You are on page 1of 41

ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

Uninhabited Air Vehicle (UAV) Certification

Tim Jennewine ASC/ENFS (937) 255-8311 Timothy.Jennewine@wpafb.af.mil

December 11, 2002

Outline
ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

Focus Certification Expectations UAV Development/Certification Challenges Summary

Focus
ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

What are the challenges to reducing the time and cost to certify an aircraft structure? Issues and Opportunities

Outline
ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

Focus Certification Expectations UAV Development/Certification Challenges Summary

Certification Expectations
ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

Certification requirements are a function of


Safety Economic Value Mission Criticality System Longevity

Developmental challenges (time/cost) vary directly with risk - known or unknown Expectations are baselined to prior experience
Developer Program Management User Maintainer

Outline
ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

Focus Certification Expectations UAV Development/Certification Challenges Summary

UAV Certification Challenges


ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

UAV Acquisition Strategy Technology Transition Drag Overselling Analytical Capability Developmental Design Data Full-Scale Testing Other Considerations

Spiral Acquisition Strategy


ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

?
Characteristics of Spiral Systems
Derived from technology demonstrators System requirements/capabilities continuously evolving Conventional design criteria not initially applied to demonstrators Airframe structure treated as a candidate for evolving capability Demonstrators are deployed in advance of developmental certification

Spiral Development Strategy


ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

Focused on rapid delivery of capability to the warfighter minimum schedule - minimum cost
Can not tolerate out-of-control processes that drive component rework, inspections and compromise vehicle performance Design assumptions, criteria and concepts must accommodate design/analysis errors, producibility issues and external loads and environmental uncertainty, operational variability

Strategy depends on low/manageable technical risk - Capability demands structural flexibility - Robustness
Robust design - proven design criteria, established materials/systems, demonstrated production processes, conventional analyses and efficient certification Structural methods and concepts that have been proven

Spiral Development Strategy


ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

Airframe structural certification cannot efficiently be spiraled


Airframe baseline design should accommodate reasonable projections for payload and system growth
payload weapons avionics/electronics

Airframe baseline design must be robust Airframe development and certification should be accomplished in one pass
Cost/schedule constraints preclude multiple airframe structural redesigns and recertification activities

Program s are not budgeting ($, time) for ASIP

UAV Certification Challenges


ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

UAV Acquisition Strategy Technology Transition Drag Overselling Analytical Capability Developmental Design Data Full-Scale Testing Other Considerations

Technology Transition Drag


ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

Limited program funding for technology transition Technology transition factors are not generally a component of demonstrator development (ATDs)
Stabilized material and material processes Verification of producibility through scale-up Fully characterized mechanical properties Ensuring predictability of structural performance Designing for supportability

Bonded structure design criteria viewed as an impediment Hybrid structural designs do not lend themselves to efficient certification analysis and testing

le b a n so a e r un

Addressing Technology Transition Drag


ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

Concurrent and fully funded technology transition


Technology on a smaller scale - details vs components components vs assemblies Technologist participating in the development process - early

Technology transition factors must be better defined


Specific objectives, criteria and methods must be established Methodology/procedures for characterizing process variability must be developed/employed - measurable

Addressing Technology Transition Drag


ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

Baseline experience on structural bonding must change


Methods for verification of bondline integrity Better design concepts promoting inspection and sustainment
Unitized replaceable vs unitized repairable

Standardized repair concepts


Room temperature adhesive systems Soft tooling Field capable processes with verifiable integrity

Improved test methods/concepts


In-production vs dedicated test assets - fleet proof tests vs single unit average ultimate Accommodate environmental knockdowns, thermal loads

Bonded Structure Criteria


ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

Static strength.
Sufficient static strength shall be provided in the airframe structure for reacting all loading conditions loads without degrading the structural performance capability of the airframe. Sufficient strength shall be provided for operations, maintenance functions, and any tests that simulate load conditions, such that:
Detrimental deformations, including delaminations, shall not occur at or below 115 percent of limit loads, or during the tests required in 4.10.5.3 and 4.10.5.4. The deformation requirements of 3.2.13 apply. Rupture or collapsing failures shall not occur at or below ultimate loads. All structure shall be designed to nominal dimensional values or 110 percent of minimum values, whichever is less. Bonded structure shall be capable of sustaining the residual strength loads .......... without a safety of flight failure, with a complete bond line failure or disbond.

Bonded Primary Structure


ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

Static strength.
USAF structural criteria guidance for bonded primary structure identifies the following options for asserting structural integrity:
(1) Bonded structural joints shall demonstrate adequate environmentally compensated "B" basis statistical strength and continued design strength with equal or higher statistical confidence throughout production (as demonstrated by representative test - proof test every unit) or (2) Bonded structure shall be capable of sustaining the residual strength loads of 3.12.2 without a safety of flight failure with a complete bond line failure or disbond.

