NASA/TM-2005-213928/Version 1.0 

NESC-RP-05-104/05-011-E 

 

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for OnOrbit Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Charles E. Harris, Ivatury S. Raju, and Robert S. Piascik 

NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia 

Julie A. Kramer White, Steve G. Labbe, and Hank A. Rotter 

NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas 

 

September 2005 
The NASA STI Program Office . . . in Profile

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated 

to the advancement of aeronautics and space 

science. The NASA Scientific and Technical 

Information (STI) Program Office plays a key 

part in helping NASA maintain this important 

role. 

The NASA STI Program Office is operated by 

Langley Research Center, the lead center for NASA’s 

scientific and technical information. The NASA STI 

Program Office provides access to the NASA STI 

Database, the largest collection of aeronautical and 

space science STI in the world. The Program Office is 

also NASA’s institutional mechanism for 

disseminating the results of its research and 

development activities. These results are published by 

NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, which 

includes the following report types: 

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major significant phase 

of research that present the results of NASA 

programs and include extensive data or 

theoretical analysis. Includes compilations of 

significant scientific and technical data and 

information deemed to be of continuing 

reference value. NASA counterpart of peerreviewed formal professional papers, but having 

less stringent limitations on manuscript length 

and extent of graphic presentations. 

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific 

and technical findings that are preliminary or of 

specialized interest, e.g., quick release reports, 

working papers, and bibliographies that contain 

minimal annotation. Does not contain extensive 

analysis. 

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and 

technical findings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees. 

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected 

papers from scientific and technical 

conferences, symposia, seminars, or other 

meetings sponsored or co-sponsored by NASA. 

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, 

technical, or historical information from NASA 

programs, projects, and missions, often 

concerned with subjects having substantial 

public interest. 

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. Englishlanguage translations of foreign scientific and 

technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission. 

Specialized services that complement the STI 

Program Office’s diverse offerings include creating 

custom thesauri, building customized databases, 

organizing and publishing research results ... even 

providing videos. 

For more information about the NASA STI Program 

Office, see the following: 

• Access the NASA STI Program Home Page at 

http://www.sti.nasa.gov

• E-mail your question via the Internet to 

help@sti.nasa.gov 

• Fax your question to the NASA STI Help Desk 

at (301) 621-0134 

• Phone the NASA STI Help Desk at 

(301) 621-0390 

• Write to: 

 NASA STI Help Desk 

 NASA Center for AeroSpace Information 

 7121 Standard Drive 

 Hanover, MD 21076-1320
NASA/TM-2005-213928/Version 1.0 

NESC-RP-05-104/05-011-E 

 

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for OnOrbit Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Charles E. Harris, Ivatury S. Raju, and Robert S. Piascik 

NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia 

Julie A. Kramer White, Steve G. Labbe, and Hank A. Rotter 

NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas 

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 

Langley Research Center 

Hampton, Virginia 23681-2199 

September 2005 
The use of trademarks or names of manufacturers in the report is for accurate reporting and does not constitute an 

official endorsement, either expressed or implied, of such products or manufacturers by the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration. 

Available from: 

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI) National Technical Information Service (NTIS) 

7121 Standard Drive 5285 Port Royal Road 

Hanover, MD 21076-1320 Springfield, VA 22161-2171 

(301) 621-0390 (703) 605-6000 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

1 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

September 15, 2005 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

2 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Signature Sheet 

__________________________ __________________________ 

Charles E. Harris, Lead Ivatury S. Raju 

__________________________ __________________________ 

Robert S. Piascik Julie A. Kramer White 

__________________________ __________________________ 

Steve G. Labbe Hank A. Rotter 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

3 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Table of Contents

Signature Sheet.............................................................................................................................. 2 

List of Acronyms........................................................................................................................... 5 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 8 

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 9 

1.1 Definitions............................................................................................................. 10 

2.0 IMPACT TOOLS............................................................................................................ 14 

2.1 RCC DYNA MODEL........................................................................................... 14 

2.2 RCC RAPID RESPONSE DAMAGE TOOL – IMPACT2 ................................. 20 

2.3 IMPACT TOOLS SIMULATION........................................................................ 23 

3.0 RCC DAMAGE GROWTH TOOL .............................................................................. 25 

4.0 TILE RAPID RESPONSE DAMAGE MODEL (ICE) ............................................... 30 

5.0 TILE RAPID RESPONSE DAMAGE MODEL (FOAM).......................................... 35 

6.0 CAVITY HEATING TOOL .......................................................................................... 40 

7.0 CFD FOR CAVITY HEATING: SMOOTH BASELINE........................................... 49 

8.0 CFD FOR CAVITY HEATING: FLIGHT TRACEABILITY .................................. 55 

9.0 CATALYTIC HEATING TOOL: DAMAGED........................................................... 61 

10.0 BOUNDARY LAYER TRANSITION (BLT) PREDICTION TOOL ....................... 66 

11.0 3-D ACREAGE TILE THERMAL MODEL............................................................... 74 

12.0 SPECIAL CONFIGURATION THERMAL MODELS ............................................. 77 

12.1 Elevon Lower Cove 3-D Thermal Math Model (TMM) ...................................... 77 

12.2 Forward Reaction Control System (FRCS) Canopy 3-D TMM ........................... 78 

12.3 WLE Panel 9 Lower Access Panel (LAP) 3-D TMM .......................................... 79 

12.4 Main Landing Gear Door (MLGD) 3-D TMM..................................................... 80 

12.5 Vertical Tail Leading Edge (VTLE) 3-D TMM ................................................... 82 

12.6 Forward Window # 3 Perimeter 3-D TMM.......................................................... 83 

12.7 External Tank Door (ETD) 3-D TMM ................................................................. 84 

12.8 Nose Landing Gear Door (NGLD) 3-D TMM ..................................................... 85 

13.0 TILE STRESS TOOL – RTV BOND LINE (45 DEGREES)..................................... 87 

14.0 STRESS ASSESSOR TOOL.......................................................................................... 91 

15.0 INTEGRATED TOOLS FOR END-TO-END COMPUTATION OF TILE 

DAMAGE ........................................................................................................................ 97 

16.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF FORWARD WORK........... 111 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

4 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

List of Figures

1.0-1 Tile Tools for Pre-Flight and On-Orbit Damage Analysis ............................................ 11 

1.0-2 RCC Models for Pre-Flight and On-Orbit Damage Analysis........................................ 12 

13.0-1 Categorization of Tile Damage for Analysis ................................................................. 88 

15.0-1 Flow of Data Defining Environment, Modeling Damage, Analyzing Capability and 

Culminating in the “Damage Tolerance Threshold Map” ............................................. 98 

15.0-2 Simplified Impact Geometry........................................................................................ 100 

15.0-3 On-orbit TPS Damage Assessment Data Flow............................................................ 102 

15.0-4 Eleven Damage Sites used in Historical Reconstruction Analysis.............................. 104 

List of Tables

1.0-1 RCC and Tile Math Model Tools .................................................................................. 13 

2.1-1 LS-DYNA© Analysis and Modeling Validation Review ............................................. 16 

2.2-1 IMPACT2 Analysis and Modeling Validation Review................................................. 21 

2.2-1 IMPACT2 Analysis and Modeling Validation Review................................................. 21 

4.0-1 Analysis Validation Review Assessment Worksheet .................................................... 34 

14.0-1 Analysis Validation Review Assessment Worksheet .................................................... 95 

16.0-1 Remaining “Open”, “In Work”, and “Partially Complete” Recommendations from the 

NESC Peer Review of Impact Damage Assessment Tools ......................................... 112 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

5 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

List of Acronyms 

AOA angle-of-attack 

atm atmosphere 

BC Boundary Conditions 

BLT Boundary Layer Transition 

bp Body Point 

BSM Booster Separation Motor 

C Capability 

C/E Capability/Environment; Capability Margin 

CATIA Computer-Aided Three-Dimensional Interactive Application 

CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics 

CHFT Catalytic Heating Tool 

CHT Cavity Heating Tool 

cm centimeter 

D depth 

DAT Damage Assessment Team 

DTA Debris Transport Analysis 

DVR Design Verification Review 

E Environment 

EC Elevon Cove 

EOM End of Mission 

ET External Tank 

ETD External Tank Door 

FEA Finite Element Analysis 

FEM Finite Element Model 

FOS Factor of Safety 

fps feet per second 

FRCS Forward Reaction Control System 

FRIC Fibrous Refractory Composite Insulation 

g gram 

GN&C Guidance Navigation and Control 

HRSI High-temperature Reusable Surface Insulation (Black Tile) 

HS Half Span 

HWISS Heavy Weight International Space Station 

I/F Ice/Frost 

IC Initial Conditions 

IPSS Impact Penetration Sensor System 

IT Intertank 

K roughness element height 

KE Kinetic Energy 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

6 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

L length 

LAP Lower Access Panel 

lbm pounds mass 

LCC Launch Commit Criteria 

Lcrit critical dimension 

Leff thermally affected length 

LESS Leading Edge Structural Subsystem 

LESS PRT Leading Edge Structural Subsystem Problem Resolution Team 

LH2 Liquid Hydrogen 

LN2 Liquid Nitrogen 

LO2 Liquid Oxygen 

LRSI Low-temperature Reusable Surface Insulation 

m/s meters/second 

Me Mach (edge) number 

MET Mission Elapsed Time 

MLGD Main Landing Gear Door 

MPM Maximum Predicted Mass 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NCFI North Carolina Foam Industries 

NDE Non Destructive Evaluation 

NESC NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

NLGD Nose Landing Gear Door 

NSTS National Space Transportation System 

OBSS Orbiter Boom Sensor System 

OCCB Orbiter Configuration Control Board 

OEX Orbiter Experiment Support System 

OML Outer Mold Line 

OMS Orbiter Maneuvering System 

OPO Orbiter Project Office 

OVEI Orbiter Vehicle End Item 

PAL Protuberance Air Load 

PDL Process Data Logging (FoamMix®) 

PE Performance Enhancement 

RCC Reinforced Carbon-Carbon 

RCG Reaction-Cured Glass 

RCS Reaction Control System 

RSRM Redesigned Solid Rocket Motor 

RTF Return-To-Flight 

RTV Room Temperature Vulcanizing 

SCMMT Special Configuration Math Model Tool 

SE&I Space Shuttle Systems Engineering and Integration 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

7 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

SIP Strain Isolation Pad 

SLD Stress, Loads and Dynamics 

SOASD Smooth OML Aerothermal CFD Solution Database 

SRB Solid Rocket Booster 

SSP Space Shuttle Program 

SSP MMT Space Shuttle Program Mission Management Team 

SSS Space Shuttle System 

STS Space Transportation System 

SwRI Southwest Research Institute 

tbar equivalent skin thickness 

TM Transport Mechanism 

TMM Thermal Math Model 

TPS Thermal Protection System 

TSAT TPS Status Assessment Tool 

V&V Verification and Validation 

VTLE Vertical Tail Leading Edge 

WLE Wing Leading Edge 

WOW Worst-on-Worst 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

8 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

In Spring of 2005, the NASA Engineering Safety Center (NESC) was engaged by the Space 

Shuttle Program (SSP) to peer review the suite of analytical tools being developed to support the 

determination of impact and damage tolerance of the Orbiter Thermal Protection Systems (TPS). 

In response to this request, the NESC formed an independent review team with the core 

disciplines of materials, flight sciences, structures, mechanical analysis and thermal analysis. 

The Math Model Tools reviewed included damage prediction and stress analysis, aeroheating 

analysis, and thermal analysis tools. Some tools are physics-based and other tools are 

empirically-derived. But even the physics-based tools include empirical-based models, such as 

the damage model in the LS-DYNA© code. Each tool was created for a specific use and 

timeframe, including certification, real-time pre-launch assessments, and real-time on-orbit 

assessments. In addition, the tools are used together in an integrated strategy for assessing the 

ramifications of impact damage to tile and RCC. 

