Fragment Velctos 200 150 Senne 0 Velety ‘Angle tram Nose (Center of Warhead} (G60) 3 Explosive Charge Mass Sealing Comparison Peak Pressure Figure 2. Fragment velocities and blast pressures compared with test data ‘One other focus has been on the prop- ex modeling of the target response fol- lowing a MANPADS encounter. Initial analyses have been performed to model litting-surface response following dam- age An aerodynamic model is eoupled ‘with the structural model and allowed to deform as the lifting surface is damaged, Since the damage reduces both structural stiffness and mass, dynamic failures may bbe expected to occur because of flutter Figure 3 shows two snapshots in time of simple, two-spar wing being impacted by & MANPADS threat and the subsequent failure ofthe wing caused by flutter. ‘Testing is critical to credible Modeling & Simulation (M&S). Joint Live Fire GLE) is not chartered to conduct Validation & Verification (V&V) of the analysis codes; however, when opportunities were pre- sented, the MANPADS analysis devel~ ‘opment programs have augmented JLF tests to extract very specific data, This took the form of camera placement and frame speed, additional strain gages, blast gages, and accelerometers specifi- cally placed to augment recent or future analysis. Data were used to verify both missile breakup and aircraft damage ‘Another way the programs are conduct- ing incremental V&V is to run pre-test predictions for future MANPADS tests, Following the tests, code developers and test engineers meet to discuss test and analysis results, anomalies, and data voids. To ensure credible MANPADS M&S methodology development, the 46" Test Wing and RHAMM Technologies, LLC collaborate to ensure that the simula tions and the multiple tests and analysis programs are completely integrated. T=02 s after impact —Wing flying @ mach 0.8 T= 0,7 s After Impact — Wing flutters and fails Figure 3. Flutar prediction resulting from MANPADS encounter About the Authors Mr. Alex Kurtz received a BS degree in Aeronautical/Astronautical Engineering from The Ohio State University. He is a research and test engineer for the 46th Test Wing, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH. He has been an Aircraft Survivability Specialist for20 years, working in vulner~ ability reduction research, Joint Live Five Testing (LF), Congressionally mandated LiveFire Testing and Evaluation (LET&E), the Transport Aizeraft Survivability Program, and various international pro- grams. He is currently Co-chair of the Vulnerability Reduction subgroup for the JASPO and the JLF AF Deputy Test Director. He may be reached at 46 OG! OGM/OL-AC, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, by telephone, 937/255-6302, ext 280; by fax, 937/255-2237; or by e-mail, alex kurte@wpafb afi. Dr. Ronald L. Hintichsen received a [BS dogzee in Aezonautical Engineering from the University of Arizona and his MS and PhD degrees in Aeronautical Engineering from the Air Force Institute of Technology. He is a Chief Scientist at RHAMM Technologies, LLC. He hhas had a multi-disciplinary career in aerospace structures with more than 28 years of experience in the teach ing, development, and application of composite materials, solid mechanics, structural dynamies, geroacoustics, and CAD. Recently, his work has focused aft fon three diverse disciplines: Ai Battle Damage Assessment and Repair ‘of composite structures, Prediction of Acroacoustic Loads in internal and exter- nal flows, and Survivability of metallic and composite structures to MANPADS and 23mm and 30mm HEI proj tiles. He may be reached by telephone, 9871285-6302, ext 214, or by e-mail, aff ronald hinrichsen ity + Summer 2006+