UAV Certification Challenges


ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

UAV Acquisition Strategy Technology Transition Drag Overselling Analytical Capability Developmental Design Data Full-Scale Testing Other Considerations

Overselling Analytical Capability


ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

Analytical capability is cited as the rationale for a reduced global factor of safety (from 1.50 to 1.25)
Enhanced modeling, simulation and computational capability ..... more reliable and affordable than testing ....

Greater computing capability does not equate to greater accuracy


Test failures typically traceable to analysis/analysts errors, material-process issues, production anomalies USAF test failure database shows direct relationship between increased computing capability and early test failures

USAF Static Test Experience


ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification
1940 - 1976 Aircraft Modern Aircraft Designed with Finite Element Models 100 90 80 70
Percent Failures

Limit Load

Ultimate Load

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 Test Failure Percent Design Limit Load

* Wing, Fuselage,Vertical Tail, Horizontal Tail, Landing Gear, Unique Major Components

Source: William Johnson

Overselling Analytical Capability


ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

Computing capability ROI is delivered with the design


Lower weight designs Complex, efficient structural arrangements Advanced product forms

JSSG does not advocate carte blanche application of 1.25 factor for uninhabited air vehicles - function of
Material selection Manufacturing controls and producibility Economic value and mission criticality Conduct of conventional developmental activities

Overselling Analytical Capability


ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

USAF experience suggests that deterministic factor of safety of 1.5 has contributed to acceptable operational performance - 1x10-7 losses per fleet flight hour
Perhaps more effective means of conveying structural failure risk is required - mission capable, $ repair ....?

JSSG Criteria, ASIP processes and USAF experience


Bulk of certification activity is presently by analyses
Developmental - testing used to baseline analysis tools/methods Legacy systems - major modifications/repairs are analytically baselined to developmental testing and operational experience

Test experience does not support reduction in testing

Risk Assessment of a Failure


ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

Projected Failures Per Force Life


18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 125

Number of Failures

Total Fleet Total USAF

130

135

140

145

150

155

Mean Strength (% DLL)


Source: Risk Assessment Cornog D.O. & Lincoln J.W.

Augmenting Analytical Capability


ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

Development of probabilistic methods


Provides management an indication of risk of failure associated with use of unconventional factor of safety Depends on a well characterized stress and strength characteristics

Fundamental changes to the design processes


More efficient utilization of analytical codes - i.e. Adaptive Modelling Language Streamlining of the design process Effective decoupling of flight control law changes and loads Post processors for handling extremely large number of external load cases

UAV Certification Challenges


ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

UAV Acquisition Strategy Technology Transition Overselling Analytical Capability Developmental Design Data Full-Scale Testing Other Considerations

Developmental Testing Challenges


ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

Pressure exists to reduce cost by reducing (even eliminating) design development testing
Relying on supplier allowables Reliance on evolving modeling/simulation methods Operational demonstrators perceived to be testimonials Significant amount of coupon data generated, not used

Funding of subcomponent and component tests rarely sustained in development programs


Present in early EMD program planning - typically reduced/eliminated during cost reduction phase of EMD

Building Block Development


ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification
Material & Process Selection Full-scale Certification Tests
Flight Tests

Components Allowables Subcomponents Configuration Details Damage Tolerance Structural Performance Repair Validation of Analysis Methodology Process Verification NDT Verification

Ground Tests Static Fatigue Drop Dynamics

Elements Design Details Failure Modes Analysis Methods Process Development NDT Methods

Coupons Material Properties Repair Physical/Chemical Processing Environmental Effects Mechanical Properties Knockdown Values Fatigue Scatter Effects of Defects

Design Details Failure Modes Effects of Defects Repair Analysis Methods Structural Performance Process Verification NDT Verification Process Characterization Failure Modes NDT Manufacturing Processes

Verification of Analysis Demonstration of Integrity

Preproduction Verification Risk Reduction Certification Testing

Enhancements in Developmental Testing


ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

Building block test programs should be tailored with emphasis on optimizing developmental blocks
More judicious allocation of coupon testing
Initially for material selection Subsequent to process verification testing (elements & subcomponents) for allowables

Feature testing is an essential component of the building block approach


Element, subcomponent and component testing required to establish process dependent allowables Identifying failure modes associated with scale-up Useful in hybrid certification testing

UAV Certification Challenges


ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

UAV Acquisition Strategy Technology Transition Perceptions About Analytical Capability Design Development Testing Full-Scale Testing Other Considerations

Full-Scale Testing
ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

Perceptions/conditions that promote elimination of static & fatigue test programs