The NESC teams conducted a peer review of the engineering data package for each Math Model 

Tool. The peer review process also included a review of the end-to-end integrated strategy for 

using the tools to assess impact damage. The end-to-end review addressed issues related to the 

data transfer between and among various tools and the propagation of uncertainties from the 

initial definitions of the impact event to the predictions of damage. This report contains the 

summary of the team observations and recommendations from these reviews. 

As a part of these reviews the NESC made several recommendations regarding opportunities to 

improve the validation, expand the application and understand the accuracy of these math 

models. Many of these recommendations were accepted and addressed real time by the model 

developers. Any recommendations that remain open are summarized in Section 16 of this report, 

and will be provided to the Orbiter Project Office (OPO) for consideration as a part of their postflight tool development and improvement initiatives. 

The NESC recognizes the considerable amount of effort that the NASA and contractor technical 

community has put into the development and verification of these analytical tools over the last 2 

1⁄2 years. Overall, the team found that these tools represent a vastly improved analytical 

capability than was previously (pre-Columbia) available to the SSP for the resolution of debris 

impact issues on the orbiter. While there is always the opportunity to improve analytical tools in 

terms of validation and correlation, range of applicability and quantification of analytical 

uncertainty; these tools were all found to be suitable for application to STS-114 under the 

restrictions and limitation documented by the developers. These restrictions and limitations were 

all clearly documented and presented to the OPO at the Orbiter Configuration Control Board 

(OCCB) as a part of the base-lining of these tools for use in STS-114. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

9 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

A combination of new and existing Math Model Tools have been developed to determine the 

impact tolerance and damage tolerance of the Orbiter Thermal Protection System (TPS) (tile and 

reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC)) due to impacts from debris (primarily ice and foam from the 

ET). These Math Model Tools include damage prediction and stress analysis, aeroheating 

analysis, and thermal analysis. Some tools are physics-based and other tools are empiricallyderived. But even the physics-based tools include empirical-based models, such as the damage 

model in the LS-DYNA© code. Each tool was created for a specific use and timeframe, 

including certification, real-time pre-launch assessments, and real-time on-orbit assessments 

(Table 1.0-1). In addition, the tools are used together in an integrated strategy for assessing 

impact damage to tile (Figure 1.0-1) and RCC (Figure 1.0-2). 

The NESC conducted a peer review of the engineering data package for each Math Model Tool. 

The peer review also included the end-to-end integrated strategy for using the tools to assess 

impact damage. The end-to-end review addressed issues related to the data transfer between and 

among various tools and the propagation of uncertainties from the initial definitions of the 

impact event to the predictions of damage. The following content was requested in each 

engineering data package: 

• Key Assumptions: Test and analysis results supporting the assumptions. 

• Limitations: Test and analysis results demonstrating the rationale for the limit. 

• Validation & Verification (V&V): Complete set of V&V results (tests and analyses) 

mapped to specific requirements. 

• Desktop user instructions: 

– Description 

– Assumptions and Limitations 

– Detailed description of model input and output 

– Instructions for running the tool 

– Quality checks that ensure the results are valid 

The objective of the peer review was to determine if the tools and the end-to-end strategy are 

suitable to support STS-114. It should be noted that the NESC peer review was not an 

independent software V&V. These tools are not part of the mission in-line decision-making 

process. Rather, the tools will be used by experienced, subject matter experts who will interpret 

the results and provide engineering analyses to the Mission Management Team. The results of 

the individual tool engineering readiness peer reviews are summarized in the following sections. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

10 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

1.1 Definitions 

Definitions of various terms used in this report are presented below. 

Verification and Validation: 

Verification 

• An item meets its requirements (National Space Transportation System (NSTS)-07700-

10-1). 

• The process of ensuring that an activity, design, product, or service complies with the 

baselined requirements document (Boeing PRO-6191). 

• The process that ensures that a product meets its specified requirements through testing, 

analysis, inspection, demonstration, or through their combination (Boeing BPI-3475). 

• For this “tool” review, the verification definition related to computational simulations by 

Oberkampf and Roy, 2005 is more appropriate. 

– The process of determining that a model implementation accurately represents the 

developer’s conceptual description and specifications - deals with mathematics and 

numerics, and provides evidence that the model is solved correctly. Two types of 

verifications need to be considered. These are Code verification and Solution 

verification. 

Validation 

• The process of ensuring the product/service conforms to customer needs and meets it 

intended purpose in its operating environment (NSTS-07700-10-1, Boeing PRO-6191). 

• For this “tool” review, the validation definition related to computational simulations by 

Oberkampf and Roy, 2005 is more appropriate. 

– The process of determining the degree to which a model is an accurate representation 

of the real world from the perspective of the intended uses of the model - deals with 

physics; provides evidence that the correct model is solved – Physics-based modeling 

and analysis. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

11 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Figure 1.0-1. Tile Tools for Pre-Flight and On-Orbit Damage Analysis 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

12 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Figure 1.0-2. RCC Models for Pre-Flight and On-Orbit Damage Analysis 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

13 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Table 1.0-1. RCC and Tile Math Model Tools 

Models New/Update Used Real-Time 

d/Existing 

Used for PreFlight C/E Launch

Go/NoGo 

On-Orbit 

before 

Inspection 

On-Orbit 

Use-as-is 

RCC Damage Prediction Tools 

RCC DYNA Model N X X 

RCC Rapid Response Damage Model N X X 

RCC Aeroheating Tools 

Step/Ramp Heating1 N X 

WLE Breach Internal Flow Model N X 

RCC Damage Growth Tool N X 

RCC Thermal Models 

 RCC 3-D Thermal Math Models E X 

Tile Damage Prediction Tools 

Tile Rapid Response Damage Model 

(foam) 

N X X 

Tile Rapid Response Damage Model 

(ice) 

N X X X 

Tile Aeroheating Tools 

Cavity Heating Database N X X 

CFD for Cavity Heating N X X 

Catalytic Heating Tool N X X 

Boundary Layer Transition Prediction 

Tool 

N X X 

Tile Thermal Tools 

3-D Acreage Tile Thermal Model N X X 

Repaired Tile Thermal Model 1 N X 

Special Configuration Thermal Models N X 

Tile Stress Tools 

Tile Stress Tool N X X 

Tile Bondline Integrity Tool U X X 

Stress Assessor Tool N X X 

 

1

 Note that tile repair tools, while included in this table of tools were not a focus of this review and are not 

considered a certified analytical capability for STS-114. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

14 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

2.0 IMPACT TOOLS 

In this section, two tools for RCC impact debris assessment, LS-DYNA© and IMPACT2, are 

discussed. Then, the results of a Mini-mission Simulation conducted at NASA Johnson Space 

Center (JSC) on July 21-22, 2005 are presented. 

2.1 RCC DYNA MODEL 

This tool review involves the review of the FEMs analyzed by the application of LS-DYNA©

software to impact foam and ice debris on RCC wing leading edge (WLE) panels and is not a 

review of the LS-DYNA© software. 

Peer Review Team Members 

Name Affiliation 

Ivatury S. Raju NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC), NESC 

David R. Lowry NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC), ES 

Norman F. Knight, Jr. NASA LaRC, GD – AIS 

Function(s) of Tool 

Finite element simulations using LS-DYNA© code provide analysis results based on empiricallyderived material data input definitions that qualitatively correlate with observed foam-impact test 

behavior of RCC WLE panels. Two indicators were defined as criteria for damage detection in 

the LS-DYNA© simulations. The first criterion is referred to as the “1-to-5 elements out” 

criterion that results in a through-crack-like damage state. The second criterion is referred to as 

the “onset of NDE detectable damage” criterion. This damage mode is assumed to occur when 

the minimum value of history variable 3 (minHV3) on the MAT58 material model in LSDYNA© reaches a value of 0.002. LS-DYNA© correlations are performed with small flat panel 

and full-scale WLE panel (9L) tests. Flat panel maximum deflections correlate to within 15 

percent up to the onset of damage. Damage maps using the “1-to-5 elements out” criterion 

correlate qualitatively well with test data, as does test correlation using “onset of NDE detectable 

damage” criterion. Test results clearly identify the RCC WLE impact threat due to debris, which 

had not been known previously. Testing is performed on specific panels (small flat panel and 

full-scale WLE panels) and included several impact locations on these panels. The LS-DYNA© 

FEMs and analyses were validated using these test results. 

First, various steps involved in computational simulation validation are outlined. Next, the 

validation requirements for the LS-DYNA© analysis along with the reviewers’ comments are 

presented. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

15 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Steps involved in computational simulation validation are as follows: 

1. Accurate definition and representation of configuration to be analyzed. 

2. Basic shape, surface definitions, thickness variations. 

3. Appropriate level of spatial discretization (finite element meshing). 

4. Appropriate structural idealizations (1-D, 2-D, 3-D). 

5. Resolution of local gradients. 

6. Inclusion of relevant geometrical details including offsets, cross-sectional properties. 

7. Adequate mesh refinement, appropriate element selection. 

8. Accurate definition and representation of material properties and their distribution. 

9. Material types, orientations: 

a. Homogeneous, layered or textile; polymeric or ceramic; metallic or non-metallic. 

b. Appropriate modeling of material response elastically as well as damaged or 

degraded or aged. 

10. Nonlinear effects, differences in tension and compression, strain-rate effects, temperature 

effects, damage initiation and propagation, fracture and delamination. 

11. Accurate definition of boundary conditions and initial conditions (including external 

loading and contact). 

12. Appropriate modeling of boundary conditions and initial conditions (including external 

loading and contact). 

13. Appropriate definition of various coordinate systems. 

14. Accurate solution of discrete system of equations including specific analysis procedures 

based on finite element results. 

15. Numerical convergence, time step size, modal truncation. 

16. Quantitative correlation of primary solution variables: 

a. Displacements, rotations, forces, moments, reactions. 

17. Quantitative correlation of secondary variables: 

a. Stresses, strains, energies. 

18. Qualitative visual correlation of deformation states. 

19. Understanding of the post-processing, visualization features being used. 

Table 2.1-1 summarizes the computational simulation validation steps along with the reviewers’ 

comments. Table 2.1-2 summarizes the validation requirements for the LS-DYNA© analysis 

models along with the reviewers’ comments. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

16 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Table 2.1-1. LS-DYNA© Analysis and Modeling Validation Review 

Requirements Comment 

Geometry Definition Geometry based on CATIA models from Boeing HB; mid-surface 

geometries generated by Boeing Seattle 

Material Definition & Layout 

• RCC 

• Foam 

• Ice 

• PDL 

• RCC data from Loral report (not part of data packet); interpolated 

ultimate stress and strain values from values given for 19-, 25-, and 38-

ply laminates. 

• Foam is complex and includes knit lines for foam layers – BX-250, BX265. Density is about 2.5 lbs/cft. Unloads elastically. 

• Ice has heavier density (45-57 lbs/cft). Thin slabs of ice are used in the 

tests. 

• PDL foam has heavier density than BX foams (about 3.5 lbs/cft). This 

foam is crushable and do not unload elastically. 

Boundary Conditions (BC), 

Initial Conditions (IC), 

Loading, & Contact 

Definitions and Modeling 

• BCs assumed pinned at lug attachments, no fittings or backup structure 

included in production runs; this assumption supported by results from 

the model complexity studies. 

• ICs assumed as debris projectile velocity, impact location and 

orientation. 

• No mechanical, thermal, or air loads applied. 

• Contact defined between T-seal and Panel and between impactor and 

target. 

