Christopher L. Clay Air Vehicles Directorate Air Force Research Laboratory
26
Christopher L. Clay Air Vehicles Directorate Air Force Research Laboratory CERTIFICATION BY ANALYSIS Overview to FAA 30 August 2001
description
Christopher L. Clay Air Vehicles Directorate Air Force Research Laboratory. CERTIFICATION BY ANALYSIS Overview to FAA 30 August 2001. Definition. By Analysis Increasing reliance on analytical techniques to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the system - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Christopher L. Clay Air Vehicles Directorate Air Force Research Laboratory
Christopher L. ClayAir Vehicles Directorate
Air Force Research Laboratory
CERTIFICATION BY ANALYSIS Overview to FAA30 August 2001
2
By AnalysisIncreasing reliance on analytical techniques
to achieve a more comprehensiveunderstanding of the system
in order to manage system risk better
Definition
CertificationA structured mechanism of identifying and
reducing risk to insure a system is safe to operate and meets performance goals
3
Goal
Reduce time and cost associated with
certification
4
Motivation
Coupon Element Testing
Panel and Critical Detail Testing
Critical Subcomponent Testing
Preproduction Verification Test Article
Static Test Article
Fatigue Test Article
Structural Building Block Testing
10’s of $M each block
5
Eliminate SurprisesIn Tests & In Field
Reduce Time and $$$
System
Acquisition
Reduce Tests
Transition Approach
Design Process
AnalysisCertification
High Fidelity/Risk Quantified
Methods
Research &
Development
Reliable PredictionsSystem Knowledge
6
Approach
Current Design Process Deficiencies• Slow and fragmented design process• “Over the wall” communications• Sequential processing
Design Process
AnalysisCertification
High Fidelity/Risk Quantified
Methods
Design Process• Rapid modeling Configuration management
• Object oriented Information/data management
7
Design Process
AnalysisCertification
High Fidelity/Risk Quantified
Methods
Approach
High Fidelity/Risk Quantified Methods Deficiencies• Uncertainty modeling in Structures and Aerodynamics• Understanding of the physics • Computationally intensive high fidelity methods
High Fidelity/Risk Quantified Methods
•Non-deterministic methods•Faster turn-around time
•ROM/Nonlinear methods
8
Approach
Analysis Certification Deficiencies• Modeling errors• Credibility of analytical results• Implementation of analysis• Human errors
Design Process
AnalysisCertification
High Fidelity/Risk Quantified
Methods
AnalysisCertification
• Expert systems•Benchmarking
•VV&A
9Seek EagleAFI 63-104
Technical Data
Certification ProcessAFMAN 63-119
Test Planning &Documentation
System Design &Performance
Test Assets &Support
Safety Reviews &
Certifications
OT&E Plan
Security Planning
Deficiency ID & Correction
Process
TEMP
Concept ofOperations
MaintenanceConcept
STAR
COEA
ORD
MNS
Schedule
Modeling & Simulation
Contractor Support
Test & EvalInfrastructure
Support AgreementsPersonnel
Packaging, Handling &
Transportation
Test Team Training
Production Representative
Articles
Contractor Testing
Configuration Management
Plan
Deficiency Resolution
Sufficiency of Spares
Support Equipment
System Maturity
System Performance
Software Development
Live Fire Testing
Interoperability & Compatibility
Developmental Testing
Threat Systems
10
Fundamental Sciences & Empirical Data
CO
NTR
OLS
AERODYNAM
ICS
SEN
SOR
S
PRO
PULS
ION
STR
UC
TUR
ES
WEA
PON
SConceptual Design
MISSION / ENGAGEMENT
CAMPAIGN
INTEGRATED DESIGN
Certification by AnalysisHorizontal and Vertical Integration
Preliminary Design
Detailed Design
REDUCETIME & COST
Sim based Acquisition Vehicle
Propulsion Aero Structures Control Subsystems
Tail Fuselage Wing
SkinsWing box
Spars Ribs
Bulkheads Skins
Certification by AnalysisBuilding Block Approach
Design Process
AnalysisCertification
High Fidelity/Risk Quantified
Methods
Applies to each block
12
Certification by AnalysisPlayers
• RTO – new WGs– Qualification by Analysis– Integration of Tools and
Processes for Affordable Weapons
– Reduction of Military Vehicle Acquisition Time & Cost Through Advanced Product Simulation
– Prior work published 1990• NASA • FAA – Probability Analysis• DARPA – AIM
• AFRL– ML – Analytical Chemistry– PR – Probability Analysis– VA – Integration
• Other Industries– Nuclear power – cannot take to
failure– Nuclear arms – Test Ban
Treaty– Submarine – Similar to A/C– Civil Structure – One-of-a-kind,
SF – 100 yrs ago 3, today=2– Chemical - Analysis to
eliminate human specimens Under process. Source: Bill Moyers – PBS
13
4/12/2001
AIR VEHICLES DIRECTORATE
Sim based Acquisition
Vehicle
Propulsion Aero Structures Control Subsystems
Assess where do we fit in the process and what do can we impact significantly. Then – What are the analytical gaps associated withthe impact points?
