficient in data gathering and flow visualization. Current and future wind tunnel test
Figure 6. Ages of a variety of NASA wind tunnel facilities.
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
teve
n D
unn
on J
une
1, 2
014
| http
://ar
c.ai
aa.o
rg |
DO
I: 1
0.25
14/6
.201
0-14
2
11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
programs will be an integrated process looping through CFD modeling, rapid prototyping, and efficient automated
testing for concept development.
Within the aerospace community, wind tunnel testing will continue to be utilized to validate predictions,
populate databases, and provide an anchor point for baseline concepts. Figure 7 shows the anticipated impact of
CFD on overall major-program wind tunnel testing requirements. CFD will increasingly complement wind tunnel
data acquisition requirements. It should be noted that wind tunnel testing will be a fundamental aspect of vehicle
development and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. As stated in the 2005 Institute for Defense
Analysis (IDA) Science & Technology Policy Institute, Review of CFD Capabilities,10
Assuming computing
power follows historical trend lines, complete aircraft design database generation using CFD is still 40+ years off.
The emerging programs identified in Table I set the stage for future wind tunnel testing requirements.
Additionally, both the U.S. Air Force and NASA have defined technology and capability requirements (listed in
Table II and Table III) to advance the state of the art of future aerospace in both analysis and test and validation
areas.
Micro Air Vehicles- Puts stealthy eyes and ears in dense or anti-access area- Build competency in low-speed aero, controls and advanced structural concepts
Cooperative and Intelligent Control- Help UAVs work together, act and react like manned assets- Build competency in cooperative control and adaptive control- Condition-Based Maintenance + Structural Integrity- Increase affordability and availability of the Air Force fleet- Build competency in structural health monitoring and structural integrity
Hypersonics- Enables survivable long-range strike and ISR missions- Build competency in high-speed flows, controls thermal structures and management
Figure 7. Anticipated impact of CFD on overall major program wind tunnel testing.
Table II. Air Force Research Laboratory Air Vehicles Directorate Growth Areas11
. D
ownl
oade
d by
Ste
ven
Dun
n on
Jun
e 1,
201
4 | h
ttp://
arc.
aiaa
.org
| D
OI:
10.
2514
/6.2
010-
142
12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Vision- Expands viable and well informed trade space for vehicle design decisions, enabling
simultaneous realization of national noise, emission, and performance goals- Enables continued aviation growth while reducing or eliminating adverse effects
on the environment Mission- Performs research to explore/assess feasibility, benefits, interdependencies, and
risks of vehicle concepts and enabling technologies identified as having potential to mitigate the impact of aviation on the environment
- Transfers knowledge outward to the aeronautics community and inward to NASA fundamental aeronautics projects
Scope- N+2 vehicle concepts and enabling technologies- System/subsystem research in relevant environments
V. Next Generation Wind Tunnel Requirements
Many factors such as budgets, technology maturity, and availability will affect future programs and anticipated
wind tunnel requirements. Figure 8 illustrates the anticipated wind tunnel requirements based on this challenge.
JFTL, Micro/Nano UAV, FA/XX,
Hybrid Airship, Hypersonic
2025 WT
Capability
Stratospheric
Low Rn, ultra low
turbulence
High Rn low turbulence
Unconventional flight
Ultra low Rn, ultra
low turbulence
Unsteady flow
Urban flow, large turbulence
Aero
Propulsion
Database
ISIS, Orion, Motr, UAV
Programs
Present 2015
Based on our customers needs (as described in Tables I to III), Lockheed Martin finds several areas of emerging
technology and development challenge that will require improved test and evaluation assets. These are:
Table III. NASA Environmentally Responsible Aviation (ERA) Project Framework for Commercial
Transports.
Figure 8. Emerging Aerospace needs and anticipated 2025 wind tunnel capabilities.
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
teve
n D
unn
on J
une
1, 2
014
| http
://ar
c.ai
aa.o
rg |
DO
I: 1
0.25
14/6
.201
0-14
2
13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
High-speed testing for transonic transports to hypersonic vehicles: Facilities to test transports, high-altitude ISR, and time-critical-to-target platforms are reaching critical mass; and they are in need of major
upgrades or maintenance to continue operation. In addition, to answer the governments challenge of
advancing our technology to reduce energy consumption, reduce noise impact, and improve vehicle
performance, these major tunnel facilities will need to support non-traditional concept entries requiring
unique or innovative test methodology.
Low Reynolds number (Rn) micro UAV flight (ultra low turbulence) simulation: Adequate tunnel facilities are still available to address normal low-speed testing. The Air Force Research Laboratorys challenge
growth initiative11
may be the venue to address wind tunnel test needs for nano and micro UAVs.
Unsteady aerodynamic testing for flapping wing.
Urban flow, large-turbulence testing for micro vehicles and hybrid airships.
Stratospheric test capability ranging in Mach numbers from 0.5 to 2.5, Rn/ft up to 5 million, dynamic pressures up to 1500 psf and simulating altitudes up to 80,000 ft are required.
Low Rn, ultra-low-turbulence flow for ISR platform testing.
High Rn low-turbulence flow for high-speed platforms.
VI. Recommendations for Future Capabilities
Recommendations to draw down the existing infrastructure in favor of critical capabilities and investment in new
capabilities (based on future needs) point to consideration of potential new wind tunnels. With a vision of the future
in mind, key capabilities and characteristics for a new (or upgraded) capability should include:
Multi-mission capability. Any new test facility must be capable of a broad range of test types and speed ranges. Speeds from M=0 to M=5.0, altitude simulations up to 80,000 ft (stratospheric testing), Reynolds
numbers up to 5 million/ft should be capability goals.