Material Modeling 

• RCC 

• Foam 

• Ice 

• RCC modeled using MAT58; required input data beyond known RCC 

material response data (i.e., assumes a response in post-ultimate region 

up to 10% strain based on LS-DYNA© input, not in data pack). 

• Foam modeled using MAT83; data obtained from drop tower tests; 

production runs used cryogenic foam model. 

• Ice modeled using MAT155 based on an equation of state. 

Coordinate Systems Developed to support material layout, contact definition and impact location 

and orientation. 

Finite Element Model (FEM) 

Development 

• FE meshing by Boeing Philadelphia; performed basic FE model check 

via PATRAN tools and other manual model checkout steps; mesh 

sensitivity; nominally 0.2-inch element edge element size chosen for 

production runs; production runs primarily performed by Boeing 

Philadelphia; selected quality check runs performed by NASA LaRC. 

• Model complexity studies considered for apex foam impact (2 panels 

and T-seal, panel and T-seal, and panel alone) with results indicating no 

significant difference, hence models of the panel alone were used in the 

production runs. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

17 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Requirements Comment 

Numerical Solution Accuracy Mesh sensitivity noted for contact and progressive damage modeling; 

sensitivity to material variations noted as significant. 

Quantitative Correlation of 

Primary Variables 

Contour plots of resultant displacement. 

Quantitative Correlation of 

Secondary Variables 

Contour plots of stress; time histories of energies and contact force. 

Qualitative Correlation of 

Global Response 

End-state deformation and damage plots. 

Parametric Studies Various impactor orientations and impact location and combinations of 

panels and T-seals. 

Correlation with tests. 

• Beam coupon test simulations 

• 6” x 6” panel test simulations 

• 6” x 12” panel test simulations 

• Full-scale foam impact test simulations – Panels 6L & 8L during CAIB, 

Panel 9L (A, B, C) and Panel 16RDT 

Subsequently, LS-DYNA© is used to analyze other panels and for impact at other panel locations 

to evaluate the capability of the panels against foam and ice debris impact in lieu of full-scale 

testing of all RCC WLE panels. Numerous “productions runs” were performed to develop a 

database of threshold KE levels for all WLE panels and associated T-seals for foam and ice 

debris. These productions runs were then used to establish the capability, or “C”, of the RCC 

panels for the flight rationale in terms of threshold KE levels for the onset of NDE detectable 

damage for use in the certification process. 

Assumptions and Limitations 

1. Delamination is a mode of damage that is observed in the RCC WLE panels due to 

impact loads. However, delamination is not modeled in the current LS-DYNA© analysis 

models. As such, the current model is incapable of predicting delamination. 

2. The LS-DYNA© analysis models use 2-D shell finite elements. The RCC constituents 

(carbon-carbon substrate and surface coatings) are not explicitly modeled. The SiC outer 

layers and the CC substrate are modeled using smeared (or apparent) materials properties 

based on the Loral data (Report No. 221RP00614 Rev. A, October 12, 1994). As such, 

the current LS-DYNA© analysis model is incapable of directly predicting coating loss. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

18 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

3. LS-DYNA© analysis models can only be used to predict the “onset of NDE detectable 

damage” or threshold of damage. These analyses cannot be used to predict damage 

growth because the material damage model used in the LS-DYNA© models does not 

accurately represent all forms of RCC damage. The approach to predicting “onset” is by 

scaling the threshold KE values obtained using the “1-to-5 elements out” criterion. The 

scale factor is determined by finding the KE value that result in a minimum HV3 value of 

0.002. 

4. Applicability of “onset of NDE detectable damage” criterion is currently based on panel 

apex foam impacts. 

5. Analysis quality checks similar to those performed on a few of the RCC WLE panels are 

not available for the nose cap and chin panel. Additionally, the LS-DYNA© FEMs for the 

nose cap and chin panel are not verified with full-scale testing. 

6. The small mass effect for foam on the kinetic energy (KE) is assumed to vary by a factor 

(m1/m2)

0.2 where m1 is the mass of the debris and m2 is a reference mass, assumed to be 

0.03 lbm. This factor appears to be analytically derived and empirically correlated with 

the LS-DYNA© predictions based on a range of impact debris masses. This factor has not 

been validated using test data. This equation is not applicable for use for nose cap and 

chin panel components. 

7. A similar small mass effect for ice on the KE is assumed to by a factor (m1/m2)

0.3 where 

m1 is the mass of the debris and m2 is a reference mass, assumed to be 0.02 lbm. This 

factor appears to be analytically derived and empirically correlated with the LS-DYNA© 

predictions based on a range of impact debris masses. This factor has not been validated 

using test data. This equation is used for nose cap and chin panel components also. 

Observations 

1. RCC material properties have wide scatter. The LS-DYNA© material model is based on 

empirical material model (MAT 58) with tuned parameters (SLIMT=0.8, SLIMC=1.0 

and ERODS=0.1). These parameters do not correspond to any physical material 

properties and are not derivable from the RCC material characterization tests. 

2. Rectangular foam brick-shaped impactors with length aligned with velocity trajectory 

present the worst case for panel apex impact. The square block of ice, with the large face 

impacting tangent to the panel, produces the largest damage for the RCC WLE panels. 

The RCC impact response panels are marginally more sensitive to ice impacts near panel 

ribs. 

3. The LS-DYNA© model does not correlate the displacement time histories for full-scale 

test panels. In contrast, threshold velocities for damage initiation correlate within 10 

percent with the test results on the small flat panels and full-scale WLE panels. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

19 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Recommendations 

1. The scope of intended use and the associated limitations of the debris on RCC analyses 

need to be clearly documented. (Demonstrated during Mini-Sim)

2. Engineering data to support the adjustment factor(s) used to convert from “1-to-5 

elements out” criterion to the “onset of NDE detectable damage” criterion are needed. 

(Completed July 18, 2005)

3. Engineering data are needed to validate the nose cap and chin panel FEMs and 

predictions – mesh sensitivity, material orientation, etc. (In Work - Impact testing of the 

RCC nose cap was initiated on July 7, 2005 at Southwest Research Institute (SwRI)). 

4. Engineering data are needed for comparing full-scale panel test results with LS-DYNA©

predictions (time-history plots of deflections and strains as well as end-state deformation 

patterns) - in particular, for Panel 9 tests that did not exhibit impact damage. (open)

5. The small mass factor for BX and PDL foams need to be documented. Valid bounds of 

this factor need to be established, especially as size limits are approached. (Partially 

Completed, July 18, 2005)

6. RCC material characterization data including: effects of aging (or conditioning), strainrate effects, failure modes and mechanisms, fracture toughness, and load-unload behavior 

needs to be completed. These data will be useful in developing next generation material 

models that could be used with LS-DYNA©. (open)

7. Investigation of through-the-thickness material layout (rather than smeared), such as 

discrete layer modeling of SiC outer layers and CC substrate, needs to be undertaken. 

(open)

8. The effect of multiple strikes at the same (or nearly the same) location and KE levels 

using the LS-DYNA© tool needs to be quantified. (open)

9. Completion of documentation in the LS-DYNA© Data Pack. (open)
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

20 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

2.2 RCC RAPID RESPONSE DAMAGE TOOL – IMPACT2 

Function(s) of Tool

The intended use of IMPACT2 for pre-flight and on-orbit impact damage assessment is to 

provide insight beyond the LS-DYNA© production run matrix with sensitivity analyses to small 

variations in impact location, debris mass, and impact orientation. For pre-flight assessment, 

IMPACT2 use would be to assess last-minute concerns immediately prior to launch. For onorbit assessment, IMPACT2 use would be to assess RCC WLE panel damage due to reported 

debris strike(s) and document critical locations for subsequent LS-DYNA© analyses. Finite 

element simulations based on the IMPACT2 code are used to estimate the effect of debris impact 

on RCC WLE panels. The approached used by the IMPACT2 tool is to extract vibration mode 

shapes from a FEM of the RCC WLE panel (no T-seal) and to perform a modal solution of the 

impact event with the mode acceleration procedure used of stress recovery. Stress recovery at 

pre-selected points are compared with material stress allowable values and correlated with the 

LS-DYNA© production run predictions. The FEMs are currently based on the historical 

NASTRAN models (“certified” models) developed during the original development program for 

the generation of free-vibration mode shapes. These mode shapes are used to perform a modal 

analysis with the forcing function defined to simulate the debris impact loading (i.e., nonlinear 

forcing function). Table 2.2-1 summarizes the validation requirements for IMPACT2 along with 

the reviewers’ comments. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

21 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Table 2.2-1. IMPACT2 Analysis and Modeling Validation Review 

Requirements Comments 

Configuration (geometry) Definition No electronic geometry; discrete FE geometry is the basis.

Material Definition & Layout 

• RCC 

• Foam 

• Ice 

• RCC thickness distributions approximated. 

• Foam not explicitly included. 

• Ice not explicitly included. 

BC, IC, Loading, & Contact Definitions Panel/T-seal combination has point constraints with 

stiffness coefficients representing attachment fittings and 

backup structure. 

Material Modeling 

• RCC 

• Foam 

• Ice 

• RCC modeled as general anisotropic elastic material; 

material layout not described. 

• Foam modeled as nonlinear springs. 

• Ice modeled as point force with pulse load. 

BC, IC, Loading, & Contact Modeling BCs treated using diagonal matrix input at grid point 

(DMIG) terms. Loading is due to nonlinear forcing 

function generated by foam model; panel/T-seal contact 

treated using linear springs and multi-point constraints 

(MPC). 

Coordinate Systems Many coordinate systems due to assumed contact 

modeling approach. 

FEM Development Relatively coarse NASTRAN FE mesh (element edge 

length ~2.0 inches); mostly 2D shell elements; element 

lengths are 10 times the DYNA models 

Assumptions and Limitations 

1. Application of this modeling and analysis approach for cases without LS-DYNA© 

collaboration introduces uncertainties that do not have clear bounds. 

2. Point or concentrated force application is an approximation of the impact event (may not 

accurately simulate the true contact problem, but should be conservative). 

3. Application of IMPACT2 is limited to configurations involving only the RCC WLE 

panels. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

22 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Observations 

1. Foam model uses modal dynamics analysis with concentrated nonlinear force input. 

Foam impact force determined via coupled system analysis (force is a function of foampanel relative displacement). Projectile is assumed to be prismatic and does not breakup. 

2. Ice model uses linear modal dynamics analysis with fluid jet concentrated impact force. 

Ice is assumed to be “prismatic”. Ice impact force is determined from fluid jet impulse 

and is applied as a triangular-shaped time pulse. 

3. The IMPACT2 predicted threshold values of velocity are within 6 percent for hard ice 

and 11 percent for BX-265 foam compared with Panel 9 testing. Comparing to LSDYNA© predictions, the IMPACT2 predicted threshold velocities are within 15 percent 

and 20 percent for foam and ice impacts, respectively (excluding Panels 4 and 7). 

However, LS-DYNA© predictions are within 15-19 percent of the test data. Therefore, 

uncertainties in IMPACT2 predictions could exceed 30 percent on threshold velocities of 

the test data. 

4. Linear modal solution accuracy may be appropriate for onset predictions – assuming 

small deflections, lightly loaded panel. Point or concentrated force application is an 

approximation of the impact event (may not accurately simulate the true contact problem, 

but should be conservative). Convergence of the modal solution is demonstrated for the 

debris and impact events considered. If the convergence is based on the convergence to 

the value obtained from the complete FEM (i.e., the historical NASTRAN FEM) and a 

direct time integration procedure, then the 800-mode solution converges to the completemodel solution. The question that remains is whether the complete-model solution is 

itself a converged solution for this type of simulation. 

5. IMPACT2 predictions based on the historical NASTRAN FEMs are correlated with the 

LS-DYNA© predictions. Sensitivity of the IMPACT2 results to changes in the 

underlying FEM used for generating the free vibration mode shapes and subsequent stress 

recovery has not been demonstrated. 