Flying demonstrator perceived to be a testimonial Computational capability provides risk free alternative
Presumes computational capability exists More affordable Particularly appealing for uninhabited - no safety issues

Benign, predictable design environment


Gust Benign maneuver

Operational service life not defined


Requirements continuing to evolve

Reduced or overextended flight test program


No calibration testing for loads bridges Limited strain/acoustic and acceleration measurement

Full-Scale Testing
ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

Full-scale static and fatigue testing provide


Static - Strength demonstration Fatigue - Identify durability hot spots and inspection requirements Verification of manufacturing/process capability Demonstration of growth capability Analytical baseline

Calibrated flight test aircraft provide


Operational and maneuver performance data Verified loads/environments Functional proofing opportunity

Full-Scale Testing
ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

Potential Impact of No-Full-Scale Testing


~60% Probability of a significant structural event during development flight testing which would likely entail:
Test fleet operational restrictions Structural redesign/repair/retrofit

~20% Probability of a catastrophic structural failure in fleet even if flight testing successful
1 in 5 test failures occur between limit and ultimate Design margins not validated without ultimate testing

Multiple durability failures anticipated

System A had 121 minor and 8 major failures System B had 98 minor and 4 major failures Commercial aircraft had 253 minor and 0 major failures

USAF Fatigue Test Experience Typical Failure Distribution 100 minor failures 4 major failures

USAF Structural Development & Certification


ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification
300

System A System B
Cumulative Number of Discrepancies
250

System C Commercial Transport


200

150

100

50

0 0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

Test Lifetimes

Source: Chuck Babish

UAV Certification Challenges


ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

UAV Acquisition Strategy Technology Transition Perceptions About Analytical Capability Design Development Testing Full-Scale Testing Other Considerations

Other Considerations
ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

Dr. Lincoln s thoughts on certification of bonded structures Design Surface Preparation


Design service life and design usage Material allowables Service loading spectra Chemical/thermal environment spectra Stress analysis
Buckling and crippling criteria Factor of safety

Cleaning Environment

Bonding Techniques
Controls on process Environmental controls

Nondestructive Testing Procedures


Inspection prior to bonding Inspection for bondline voids In-service inspections

Damage tolerance approach Damage tolerance analysis Durability analysis

Development Testing
Environment
DaDT testing

Training and Certification of Technicians

Other Considerations
ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

Building Blocks of Certification


U T I L I T Y

S A F E T y

Certification Analyses Development Testing Force Management Ground Testing Flight Testing

Analyses are validated by test Documented analyses used to certify system safety/performance Data from test/usage establishes force management approach Force management is the basis for sustainment - utility Force management depends on documented analyses

Undercut any of the foundational blocks and certification is unstable

Outline
ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

Focus Reviewing USAF Certification Policy & Processes USAF Structural Development & Certification UAV Development/Certification Challenges Summary

Summary
ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

Robust design and design processes


Design cycle streamlining required

Concurrent technology development is essential


Smaller technology packages Technologist participating in development environment - earlier

The concept of Technology Transition Factors must be developed - EN has the action Bonded applications must buy their way on
Criteria for the developmental engineer is experience Alternative testing concepts have a role - require development

Summary
ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

Avoid overselling/mischaracterizing analytical capability


Computational capability has already yielded a positive ROI Analytical methods can be improved
Pre/post processors for data handling Streamlined design processes Knowledge based engineering software (i.e. AML)

Probabilistic methods have potential - require development Documentation, testing and reliable materials data are the underpinning for analysis

Summary
ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

Optimization of developmental building block testing needs to occur


Emphasis on features for processes

The utility of full-scale testing speaks for itself


Improved test concepts for hybrid structure are needed Improved control surface load calibration methods instrumentation are required Production concepts for testing should be studied

Backup
ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

USAF Structural Development & Certification


ASIP 2002 Special Session on Certification

Aircraft Structural Integrity Program - The Process


Design Information
Criteria, Plans, Usage M&P Screening

Technology Transition Factors


Stabilized material and material processes. Producibility Characterized mechanical properties Predictability of structural performance Supportability

Design Analysis & Development Tests


Structural Analyses M&P Testing Manufacturing Inspection Methods

Full-Scale Testing
Flight Test AC Ground Test AC Results Evaluation/Application

JSSG 2006 Aircraft Structures Structural Performance & Verification Requirements Verification of Analyses

Force Mgmt Data Package


Force Structural Maintenance Doc Aircraft Tracking Processes Inspections/Modifications Technical Data

Fleet Management
Field Problem Solution Updated Operational Spectra Updated Inspection/Modification

Verification of Operations & Operational Impact

Safety and Utility