Tail Fuselage Wing
SkinsWing box
Spars Ribs
Bulkheads Skins
Certification by AnalysisBuilding Block Approach
Summary
2
AIR VEHICLES DIRECTORATE
Goal
Reduce time and cost associated
with certification
9
AIR VEHICLES DIRECTORATE
Approach
Design Process
AnalysisCertification
High Fidelity &Risk Quantified
Methods
Risk reduction, design driven process that we can impact by fully utilizing technologies such as uncertainty analysis and ROM resulting in a
reduction in the dependence on testing and increasing our design capabilities - instilling
innovation and freedom.
Backups
15
IPT Structure
Advisory GroupAFRL/VA – Chair
AFRL/PRAFRL/MNSeek EagleAF/TEASC/ENSAF/AQALC
NavyFAABoeingLMCONG
Integrating IPTAFRL/VA – Chair
Chairs from each of the IPT + a design environments and
process POC
OthersControls Aero
PropulsionAirframes Stores
Working Groups
16
Advisory Group
Advisory GroupAFRL/VA – Chair
AFRL/PRAFRL/MN
AF/TEASC/ENSAF/AQALC
Navy N/ N/FAABoeingLMCONG
IPTAFRL/VA – Chair
Chairs from each of the IPT + a design environments and process POC
OthersControls Aero
PropulsionAirframes Stores
Chair – Dr Don Paul, AFRL/VA
AFRL/PR – Dr Alan GarscaddenAFRL/MN – Mr Stephen KornSeek Eagle - Dr. William Dyess, Jr AF/TE – Mr John T Manclark or
Mr David HamiltonASC/EN – Dr John W LincolnSAF/AQ – Dr Don DanielALC – Navy Test and Evaluation Staff (AIR 5.0C) Air Vehicle (AIR 4.3) Airworthiness (AIR 4.0P)FAABoeing – Dr James MarkLMCO – Mr Kevin ImotoNG – Mr Jerry Lockenour
17
IPTs
Advisory GroupAFRL/VA – Chair
AFRL/PRAFRL/MN
AF/TEASC/ENSAF/AQALC
Navy N/ N/FAABoeingLMCONG
Overarching IPTAFRL/VA – Chair
Chairs from each of the IPT + a design environments and process POC
OthersControls Aero
PropulsionAirframes Stores
Lead –
Team:
18
Overarching IPT
Advisory GroupAFRL/VA – Chair
AFRL/PRAFRL/MN
AF/TEASC/ENSAF/AQALC
Navy N/ N/FAABoeingLMCONG
Overarching IPTAFRL/VA – Chair
Chairs from each of the IPT + a design environments and process POC
OthersControls Aero
PropulsionAirframes Stores
CoChairs – Drs Don Paul and Duane Veley
Airframe IPT Lead – Propulsion IPT Lead – Stores IPT Lead – Controls IPT Lead – Aero IPT Lead – Design Environments and Process Lead – Industry Advisors -
Air VehiclesFuture Technologies Workshops
Chris ClayAir Force Research Laboratory
20
Workshop I17-18 Jan 01
Eglin AFB
Workshop II22-23 May 01
Colorado Springs
Workshop III18-19 Sep 01
Wright-Patt AFB
Understand the Air Force Capability Needs
Assess & Link AF Capability Needs with Aerospace Vehicle Concepts
Identify Technology Programs to Support Concepts & Capability Needs
Capabilities Needed
Concepts
POMInvestment
PlanCyclic Process
Workshop Process