Recommendations 

1. Demonstrate the rapid response of IMPACT2 using 6” x 6” and 6” x 12” flat panels. 

(open)

2. Validate IMPACT2 with 6” x 6” and 6” x 12” flat panel test data. (open)

3. Demonstrate the rapid response tool application for the nose cap and chin panel 

structures. (open)

4. Provide a complete data pack of all analyses, data, and results for archival purposes and 

traceability. (open)
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

23 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

2.3 IMPACT TOOLS SIMULATION 

A Mini-mission Simulation (abbreviated colloquially as Mini-Sim) was conducted at NASA JSC 

on July 21-22, 2005. The purpose of the Mini-Sim was to assess the performance of the RCC 

Debris Impact Assessment team, the communication process between and among team members, 

and the performance of the three sets of tools (the database of results from the LS-DYNA© 

production runs, the use of IMPACT2, and detailed LS-DYNA© runs on a specific 

configuration). 

Two scenarios and three simulated impacts were presented to the LS-DYNA© and IMPACT2 

teams: 

Scenario 1: Pre-launch assessment of an ice ball. 

Scenario 2: Post-launch or early mission assessment with two hits to the RCC panels on 

ascent. 

The Pre-launch scenario was based on debris transport analysis (DTA). The ice ball would strike 

RCC WLE panels in the range of Panels 9-11. The decision was made that the most likely 

impact was on Panel 10 for a 0.0035 lbm ice-ball with a speed of 791 feet per second (fps). The 

teams were required to assess the damage and make a recommendation of “GO/NO GO” to the 

Leading Edge Structural Subsystem Problem Resolution Team (LESS PRT). IMPACT2 results 

and results from the DYNA production runs both indicated that the impact event exceeded the 

RCC panel capability. Both the teams gave a "NO GO" for launch decision to the LESS PRT. 

The LESS PRT concurred with that decision. The IMPACT2 team demonstrated their rapid 

response feature. This part of the Mini-Sim took 90 minutes on July 21, 2005. 

The Post-launch (early mission ascent) scenarios were two BX-265 foam hits: (1) on Panel 9 at 

4.5 inches below the apex, mass of the foam divot was 0.023 lbm, and the velocity was 1155 fps 

- with velocity oriented with debris-Alpha=16 degrees and debris-Beta=10 degrees; and (2) an 

impact on Panel 17 at 0.5 inches below the center of the apex, mass of the foam divot was 0.036 

lbm with velocity of 1130 fps with velocity oriented with debris-Alpha=0 degrees and debrisBeta=0 degrees. These Mini-Sim events were confirmed by imagery data and impact sensor data. 

The IMPACT2 team had 2 hours to analyze the cases and then report the results to the RCC 

Debris Impact Assessment Team. The DYNA team had 24 hours to perform computations and 

report. In addition, the Team used the results from the LS-DYNA© production runs to estimate 

the severity of the impact events. All teams reported in time and their recommendations were 

consistent. For case 1, all teams showed positive margins; for case 2, all teams showed negative 

margins. However, the positive margins were less than the confidence bounds on the results; 

hence, the team recommended that detailed inspections be performed on both panels. This 

decision is needed by flight day 2 and 7 hours (T+55 hours) in order to be write the chit for 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

24 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

detailed inspection. The LESS PRT then recommended inspection of both the panels. As Panel 9 

is in the HOT zone for re-entry, inspection is required even when positive margins are 

calculated. 

Recommendations 

1. Communication among the IMPACT2 team, the DYNA team and LESS PRT needs to be 

improved. The angles for debris-Alpha and debris-Beta were misinterpreted by the team 

members and the need for graphic depiction of these angles was identified. (open)

2. Margin reporting by the teams need to be consistent in terms of units and metrics. The 

team needs a consistent basis of working the issues and reporting results. (open)

3. Team members should use certification rigor as basis of all results reported to the LESS 

PRT. (open)

Lesson Learned 

1. Rapid response feature of IMPACT2 was demonstrated. The DYNA team demonstrated 

that a truncated-conical-shaped divot can be modeled in real-time and LS-DYNA© runs 

can be made to predict the onset of NDE detectable damage. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

25 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

3.0 RCC DAMAGE GROWTH TOOL 

Peer Review Team Members 

Name Affiliation 

Jay H. Grinstead, PhD NASA Ames Research Center (ARC), Reacting Flow 

Environments Branch 

Steve Labbe NASA JSC, NESC Flight Sciences 

Elizabeth Opila, PhD NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC), Durability and 

Protective Coatings Branch 

Robert Piascik, PhD NASA LaRC, NESC Materials 

George Raiche, PhD NASA ARC, Reacting Flow Environments Branch, ASA 

Gerald W. Russell, PhD Mechanical/Aerospace Engineer-Thermal Analyst 

AMSRD-AMR-PS-PI, Redstone Arsenal 

Forrest Strobel, PhD ITT AES, Huntsville, AL 

Function(s) of Tool 

The RCC Damage Growth Tool will be used to predict damage growth at impact damage sites, 

including time-to burn-through (breach) and hole growth, during entry and to develop the impact 

damage tolerance map for WLE and nose cap RCC. 

Assumptions and Limitations 

1. Input Parameters: 

a. Delamination Extent - The tool has limited capability for predicting an equivalent 

IML hole diameter pending development of on-orbit validated NDE techniques to 

determine the extent of delamination. 

b. Mid-plane Delamination - Uncertainty in the predicted cavity burn-through time 

exists due to the limited number of arcjet samples from full-scale impact damaged 

RCC panels. 

2. Model Physics: 

a. Mass Loss Expression - The tool, in its current state of development, acts as a 

conservative bounding estimation for predicting time to breach and damage 

growth. Higher fidelity solutions are needed to avoid unwarranted conservatism 

in the prediction of material removal. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

26 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

3. V&V: 

a. Arcjet Testing - The current tool is validated as conservative only for stagnation 

flow cases similar to the nose cap environment. Pending development of a 

wedge/crossflow tool, the stagnation tool has not been adequately validated as 

conservative for application to WLE environments that experience crossflow. 

Wedge test data for machined defects may indicate that the 0.020-inch substrate 

exposure threshold is unconservative at maximum heating, and that growth rates 

are larger than expected for stagnation cases. Given the small amount of available 

wedge data, the NESC is currently unable to conclude that machined-slot hole 

growth is atypical of impact-induced Types 4 or 5 damage. 

b. Conservatisms - Although the stagnation tool appears biased toward conservative 

predictions, the safety margin decreases with increasing temperature. Because 

validation data is limited, an unskilled user may infer unwarranted confidence in 

tool predictions of untested configurations. Given the inherent uncertainties of 

certain tool inputs and assumptions, the tool requires use and interpretation only 

by subject matter experts. 

Observations 

1. Input Parameters: 

a. Delamination Extent - The assumption that the delamination extends 1-inch 

beyond the perimeter of any observed outer mold line (OML) damage on an RCC 

panel may not adequately represent the extent of delamination. This observation 

is of concern because this assumption directly impacts the accuracy of the tool 

output “Equivalent IML Hole Diameter”. 

In the V&V of the RCC Damage Growth Tool, the extent of delamination for 

arcjet samples was determined by ultrasonic through transmission and infrared 

thermography. The validation of the tool relies on the accuracy of ultrasonic and 

thermographic NDE techniques to accurately identify the extent of delamination. 

This accuracy has not been demonstrated due to limited data for extent of 

delamination of full-scale impact-damaged RCC panels as determined by NDE. 

Furthermore, the current capability for on-orbit NDE does not exist, and the 

predictive capability of the tool relies on the 1-inch assumption. 

Since on-orbit NDE is not currently available, delamination size will be estimated 

based on the 1-inch assumption. The tool developers acknowledge that this 

uncertainty will overshadow any uncertainty in other tool parameters. 

b. Mid-plane Delamination - The assumption that the worst case impact damage 

results in a single mid-plane delamination is reasonable based on the available 

evidence. Additional validation is needed to demonstrate that this assumption is 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

27 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

conservative. This validation should be based on a comparison of tool predictions 

to time-to-burn-through determined for arcjet tests of full-scale impact damaged 

RCC panels. Without additional validation, this assumption introduces a measure 

of uncertainty into the predicted cavity burn-through time. If burn-through is 

already predicted by the current version of the tool, then this observation is 

irrelevant. However, if damage occurs in an area of the WLE that is predicted to 

survive re-entry with the current tool and the output “Cavity Burn-Thru Time 

(sec)” is required, then the validity of this assumption is critical. 

3. Model Physics: 

a. Mass Loss Expression - The damage growth tool is empirically-based and does 

not capture the physics of an ablating material. The mass loss expression does not 

adequately couple the flow field and material physics to allow its use outside the 

range of test conditions for which it was developed. The Arrhenius expression 

used to predict material ablation does not account for the effect of mass transfer 

rate which is one of the primary driving parameters that causes material removal. 

Instead, the tool simply uses pressure and temperature to determine the material 

recession rates. It appears that the recession correlations are based on test 

conditions that are conservative relative to flight1

 and, therefore, the tool is 

expected to yield conservative predictions for time to breach and damage growth. 

The level of conservatism is not readily ascertained because the primary variables 

that produce material recession are not specifically included in the calculations. It 

is important that the tool use the primary variables that effect material removal so 

that a more accurate surface recession prediction can be obtained. This approach 

would also allow for a more refined predictive tool that could be used for a 

sensitivity analysis. 

4. V&V: 

a. Arcjet Testing - Based on stagnation testing of impact-damaged RCC panel, the 

0.020 inch criterion for allowable coating damage or crack width appears valid. 

For more extensive damage, the stagnation tool appears to conservatively predict 

both the onset of damage growth and the ultimate IML damage area for stagnation 

arcjet cases. The tool designers claim that the stagnation tool conservatively 

predicts both the onset of damage growth and ultimate IML breach area for wedge 

test cases. However, this claim is not supported by the data supplied to the review 

panel. In fact, data for machined-slots in wedge specimens contradicts the 

conservatism claim. 

 

1

The statement of conservatism is based on a verbal description of a high fidelity FEA, including cavity radiation that has been

conducted to establish that surface temperatures of 2960 °F at BP 5505 are consistent with peak flight heating conditions of 

approximately 70 BTU/ft2-sec for flight. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

28 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

b. Conservatisms - The test series focused on development of conservative 

prediction capability rather than tool validation. As a result, the low repeatability 

of specimen preparation and test conditions hinders systematic evaluation of tool 

sensitivity to test parameters. The predictive conservatism of the (stagnation) tool 

varies with application to stagnation, or wedge cases and mode of induced 

damage. Also, the single cited comparison of equivalent stagnation (Run 2-2621-

4, Model 1965) and wedge (Run 2-2651-4, Model 2035) cases is inadequate to 

establish the conservatism of either testing mode. The tool output does not 

indicate the confidence or conservatism with which its predictions should be 

evaluated. 

Recommendations 

1. Input Parameters: 

a. Delamination Extent - Validated on-orbit NDE techniques should be developed 

for determining the extent of delamination. For STS-114, the current tool should 

only be used by an experienced subject matter expert, such as the tool developers, 

to predict hole growth. 

b. Mid-plane Delamination - Additional time to burn-through data should be 

obtained from arcjet tests of full-scale impact damaged RCC panels to determine 

whether the predicted burn-through times are conservative. 

2. Model Physics: 

a. Mass Loss Expression - Future versions of the code should be more physics-based 

and use the convective boundary conditions as the driving parameters which 

determine surface removal rates. Even if empirical expressions are selected, mass 

transfer rate should be used as a primary variable that determines material 

removal rates. This will result in a higher fidelity tool that more accurately 

predicts time to breach and damage growth. 