Moderate Test sections size. Approximate 60 to 100 sq. ft. test section size is a reasonable compromise between high-cost large-volume test section sizes for large models and efficient, low-operational-cost
smaller facilities. This nominal test section size facilitates models of reasonable size to obtain reliable data
and without flow issues such as blockage, flow breakdown, and shock reflections.
Advanced data mining capability. Real-time quantitative and visualization data of on- and off-body flow fields will be required to integrate and validate computational simulations.
Excellent test section optical access for application of developing on- and off-body flow visualization and measurements. Future data mining requirements (above) will drive significant optical access requirements.
Ease of access and installation. With the anticipation that future windows will require rapid access, new capabilities must have extremely rapid access. The ability to install and test a model within a single
operational shift is essential.
Highly automated testing. Efficient and highly productive operations will drive crew sizes down in favor of automation. Tunnel and model automation capability are a must for any future capability.
Highly connected facility. Full remote access, including data streaming, audio and video feeds (to facilitate virtual presence), will enable test teams to be spread across the nation without the requirement to
physically attend testing. Fully integrated computational access to existing design simulation or test
databases is essential.
Ability to create model configurations on-site. Rapid model creation capability (as discussed in previous sections) will become essential to a rapid test mindset.
Energy efficiency. Any new facility must be extremely energy efficient. Evaluation of non-traditional designs such as oval circuits, multi-cycle test environments, extremely low-friction circuit design, and
variable test section sizes should be important considerations.
Expert staff. Test success is more often influenced by the expertise and behavior of the staff than by equipment or underlying infrastructure. To enable rapid, efficient, and successful testing, a well rounded
staff of experts (in both facility operation and aircraft development) is needed. The ability to perform
testing without extensive customer presence absolutely revolves around a facility having expertise and
efficient processes.
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
teve
n D
unn
on J
une
1, 2
014
| http
://ar
c.ai
aa.o
rg |
DO
I: 1
0.25
14/6
.201
0-14
2
14
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
VII. Conclusions
Wind tunnel testing will remain a cornerstone activity for aircraft development, but the application and role for
testing will continue to evolve. Investment must be maintained for our wind tunnel infrastructure for those facilities
that are uniquely required to maintain the national capability to develop future aerospace products. Vital to this
investment is bringing together the key stakeholders (NASA, Department of Defense, and industry) to develop a
national consensus on what facilities are critical. Divestiture of non-critical assets should be considered in order to
facilitate development of new test capabilities that will be required to fill the anticipated gaps in future testing
capabilities.
Evolution of the aircraft design process will require a more integrated and streamlined design/analysis/test
process that requires careful and deliberate integration of computational tools with wind tunnel testing. Developing
skilled practitioners capable of using both tools effectively is a key. Recommendations were presented for desired
capabilities and characteristics of new or upgraded facilities that will likely be required.
References 1Augustine, Norman R., Augustines Laws, 6th ed., AIAA, New York, 1997. 2Antn, Philip S., Gritton, Eugene C., Mesic, Richard, Steinberg, Paul, et al, Wind Tunnel and Propulsion Test Facilities
An Assessment of NASAs Capabilities to Serve National Needs, RAND Report, Santa Monica, California, Prepared for
NASA, 2004; reprinted with permission. 3Ball, Douglas N., Aviation Week & Space Technology, 8 December 2003; URL:
http://www.nitrd.gov/subcommittee/hec/hecrtf-outreach/sc03/sc03_hecrtf_dball.pdf. 4Melanson, Mark R., An Assessment of the Increase in Wind Tunnel Testing Requirements for Air Vehicle Development
Over the Last Fifty Years, AIAA 2008-830, 46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, 7-10 January
2008. 5Melanson, Mark R., Model Design and Manufacturing, Presentation at the Global Wind Tunnel Symposium, Fort Worth,
Texas, November 2008. 6Freeform Fabrication of Structural Ceramics and Ceramic Matrix Composites by Laminated Object Manufacturing
(LOM), Dayton University Rapid Prototyping, 1998. URL: www.udri.udayton.edu/rpdl/sff2.htm (Accessed 21 April 1998). 7Palm, William, Rapid Prototyping Primer, Learning Factory Rapid Prototyping Home Page. Penn State University,
revised 30 July 2002. 8Laboratory of Freeform Fabrication of Advanced Ceramics at Rutgers University, 1998. URL: www.caip.rutgers.edu/sff
(Accessed 21 April 1998). 9Position Statement Prepared by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Ground Test Technical Committee,
11 January 2008, Chairman, Mark R. Melanson, and Vice-Chair, Sheri Smith-Brito, Infrastructure Recommendations for
Implementation of Executive Order 13419 National Aeronautics Research and Development Policy, AIAA URL:
http://pdf.aiaa.org/downloads/publicpolicypositionpapers//windtunnelinfrastucpaperbodapproved011108.pdf (Accessed 10
September 2009). 10Garretson, Dan; Mair, Hans; Martin, Christopher; Sullivan, Kay; and Teichman, Jeremy; Review of CFD Capabilities,
Institute for Defense Analyses Science & Technology Policy Institute Report D-3145, prepared for the Office of Science &
Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, September 2005. 11Wissler, John B. (Col), Air Vehicles Vision 2009, Air Force Report, Distribution Approved for Public Release 88ABW-
2009-1106; reprinted with permission.
Dow
nloa
ded
by S
teve
n D
unn
on J
une
1, 2
014
| http
://ar
c.ai
aa.o
rg |
DO
I: 1
0.25
14/6
.201
0-14
2