Inputs from:Air Force (AF Strat Plan & Majcom MAPs, etc.), other Gov’t, Academia,
Industry
Scenarios
Throughout Process
MOEs
Methods
21
INVITED ORGANIZATIONS
• ACC, AC2ISRC, AFMC, AFSOC, AFSPC, AMC• AFRL (CC, XP, AFOSR, and all Tech Directorates)• ASC, ESC, SMC, HSW, AEDC• USAF/XP, USAF/XO, SAF/AQR, DDR&E• NASA• Scientific Advisory Board• NAIC• US Army TRADOC• NASC, NAWC• Battle Labs• Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Northrop Grumman, Orbital Sciences,
Allison, General Electric, Honeywell, Pratt & Whitney, Raytheon
22
WORKSHOP IITOP CONCEPT CATEGORIES
• Global Power– Strike UAVs– Long-Range Deep Strike Aircraft– Mach 5+ UCAV– Directed Energy Tactical Aircraft– Airborne Carrier
• Global Vigilance– High-Altitude Long Endurance ISR Platforms– Recce/Strike UAVs– Cooperative/Persistent Surveillance Strike Vehicles– Unattended Battlespace Sensors
• Global Reach– Strategic Airlifter– Tactical Airlifter– Tanker– Space Operations Vehicle
• CSAR and Special Ops– Cargo-class SSTOL/VSTOL– CSAR/Special Ops Precision Engagement UAVs
23
WORKSHOP IITOP CONCEPT CATEGORIES
• Global Power– Strike UAVs – Long-Range Deep Strike Aircraft – Mach 5+ UCAV– Directed Energy Tactical Aircraft – Airborne Carrier
• Global Vigilance– High-Altitude Long Endurance ISR Platforms – Recce/Strike UAVs – Cooperative/Persistent Surveillance Strike Vehicles – Unattended Battlespace Sensors
• Global Reach– Strategic Airlifter – Tactical Airlifter – Tanker – Space Operations Vehicle
• CSAR and Special Ops– Cargo-class SSTOL/VSTOL – CSAR/Special Ops Precision Engagement UAVs
24
Workshop IV – The next step
– Goals
• Energize research community on critical research needs of the Air Force
– Educate academic community on Workshops I-III• Translate technical challenges from Workshop III into basic science
issues• Identify opportunities for new or additional research
25
Workshop Schedule
• Multidisciplinary Technologies– 9th AIAA MOA Conference, 4-6 Sept, Atlanta GA
• Air Vehicles Controls Technologies– 2002 IEEE Conference on Decision & Control, 10-13 Dec, Las
Vegas NV• Aeronautical Sciences Technologies
– 41st Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 6-9 Jan 2003, Reno NV• Air Vehicles Structures Technologies
– 44th Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 7-10 April 2003, Norfolk VA
26
Draft Outline
Introduction Dr. Jeff Tromp 1330 – 1335
Operator's View of Air Mr. Dave Leggett 1335 – 1420Vehicles Future Technologies
Air Vehicles StructuresResearch Needs Dr. Dave Pratt 1420 – 1450 Dr. Larry Byrd 1450 – 1520 Mr. Mike Spottswood 1520 – 1550 Mr. Bill Baron 1550 – 1620
Group discussion Dr. Dave Pratt 1620 – 1700