3. V&V: 

a. Arcjet Testing - Impact-damaged wedge test data is urgently required for 

development and validation of a maximum damage criterion and a 

wedge/crossflow damage tool. Pending development and validation of a 

wedge/crossflow tool, the stagnation tool should be used to “predict” the results 

of existing wedge testing. This would indicate the sensitivity of the stagnation 

tool to deviations from stagnation flow, and establish the conservatism of the 

allowable damage criterion in non-stagnation environments. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

29 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

In addition, because achieving flight temperatures required testing at different 

heat fluxes for stagnation and wedge, and at heat fluxes far greater than those 

estimated for flight, there may be significant differences in the flow environments 

of both the stagnation and wedge configurations. Better understanding and 

quantification of these losses and consideration of improved test configuration is 

recommended. 

b. Conservatisms - More test data, for both stagnation and wedge cases, is required 

to test the sensitivity of tool conservatism to damage parameters. Additionally, 

the tool should be exercised to assess the sensitivity of tool predictions to likely 

uncertainties in the tool’s assumptions. Those uncertainties include variations in 

damage locations, trajectory profiles, and the effects of multiple delaminations. 

The results of this analysis should be bundled into the tool documentation. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

30 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

4.0 TILE RAPID RESPONSE DAMAGE MODEL (ICE) 

Peer Review Team Members 

Name Affiliation 

Andrew Brown NASA MSFC, ER, Lead 

Julie Kramer White NASA JSC, NESC 

Trevor Kott NASA JSC, ES (iTA) 

Omar Hatamleh NASA JSC, ES (iTA) 

Eli Rayos NASA JSC, ES (iTA) 

Louise Shivers NASA JSC, ES (iTA) 

Function(s) of Tool 

“Rapid Response” damage models for both foam and ice debris damage on tile have been 

developed for the Space Shuttle Program. These models generate a damage geometry (depth, 

length, width, entry, wall and exit angles) based on DTA parameters (mass, velocity and angle of 

impact). The ice on tile model was developed by SwRI, with Dr. James Walker as the 

development team lead. The specific intended application is to evaluate the damage to both 

FRCI-12 and LI-900 tile from projectiles composed of ice of all densities possible in the 

environment. It has been baselined for use in pre-flight and in-flight analysis by the Orbiter 

Stress, Loads and Dynamics (SLD) panel. The estimate of the results is generated using 2-D 

analytical closed-form equations derived from the basic physics of the problem. These were 

validated by comparison with test and large scale numerical solutions using the Eulerian code 

CTH1

. As with other analytical solutions to complex engineering problems, such as the NavierStokes Equation, simplifying assumptions are required to produce a tractable solution. The 

degree to which these assumptions are valid defines the usefulness of this analytical solution. 

As developed, the model uses nominal material values and other input parameters. Therefore, it 

would not be expected to envelope all of the test data, which captures all the variability in the 

parameters. To obtain a model that would be conservative without being excessively overconservative, SwRI was directed to generate a model that would encompass 95 percent of the test 

data. This percentage level was deemed appropriate by NASA management compared with a 

traditional 3-sigma level of 99.86 percent in that other conservatisms were also built into the endto-end debris liberation, transport, and impact scenario. A worst-on-worst-on-worst case 

calculation would result in unreasonable restrictions on tile capability. As the material properties 

are the primary source of uncertainty, SwRI decided that a reasonable way to achieve this goal 

was to apply a constant scale factor onto the material properties used in the nominal model. The 

 

1

Eulerian refers to the equations solved by the code - CTH is a fully three dimension Eulerian finite-volume hydrocode. Eulerian 

means that the mesh stays fixed and the projectile moves through the mesh, rather than the mesh deforming. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

31 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

value obtained after iteration was 0.615, and it was used to generate results and curves for this 

“95%” model. This scale factor is in the same range as the spread of the strength characteristics 

of the tile by itself. These results along with the nominal model results have been documented 

and reported by SwRI. 

Assumptions and Limitations 

Key Assumptions: 

1. Cavity width is assumed to be twice the impactor width; the actual value is not 

calculated. [The width was not systematically examined in either the analytical model or 

with CTH. Typically, the width is not as large as this factor. Data is presented to back 

up this assumption, but it is exceeded somewhat, occasionally by 100 percent.] 

2. Assumes brick-shaped impactor. 

3. Entry angle is equivalent to impactor incident angle. [The foam on tile model does not 

make this assumption. The validation of this assumption has not been presented.] 

4. Sidewall angles and exit angles are assumed to be 90 degrees. 

5. The model assumes the projectile impacts the target and never unloads (no rebound). 

[This could potentially be unconservative, as the rebound gives more load transfer to the 

target (momentum transfer). By contrast, CTH does include unloading.] 

6. The projectile is not rotating. [Studies performed for foam on tile indicate that the 

possible rotational rates do not add significantly to the local impact velocity of 

ends of the projectile at these translational speeds.]

7. The impactor is assumed to have a curved lower leading edge of radius 0.25 

centimeter (cm) to take into consideration ice fracture effects. This factor was 

empirically-derived. 

8. The glass layer of the tile is assumed to not provide noticeably more strength. 

The material characteristics used for ice are as follows: 

- Modulus of Elasticity (E) = 8000 MPa 

- Shear Modulus (G) = 3000 MPa 

- Density = 0.914 g/cc (57 lb/ft3

) 

- Poisson’s ratio = 0.33 

- Flow stress = 2.0 MPa 

- Tensile strength = 1.0 MPa 

- Sound speed (c) = 2954 m/s 

High strain compression curves were obtained from tests used for both types of tile. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

32 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Limitations: 

1. Projectile mass range: 0 to 1 pound (453 grams (g)) 

2. Impact velocity: 80 to 1500 feet/second (fps) 

3. Impact angle: 5 to 90 degrees 

4. Maximum validated predicted cavity depth: 3 inches 

5. In the region of 60 to 90 degrees impact angle, the model is only valid for L/D_ ≥

2.5, where D is the average of the width and height. [The testing does not cover the 

ranges that are suggested above, but CTH was performed over those ranges. The 

largest mass tested was 100 g (3” × 1.5” × 1.5”), and the highest velocity tested 

was 1000 fps. SwRI has proposed the extension of the limits because CTH was 

performed up to these ranges. Although the analytical model predicts a much 

larger amount of damage than CTH at large velocities, it is reasonably validated. 

The CTH high velocity/high mass runs can be used to reliably identify any gross 

possible underpredictions, which it did not do.]

Observations 

1. The ice on tile rapid response model is reliably conservative for all variations of the input 

parameters. There is a significant amount of validation by both experimental data and 

CTH numerical simulation. It appears, in general, to overpredict the damage by a 

significant amount in almost all cases. Since this is the case, the only assumption that 

could cause an underprediction by the analytical model (Observation number 5) 

apparently is not significant. 

2. There is a lot of scatter in the test data for ice impact on tile. In many cases there is 0.50-

inch of penetration depth scatter for any given set of conditions, 0.75-inch scatter on 

depth is not that unusual and, for a few cases, there is almost 1-inch of scatter on depth of 

penetration. 

3. The model is deterministic so uncertainties arising from variability in input data, such as 

material data for the tile and impact parameters (size and density of ice, impact speed and 

angle) are unaccounted for. 

4. Eulerian models such as CTH do not have a capability to incorporate friction, which can 

be important for angled impacts. 

5. The model does not predict the physics of “tile out” or “tile shear out”. “Tile out” is a 

failure mode where the impacted tile fails at the densification layer with little surface 

damage, and the entire tile comes out down to the densification layer. “Tile shear out” is 

a failure mode where the impacted tile fails at a weak shear plane (45 degrees from 

surface to densification layer) and a large portion of the tile comes out down to the 

densification layer. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

33 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

6. The model is only applicable to a predicted depth of penetration less than or equal to the 

densification layer. Once the impact is predicted to be into the densification layer, the 

physics changes and the model is no longer valid. 

Recommendations

1. Tile damage analysis models should be brought in-house to NASA to enable additional 

evaluation and independent tile damage risk trades through structured, parametric model 

sensitivity studies. (complete)

2. An effort should be made to quantify how much the uncertainties from the input are 

propagated into the results. Sensitivity or response surface analysis could be a method to 

make this determination. (open)

3. There are some significant exceedances of the 2-to-1 crater width to projectile width 

factor in the high-density ice on LI-900 tile. A more complete explanation of why this is 

not important may be necessary. (open)

4. Present rationale for entry angle equaling impact angle (and contrast with foam-on-tile 

model rationale for assuming otherwise). (open)

5. Provide evidence of solution verification, i.e., “The process of determining that a model 

implementation accurately represents the developer’s conceptual description and 

specifications - deals with mathematics and numerics; provides evidence that the model is 

solved correctly.”1

 It is critical that the analytical model be quantitatively debugged by 

running the solution on simplified materials and/or short time frames that can be checked 

independently (outside of the solution code itself). (open)

6. Evaluate Lagrangian finite element solution of angled-impact problem, such as that 

applied with LS-DYNA©, to assess effects that may have been missed by lack of a 

frictional coefficient. (open)

7. Provide evidence to verify the assumption # 8 – that the glass layer of the tile is assumed 

to not provide noticeably more strength. (open)

8. The decrease in the slope of the depth versus velocity curves for the CTH results for 

higher velocities (at all angles) should be examined in further detail. If this effect is 

accurate, then the analytical model predictions at these higher velocities are excessively 

conservative, which can lead to undesirable decisions. (in work)

 

1 Oberkampf, W., Roy, C., “Verification and Validation in Computational Simulations”, AIAA Short Course, April 16-17, 2005
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

34 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Table 4.0-1. Analysis Validation Review Assessment Worksheet 

Requirements Comment Requirement 

(conservative or nominal) 

Geometry Definition Assumptions 1, 2, 3, & 4; 

See comments. Unknown; data not adequate to 

determine level of conservatism for 

these assumptions. 

Material Definition, Layout, & Modeling 

• Ice 

Ice material characteristics 

provided. Nominal values used for "nominal" 

model. 

BC, IC, Loading, & Contact Definitions & 

Modeling 

See Observation 4. 

Unknown effect. 

FEM Development (including coordinate 

systems) 

Not presented; should be 

eventually. 

Numerical Solution Accuracy Not presented; should be 

eventually. 

Quantitative Correlation of Primary Variables 

(penetration depth) 

 

Conservative 

Quantitative Correlation of Secondary Variables Not presented. 

 

Qualitative Correlation of Global Response Adequate. 

N/A 

Parametric Studies Further studies on CTH 

high-velocity needed. N/A 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

35 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

5.0 TILE RAPID RESPONSE DAMAGE MODEL (FOAM) 

Peer Review Team Members 

Name Affiliation 

Andrew Brown NASA MSFC, ER 

Julie Kramer White NASA JSC, NESC, Lead 

Trevor Kott NASA JSC, ES (iTA) 

Omar Hatamleh NASA JSC, ES (iTA) 

Eli Rayos NASA JSC, ES (iTA) 

Louise Shivers NASA JSC, ES (iTA) 

Function(s) of Tool 

There are rapid response damage models for both foam and ice debris damage on tile. These 

models generate a damage geometry (depth, length, width, entry, wall and exit angles) based on 

DTA parameters (mass, velocity and angle of impact). The only calculated parameter is depth of 

penetration. All other outputs are either simple functions of depth, or constants. The foam on 

tile model was developed by Boeing and is an empirical curve-fit based on over 500 shots of 

projectiles at tile. The damage penetration that is generated by the model envelopes 95 percent 

of all test data, and greater than 85 percent of flight data1

. Tests cover a significant range of 

projectile masses (0.002 to 0.4), projectile angles (5 degrees to 60 degrees), velocities (200-2900 

feet per second (fps)) and impactor materials (BX-265, PDL, and NCFI). However, this matrix 

of tests was not developed utilizing any testing optimization techniques (i.e., Taguchi) and, in 

many cases, provides limited data at any given combination of parameters. BX-250 was never 

shot as a part of the test matrix, but has been assumed to be enveloped by BX-265 based on 

similarity of material stress-strain properties. Testing does include both pristine and aged tile, 

and tile arrays both with and without gap fillers, although the majority of data is on new panels 

without gap fillers. Most of the testing was conducted with High-temperature Reusable Surface 

Insulation (HRSI) (black tile); however Low-temperature Reusable Surface Insulation (LRSI) (white 

tile) was tested for comparison. Current proposed limits on tool usage do allow interpolation and 

limited extrapolation from specifically tested combinations of parameters. 

 

1

 Significantly more than 85 percent of the historical data is captured by the model; however the V&V requirement 

was to envelope 85 percent. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

36 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Assumptions and Limitations 

Key Assumptions: 

1. The tool assumes that the projectile always impacts with the length aligned with the 

velocity vector. This results in an “edge” or “flat” impact which transmits the maximum 

amount of energy in the minimum area, thereby doing maximum damage. 

2. The tool does not account for projectile tumbling. 

3. The model assumes all impactors are “brick” shaped vs. divot shaped. 

Key Limitations: 

1. The model does not predict the physics of tile out or tile shear out. “Tile out” is a failure 

mode where the impacted tile fails at the densification layer with little surface damage, 

and the entire tile comes out down to the densification layer. “Tile shear out” is a failure 

mode where the impacted tile fails at a weak shear plane (45 degrees from surface to 

densification layer) and a large portion of the tile comes out down to the densification 

layer. 

2. The model is only applicable to a predicted depth of penetration less than or equal to the 

densification layer. Once the impact is predicted to be into the densification layer, the 

physics changes and the model is no longer valid. 

3. Mass less than or equal to 0.4 pounds per meter (lbm) can be analyzed; however, masses 

less than 0.002 do not receive any benefit of reduction in damage threshold velocity, 

because there was no testing conducted in this regime. 

4. Angles less than or equal to 60 degrees can be analyzed; however, angles less than 5 

degrees are analyzed at 5 degrees. 

5. Velocity less than 2,900 fps can be analyzed, within the restriction of not penetrating the 

densification layer. Obviously, for larger masses and higher angles at this velocity, there 

will be deep penetration. 

Observations 

1. There is a lot of scatter in the test data for foam impact on tile. In many cases there is 

0.50-inch of penetration depth scatter for any given set of conditions, 0.75-inch scatter on 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

37 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

depth is not that unusual and, for a few cases, there is almost 1-inch of scatter on depth of 

penetration. 

2. For high angles (>30 degrees) and high mass (>0.2), the slope of the velocity damage 

depth curve is very high; therefore, for small changes in velocity (~20 percent) you can 

get significantly greater damage (from 0 to ~0.5-1.0 inch). 

3. The foam on tile rapid response model is more conservative in the lower mass regimes, 

where it generally provides a conservative representation of threshold velocity. In the 

higher mass regimes (0.2 lbm and greater), the model can overpredict threshold velocity, 

and so sometimes there is as much as 0.25-0.5 inches of damage where the model would 

predict none. 

4. For foam on tile with a 5-degree impact angle there is only one complete set of data. A 

set of data exists at 0.2 lbm for a range of velocity, and produces a well defined threshold. 

At 0.022 lbs there are only 3 data points, none of which exceed the threshold, so there is 

no real comparison of analysis to test for this mass and angle combination, other than that 

the threshold behavior appears conservative. For 0.13 lbm there are two data points, 

neither of which exceeds the threshold. Therefore, there is no real comparison of analysis 

to test for this mass and angle combination, other than to observe that the threshold may 

be conservative. However, based on the fact that these two data points occur in very 

close proximity to the analytical threshold, the data scatter, and the trends regarding 

threshold, this may not indicate conservatism with regard to the threshold. 

5. A tile shear out failure mode appears to sit right in the middle of the critical range of 

parameters characterized by test (i.e., for example at 0.022 lbs and 2,000 fps). This 

failure mode is caused by a “smart” piece of debris that, based on tests to date, requires 

an impactor to hit a single tile with a critical combination of mass and velocity. The 

result is that a weak shear plane in the tile gives way and a large part of the whole tile is 

removed to the densification layer. This is significantly more damage than the model 

predicts at the given impact parameters (i.e., mass and velocity), as it is a fundamentally 

different failure physics than the other test data enveloped. 

6. It is not clear how placards or limitations will be integrated into the model to ensure 

damage is not manifested as the more severe tile shear out or tile out failure mode. 

7. Tile aging effects are based on samples of tile which were flown only six times. 

8. Foam on tile models are empirical curve-fits and, while based on a significant total 

number of shots (500+), the number of shots at any given set of parameters is relatively 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

38 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

small (~3) and there is significant scatter in the data. Therefore, the bounds of tool use 

should be clearly delineated and not extrapolated without additional verification. 

Recommendations 

Return-to-Flight (RTF) 

1. Tile damage analysis models should be brought in-house to NASA to enable additional 

evaluation and independent tile damage risk trades through structured, parametric model 

sensitivity studies. (in-work)

2. The assumption of “no tumbling” as a conservative assumption in the model needs to be 

substantiated. (in work)

3. The assumption of a “brick” shaped divot enveloping other impactor shapes should be 

substantiated. (completed via LS-DYNA© assessment)

4. The “corners of the box” for which the foam on tile model is considered applicable, 

should be compared to CTH or LS-DYNA© hydrocode predictions. (in work)

5. Additional test data should be generated on small mass PDL foam impacts to tile. 

(complete)

6. Tile shear out and tile out zones should be clearly defined. (complete)

Post-RTF 

7. Additional data should be gathered at 5 degrees for low mass impact damage prediction. 

A test set with more velocities for lower (0.022) and mid (0.13) range masses should be 

considered, as well as larger masses (0.4), if that is still a legitimate mass out of latest 

transport analysis. (open)

8. Additional test data should be gathered on RCG and substrate properties for aged tile. 

The tile tested should be more representative of fleet leader tile (~30 flights) to validate 

the assumption that tile aging occurs early in the life of the tile and does not continue to 

degrade properties as a function of age. (in-work)

Conclusions 

Overall, this model does a satisfactory job of predicting key tile damage parameters. In general, 

it is conservative, which is appropriate given the scatter in the data. The model is most heavily 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

39 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

populated with data in the lower mass, lower impact angle regime which will be most useful for 

flight. Completion of RTF recommendations should result in assurance of conservative 

prediction for even the extremes of the range of applicability. Post-RTF recommendations 

would result in additional confidence in model output. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

40 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

6.0 CAVITY HEATING TOOL 

Peer Review Team Members 

Name Affiliation 

Steven G. Labbe NASA JSC, NESC 

E. Vincent Zoby NASA LaRC 

Kathryn Wurster NASA LaRC 

Joseph Olejniczak NASA ARC 

David Kuntz Sandia National Lab 

Function(s) of Tool 

Space Shuttle Orbiter damaged tile regions must be analyzed by aeroheating, thermal, and stress 

groups to determine the effect of damage on safe re-entry. These damaged tile regions can cause 

a change in the nominal Orbiter surface heating profile. Heating profiles in the damage region 

are modeled by assigning a baseline (“undisturbed”) heating value near the damage and applying 

an augmentation factor to the nominal heating value for the affected regions in or near the 

damage. The Cavity Heating Tool (CHT) is used to determine the aeroheating augmentation 

factors needed to support the thermal analysis of damaged tile regions. 

The CHT uses wind tunnel test-measured heating augmentation factors to expand the historical 

2-D turbulent engineering database to include fully laminar 3-D augmentation factors. In 

addition, the CHT provides 3-D turbulent augmentation factors and automated boundary layer 

property prediction capability to determine the properties needed for augmentation factor 

prediction. Historically, a 2-D turbulent cavity heating augmentation factor database has been 

used to support TPS damage analysis. This historical database is generally believed to be 

conservative, especially for the laminar portion of the entry trajectory. To reduce unnecessary 

conservatism, the CHT was developed to provide the Orbiter Project Office (OPO) with more 

realistic augmentation factors in the laminar flow regime. 

The CHT is capable of providing laminar and turbulent cavity heating augmentation factors for 

the Orbiter windward surface throughout a given trajectory. Laminar augmentation factors are 

derived from data obtained during recent wind tunnel testing performed at NASA Langley 

Research Center. Turbulent augmentation factors have been derived from the Reference 

Aeroheating Methodology. The following enhanced CHT capabilities reduces the unnecessary 

conservatism and increases the fidelity of this historical method. 

1. Provides time-dependent augmentation factors instead of applying a single conservative 

(Mach 18) value throughout trajectory. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

41 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

2. Expands the turbulent cavity heating augmentation factor database to include laminar 

factors (laminar factors are generally lower and apply over a significant portion of the reentry trajectory). 

3. Applies more realistic heating distributions outside the cavity (non-linear vs. linear) 

based on wind tunnel test results. 

4. Full integration into the 3-D thermal math model (TMM) allows for reduced analysis 

time requirements, providing more time for the critical decision-making process. 

5. The CHT is applicable for both pre-flight tile damage tolerance assessments and in-flight 

tile damage assessments. 

Assumptions and Limitations (and Uncertainties) 

Several key assumptions were made during the development of the CHT. 

1. Foremost is in the application of wind tunnel test derived augmentation factors as valid 

for flight conditions. The developers are conducting a flight traceability study using CFD 

analysis to show that CHT augmentation factors cover any wind tunnel-to-flight 

increment. 

2. The orientation of the damage site is assumed to be aligned with the local flow field on 

the vehicle surface, and no adjustments are made for crossflow cavities. 

3. The CHT was developed from test data on cavities aligned with the flow. Results from 

limited test data of cavities with crossflow do not, however, indicate any discernable 

trend that the distribution of augmentation factors would be altered. Note that for large 

crossflow angles >15degrees, the heating becomes less severe because effective cavity 

length decreases. (Adjustments are to be included in future versions after additional 

testing has been completed). 

4. It is assumed that an entry and exit angle of 90o is conservative and plays a minor role in 

augmentation factor predictions. This is supported by a limited available wind tunnel 

data for non-90 degree angles (angles of 90, 45, 25, and 6 degrees were tested). Also, the 

CHT was developed from test data on cavities with 1.0 < L/W < 12.5 ratios. Width 

appears to play a minor role, especially for wider cavities. 

5. It is assumed that the derived laminar methodologies can be applied to regions on the 

Orbiter with Me below values tested in the wind tunnel. This is supported by data which 

shows no discernable Me trend for average cavity floor values and maximum heating 

augmentation factors for the non-transitional cavities in the range tested. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

42 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

A few key limitations have been noted in the development of the CHT. 

6. The tool is designed for local cavity augmentation factors – no factors further than one 

cavity length downstream are provided by the CHT. (Note that the additional downstream 

effects are addressed by the BLT Prediction Tool). 

7. The updated CHT wind tunnel test results address only conditions of laminar flow over 

cavities. Turbulent flow over cavities is addressed by the historical method. 

Additionally, the automated results from the CHT are not valid for leeward surface, only 

windward surface application is appropriate. 

8. The CHT cannot be used for breach flows. 

Uncertainty sources that contribute to the CHT overall prediction accuracy have been identified. 

9. The CHT relies on input from the CFD Smooth Baseline Tool to provide boundary layer 

property predictions. These boundary layer properties have uncertainties on the order of 

15 percent. The CHT is based on wind tunnel test data, which includes its own source of 

uncertainty in addition to any for extrapolation to flight conditions. Tile gap effects are 

not included and it is suggested that an uncertainty factor of 20 percent be applied to 

account for these configurations. 

10. Results for wing glove and chine regions (high pressure gradient regions) will not be 

validated before flight. For these high pressure gradient regions, a 50 percent uncertainty 

factor is applied to the augmentation factors. 

Observations 

1. The NESC peer review’s assessment is that the CHT can be used for STS-114 with the 

accepted risk of recognized limitations, some significant, to the application and validity 

of the tool. 

2. The CHT peer review did highlight several primary concerns from an end-to-end 

validation perspective. The first is in regards to Aeroheating data integration into the 

TMM. This should be reviewed and fully understood by the CHT developers, the 

Aerothermal environments engineers, and the TMM users. This finding does not 

specifically affect the validity of the CHT, but is essential to the integrated analysis 

process and must be resolved prior to return-to-flight (RTF). The second is the “50/50 

rule” to establish the cavity geometry. Application of this simplification must be applied 

with caution as it affects the cavity dimensions which has a direct effect on the CHT 

augmentation factors and will be a first order effect in the TMM results. The combined 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

43 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

engineering judgment from aeroheating, thermal, stress and TPS should be involved in 

establishing the cavity dimensions based on this rule. 

Recommendations 

The CHT peer review highlighted nine (9) major findings and has provided specific 

recommendations to address each. Many of these findings address the recognized assumptions, 

limitations, and uncertainty factors addressed in Section 7.0. The following recommendations 

have been developed from this peer review regarding the CHT. 

1. Lack of Validation for Flight Conditions 

There is a concern that the wind tunnel data are being used to predict flight conditions 

without a quantification of the uncertainties inherent in the extrapolation. Specifically, 

the wind tunnel data does not reproduce the real gas non-equilibrium chemistry and the 

ratio of boundary layer edge temperature to wall temperature that occur in flight. 

These real gas and wall temperature effects on the heating bump factors are not addressed 

in the documentation, but the effects need to be assessed. CFD solutions can and should 

be used to understand these effects. A direct comparison should be made by computing 

CFD solutions for a wind tunnel case and the corresponding flight case that the wind 

tunnel data is meant to predict. This process should be performed for a high Mach 

number case which will have the largest real gas effects, and a low Mach number case 

which will have the largest wall temperature effect. The differences between the wind 

tunnel CFD solutions and flight CFD solutions will provide an estimate of the uncertainty 

in the extrapolation process. This extrapolation will be partially addressed by the CFD 

For Cavity Heating: Flight Traceability study. (closed)

2. Cavity Orientation Assumption in Wind Tunnel Data Base 

The new CHT is based on measurements made with the axis of the cavity aligned with 

the local flow direction. Since most cavities are the result of impact damage during 

ascent in which the flow field is significantly different than during re-entry, it is likely 

that some misalignment between the local flow direction and the axis of the damage will 

exist. Additional understanding of the effects of crossflow cavities must be pursued 

before RTF and can be accomplished with data already available. 

A series of 19 wind tunnel runs were made to investigate the effects of this misalignment. 

Some results are presented in the CFD for Cavity Heating Tool Draft Final 

documentation. It is noted that the effect of cavity misalignment is to reduce the effective 

L/H which stabilizes the flow and reduces the resultant increase in heating level. Thus, 

ignoring the misalignment should produce conservative results, in that the computed 

bump factor will be higher than the physical value. Some quantification of this effect is 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

44 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

necessary to prevent overly conservative results which could result in an unnecessary 

repair. (It has been noted that adjustments are to be included in future versions after 

additional testing has been completed). The results of the 19 misaligned runs should be 

used to determine if a simple relationship between flow angle and bump factor reduction 

exists. Since the amount of data for misaligned cavities is relatively limited, 

incorporation of this relationship into the CHT is not recommended. However, this 

information should be developed to aid in the decision-making process which determines 

if repairs to the Space Shuttle tiles are necessary. (closed) 

3. Augmentation Factors for Non-Rectangular Cavities 

The CHT relies on correlations obtained from wind tunnel tests of rectangular cavities 

with 90° entry/exit angles. Photographs of actual Space Shuttle tile damage indicate that 

these cavities are typically irregular in shape with entry and exit angles that are shallower 

than 90°. There is a concern that application of the CHT to these non-rectangular cavities 

typical of actual flight damage may not produce conservative results. Additional 

understanding of the effects of non-rectangular cavities must be pursued before analysis 

can be accomplished with data already available. 

The CHT correlations are based on data obtained in the NASA Langley 20-inch Mach 6 

Air Tunnel for rectangular cavities of varying L/H, Re, Me, and H/δ. In addition to these 

runs, a series of runs were made which included variations in planform, cross-section 

profile, and cavity orientation relative to the local free stream flow direction. The data 

presented within the Cavity Heating Tool Draft Final documentation indicate that for a 

significant number of cases the Cavity Average and End Wall Peak bump factors for the 

non-rectangular cavities can exceed the bump factors for the rectangular cavities by nontrivial amounts. The significance of the increase in the End Wall Peak bump factor may 

not be great, since this would result in enhanced heating only to tile material at the aft end 

of the gouge. However, an increase in the Cavity Average bump factor could 

conceivably result in a significant increase in heating on the floor of the damage site, and 

thus cause excessive temperatures in the vehicle structure. 

It is recommended that these wind tunnel test results be re-evaluated to determine: a) the 

exact nature of the boundary/shear layer in the vicinity of these cavities, and b) a 

relationship between the enhancement in bump factor and the deviation of the geometry 

from the standard rectangular cavity. It is likely that the first time this tool is used, the 

cavity will be significantly non-rectangular, and questions concerning the heating 

enhancements will have to be addressed. (open)
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

45 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

4. Laminar Wind Tunnel Test Data Base 

The new CHT is based on a series of wind tunnel tests conducted in the NASA Langley 

20-inch Mach 6 Air Tunnel for laminar flow over cavities. For conditions in which the 

flow is determined to be transitional or turbulent, based on the results of the BLT Tool, 

the turbulent methodology which was developed early in the Space Shuttle Program 

(SSP) is used. In the Cavity Heating Tool Draft Final documentation, it states that the 

turbulent methodology is “generally conservative”. An example of a case in which the 

turbulent methodology may not be conservative is presented in which, when the test 

results indicate transition from closed cavity laminar correlations to turbulent 

correlations, both the resultant bump factor and the heating rate decrease. 

Some transitional and turbulent cavity cases were obtained in the wind tunnel tests. It is 

recommended that an investigation be conducted in which the turbulent cavity 

methodology is applied to the transitional/turbulent wind tunnel cases to determine the 

extent to which this historical methodology is conservative. (in work)

5. Application to Limited to Windward Side Damage 

The CHT, as developed and implemented, is not directly applicable to the evaluation of 

leeside damage. The CHT team clearly recognizes this limitation and discusses the 

arguments against application of the tool to leeside damage sites. The CHT database has 

been generated based on tests at conditions applicable to wind-side flow. The bulk of the 

tool relies on an assumption of attached laminar flow, whereas the leeside, during the 

high heating phase of the mission, will typically be dominated by turbulent and/or 

separated flow. 

Having accepted these limitations, the CHT team, working with the Aeroheating panel, 

formulated an approach to provide augmentation factors for leeside cavities. The concern 

is that the approach chosen will rely on several assumptions that may in fact be incorrect. 

One, the historical turbulent approach “generally assumed to be conservative” will be 

used. This assumption has yet to be validated by the CHT team using the data in hand. 

Two, the Me number on which this turbulent formulation relies will be computed using 

CFD - based on CFD in a region considered to have relatively low confidence levels. 

These assumptions coupled with engineering judgment will be used to manually provide 

augmentation factors for the thermal analysis for damage sites on the leeside. 

There can be many arguments made that leeside TPS damage is unlikely to prevent a safe 

return of the vehicle. The leeside TPS is generally over designed (i.e., structural 

temperatures are maintained well within the margins) and heating levels are fairly low 

relative to the wind-side and stagnation areas. While this statement is certainly true, an 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

46 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

examination of the sensitivity of the structural margins to various augmentation levels of 

the nominal heating or loss of TPS on the leeside would provide some insight. The BLT 

Tool generally assumes that transition will not wrap around to the leeside if the damage is 

outside the attachment line. There have clearly been cases shown where the transition 

can sweep across the attachment line. The concern is that possible turbulence emanating 

from damage on the wind-side could raise the heating levels in the region of any damage 

on the leeside. 

It is recommended that the CHT, BLT, and TMM teams perform sensitivity studies to 

assess the need for a leeside capability and provide some rationale for the engineering 

judgment that will necessarily be used for leeside damage should it occur. (open) 

6. Tile Gap Effects 

There is a concern that augmenting the local bump factor by a 20 percent uncertainty 

factor to account for tile gap effects on the cavity heating level is not sufficient. 

Historically, an adjustment on the local heating, or tile thickness, was used in regions 

with unfilled gaps to account for a possible impact on structural temperature levels. The 

concern is based on current arcjet experimental data presented in the Cavity Heating Tool 

Draft Final documentation. The cavity heating data are presented for tests with and 

without tile gaps and show 14-48 percent increases in the heating factors due to the 

presence of a tile gap. Convincing arguments were presented concerning the credibility of 

the data and it is believed the low end of this range is more accurate. As a result of the 

questionable data, the CHT team recommended only a 20 percent increase in the bump 

factor for cavities in the presence of tile gaps. 

It is recommended that a properly designed test be conducted after RTF so the tile gap 

effect on cavity heating can be quantified. As the tools mature and the end-to-end 

conservatism are eliminated, the tile gap effect, as established by test, should be 

employed (open). Additionally, verification that that 20 percent uncertainty factor is 

included in the TMM for this configuration is required as part of the overall end-to-end 

validation. (closed) 

7. Pressure Gradient Effects 

There are no data for cavities in regions with pressure gradients. A 50 percent 

uncertainty was arbitrarily added based on engineering judgment to regions with high 

pressure gradients, but there is no rationale given for choosing a value of 50 percent. 

Engineering analysis to support this uncertainty factor was not presented. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

47 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

It is recommended that before RTF, CFD results should be used to determine a value of 

the correction factor and the threshold value of the pressure gradient for which it is 

applicable (open). In the longer term, further analysis, testing, and/or CFD results are 

needed to quantify heating bump factors and uncertainties as functions of pressure 

gradient, body location, and free stream conditions. This objective should be added to 

the planned follow-on development testing to address crossflow and cavity shape effects. 

(open)

It is further recommended that if cavity heating data are needed in a region with a 

pressure gradient during STS-114, that the heating bump factor be determined manually, 

using CFD solutions if at all feasible. (open) 

The following two recommendations address end-to-end validation arising from the CHT peer 

review. 

8. Application of CHT Bump Factors into the TMM 

A great deal of time and discussion during the CHT peer review focused on the correct 

way to apply the bump factor obtained from the CHT to the TMM. As a result of a 

conversation with Boeing/Huntington Beach and previous interactions with the CHT 

development team, the NESC CHT Peer Review team has formed a rough understanding 

as to how the TMM manages the surface energy balance. If this understanding is correct, 

then applying the bump factor to the heating rate, interpolated from four surface 

temperature values, is an acceptable approach. Further investigation is required to 

conclusively address implementation issues regarding exactly how the CHT 

augmentation factors are used in concert with the baseline heating in the TMM. 

It is recommended that an explanation from someone familiar with the TMM explain 

how the TMM solves the surface energy balance and how it uses the bump factors within 

this energy balance be provided. A simple sample solution would also be of great value. 

There is no need to take the process completely from the cavity wind tunnel data through 

the TMM calculations. Starting with a set of bump factors and applying them to the 

heating problem will be more than sufficient. Additionally, this should address the 

application of the catalytic heating factors and verify which emissivity values are being 

used and those that they are consistent throughout the process. This should be provided 

as part of the end-to-end validation exercise. (closed)

9. Reliance on “50/50 Rule” to Establish Cavity Depth 

The cavity modeling team is given the “50/50 Rule” to establish cavity depth in an 

automated fashion. This “rule” appears to be one that has been developed outside the 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

48 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

purview of the CHT, but its application contributes to the geometric definition of the 

cavity, critical to the thermal analysis. There is no documentation of this rule within the 

CHT material and its genesis was unclear to the peer review team. Note: the rule is 

established in the Tile Repair Project Analysis Tools Requirements document. The rule 

appears to effectively “smear” all remaining material on the cavity floor over the entire 

area of the cavity floor. It also appears that the “50/50 rule” may be applied regardless of 

the size of the cavity. For a small cavity, the “50/50 rule” is likely of little or no 

consequence. However, as the cavity size grows there could conceivably be a large area 

of minimally protected structure. It was not clear that there were any bounds associated 

with the “50/50 rule”, beyond which human intervention would be required. Application 

of this simplification must be applied with caution as it affects the cavity dimensions, 

which has a direct effect on the CHT augmentation factors and will be a first order effect 

in the TMM results. 

It is recommended that the “50/50 rule” be utilized as first cut, with an established depth 

(or height of floor material) below which a flag will automatically be set to require 

intervention in the cavity modeling to accommodate this type of situation. Similarly, 

establish a maximum cavity area above which a flag would be set to require intervention. 

All cavity models should be reviewed by the combined engineering team including 

members from the CHT, BLT, TMM, and CATIA modeling teams and compared with 

the actual damage in establishing the cavity dimensions based on this rule. (closed) 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

49 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

7.0 CFD FOR CAVITY HEATING: SMOOTH BASELINE 

Peer Review Team Members 

Name Affiliation 

Steve Labbe NASA JSC, NESC 

Charles Campbell NASA JSC 

E. Vincent Zoby NASA LaRC 

Joseph Olejniczak NASA ARC 

Chris Roy Auburn University 

David Hash NASA ARC 

Graham Candler University of Minnesota 

James Brown NASA ARC 

James Keenan U.S. Army 

Jeff Payne Sandia National Laboratory 

Basil Hassan Sandia National Laboratory 

Richard Thompson NASA LaRC 

Dean Kontinos NASA ARC 

Kevin Bowcutt Boeing-HB 

Richard Gaffney NASA LaRC 

Karl T. Edquiest NASA LaRC 

David Olynick Beyer Law 

Function(s) of Tool 

The Space Shuttle RTF provided a natural extension for application of high-fidelity 

Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) tools, not only to develop a comprehensive laminar, 

aerothermal database for the smooth configuration of the Orbiter, but also to investigate and 

assess the vehicle health effects for various types of TPS damage and proposed on-orbit repair 

strategies. In support of these activities, the establishment of an aerothermal database of laminar, 

real-gas Navier-Stokes CFD solutions that span a range of Orbiter entry flight conditions has 

been completed. The Smooth OML Aerothermal Solution Database (SOASD) is an essential 

resource for nominal (Smooth OML) pressure, heating particularly the boundary layer state 

information. The comprehensive set of aerothermal data provided includes not only surface 

pressures, shear forces, temperatures and heat fluxes, but also other quantities such as the fluid 

dynamic (i.e., edge Mach number) and thermochemical state of the flow at the boundary layer 

edge, and integral boundary layer parameters such as displacement and momentum thickness. 

The latter parameters are of use in determining, in an engineering sense, the onset of transition of 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

50 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

the wall-bounded shear layer from laminar to turbulent. All of these required data are determined 

a posteriori from the computed CFD solutions. 

The high-level inputs for the SOASD tool are the location and geometry of TPS damage or 

repair, and the flight Mach, Reynolds number and angle-of-attack (AOA). The tool then outputs 

the local conditions at each damage/repair site. These include the reference heat flux, 

temperature, pressure, and boundary layer parameters for use by the CHT and the BLT 

prediction tools. The SOASD is to be used pre-flight in support of damage tolerance assessment 

activities, historical data reconstruction (i.e., Platinum dataset activities), and the establishment 

of the 3”/1” imaging requirements verification. For real-time on-orbit mission support, the tool 

is used to assist in an informed damage disposition decision. The SOASD provides direct input 

to CHT and BLT Tools for Damage Assessment Team analyses. Additionally, it is foreseen that 

the CFD Process/Tools can be used to augment data and information available. This last 

application is not currently considered as part of the critical/primary path. 

It should be noted that prior to STS-107, no previous detailed comprehensive CFD aerothermal 

analysis database for Orbiter entry flight conditions existed. The new SOASD represent the best 

efforts (state-of-the-art) calculations of accurate Orbiter entry flow-fields. The CFD analysis 

tools used in the study are the DPLR code from NASA Ames Research Center and the LAURA 

code from NASA Langley Research Center. Both codes represent modern implementations and 

methodologies for application to real-gas Navier-Stokes calculations. The two codes are 

applicable to both viscous, compressible, ideal-gas (tunnel conditions) and real-gas (chemically 

non-equilibrium, high enthalpy – flight condition) flows. 

Damage Assessment Tools Using the CFD Smooth Baseline Database 

This database is a resource directly needed by two primary TPS damage assessment tools that are 

to be used during all future flights in the event of observed damage. The first is the CHT which 

serves as the primary predictor of local heating augmentation within and around any observed 

tile damage. The CHT relies primarily on a large database of wind tunnel cavity heating 

experiments to establish predicted heating for a cavity based on boundary layer parameters 

(boundary layer thickness, Me number and Reynolds number based on momentum thickness). To 

relate a particular damage observed on-orbit to the database of experimentally observed heating, 

boundary layer parameters are used by the CHT to perform the mapping. Thus, essential inputs 

to the CHT are the boundary layer parameters over the tile acreage region of the Orbiter OML as 

a function of the entry trajectory that the SOASD provides. 

The BLT Tool will also be used during future Space Shuttle flights in the event of observed 

Orbiter TPS anomalies. The purpose of the BLT Tool is to predict, for an observed surface 

perturbation, the time during entry when the onset of transition to turbulence occurs as well as 

the extent (area) of the transition. Early transition to turbulence, experienced at sensitive 

locations on the Orbiter, produces extreme heating and may have catastrophic consequences. As 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

51 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

in the case of the CHT, critical inputs to the BLT Tool are the boundary layer parameters as 

functions of entry trajectory and OML location. The SOASD provides this boundary layer 

information – particularly at the higher Mach numbers experienced during nominal peak heating. 

Assumptions and Limitations 

Several key assumptions have been made during the development of the SOASD. 

1. The tool utilizes a set of 15 CFD solutions at points in Reynolds No-Mach space along a 

nominal Orbiter entry trajectory. Additional CFD solutions at off-nominal AOA 

solutions are provided at each trajectory point. It is assumed that this adequately captures 

the required variations necessary for the downstream (CHT & BLT) tools. 

2. The CFD analysis tools utilized are based on the assumption that the flow is laminar, 

continuum mechanics is applicable, and the geometry is very close to that characterized 

in the current Orbiter computer-aided design (CAD) model. 

3. For the application of the results of these calculations, it is assumed that the accuracies 

and uncertainties for boundary layer parameters at flight conditions are consistent with 

quantified accuracies and uncertainties for boundary layer parameters at tunnel conditions 

and heat-rate values at flight conditions. 

4. For modeling efficiency, the entire Orbiter is modeled with the boundary conditions of a 

uniform Reaction-Cured Glass (RCG) surface coated and non-heat conducting surfaces. 

This is assumed adequate to capture acreage wind-side tile parameters of interest. 

5. It is assumed that the grid resolution, numerical models, physics models, and surface 

characterization adequately replicate Orbiter entry conditions. 

Several key limitations have been noted in the development of the SOASD. 

6. The database is intended for tile TPS application and the products from the database will 

only be used to determine aero, aerothermal and boundary layer parameters for smooth 

OML wind-side RCG tile acreage regions. 

7. The SOASD is specifically not to be used for locations on or very near the WLEs, the 

nose cone or the leeside. 

8. As noted in the assumptions, the products from the database are only applicable for the 

Orbiter under laminar flow conditions. 

9. The products from the database will only be used for the Orbiter under conditions in 

which the flight parameters match those represented along the nominal entry corridor 

covered by the Reynolds Number – Mach, AOA space captured in the computations. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

52 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

10. The products from the database must be used with the full understanding and acceptance 

of the quoted parameter based uncertainties. In particular, flight boundary layer 

quantities, such as the boundary layer thickness, will be used with the accepted risk of the 

lack of substantial validation of defensible uncertainties (i.e., no direct comparison of 

boundary layer thickness measurements – flight or ground test – and SOASD predictions 

are available). 

Several uncertainty sources contribute to the overall prediction accuracy contained in the 

SOASD. 

11. CFD analysis solutions rely on proper grid resolution and quality as well as proper 

physical and numerical modeling. The calculations provided in the SOASD have been 

assessed for these uncertainty levels and documented. The accuracy and validation of the 

tool have been established by comparison of predictions of boundary layer properties at 

wind tunnel conditions. Traceability to flight is accomplished by comparison of flight 

heating rate data with the CFD analysis predictions. These form the basis for the 

validation of the SOASD predictions of boundary layer properties at flight conditions. 

12. The flight data and tunnel experimental data both include uncertainties which are not 

accounted for in the comparisons. 

13. The lack of high enthalpy boundary layer experimental data for direct comparisons 

requires the acceptance of an unquantified uncertainty in the flight predictions. 

Observations 

1. An independent Peer Review Panel was established by the tool developers and 

augmented with NESC designees. The group was chartered to assess the SOASD tool 

readiness for supporting STS-114 RTF. The peer review team’s assessment is that the 

SOASD can be used to support STS-114 for damaged TPS assessment with the accepted 

risk of recognized limitations to the application and validity of the tool. The major 

findings of the peer review team have been reported to the OPO. The NESC reviewers 

concur with these findings. 

2. These major observations can be summarized in two primary findings. The first is in 

regards to the flight boundary layer thickness predictions. As noted previously, 

validation of the accuracy of boundary layer thickness predictions at flight conditions is 

based on comparisons at wind tunnel conditions and comparison of flight heat rate 

values. Therefore, the predicted boundary layer thickness at flight conditions in the 

SOADB does not have direct quantitative support for validation. Comparisons with 

flight data for heating rate and pressures are considered very good and suggest that the 

BLT predictions are relatively accurate for the regions of SOASDB applicability. 

Confirming the validity of this assumption is remaining open work. The NESC supports 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

53 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

the pursuit of experimental boundary layer data at high-enthalpy, flight-like conditions, to 

improve validation rigor. 

3. The initial report did not adequately address comprehensive uncertainty quantification 

and did not give adequate treatment to the separation of uncertainty contributors 

including: numerical, physical model, geometric, post processing, experimental 

(instrumentation) and inherent system uncertainty. It was recommended that the report 

should also document uncertainty bias and maximum deviation. This has been addressed 

in an updated version of the documentation. 

Recommendations 

The SOASD Peer Review highlighted a couple of major findings and has provided specific 

recommendations to address each. Many of these findings address the recognized assumptions, 

limitations and uncertainty factors noted above. The following recommendations have been 

developed from this peer review regarding the SOASD. 

1. Flight Boundary Layer Thickness 

The boundary layer thickness accuracies and uncertainties at flight conditions in the 

SOASD are reliably correlated to accuracies and uncertainties of heating at flight 

conditions and boundary layer thicknesses at tunnel conditions. Validating the accuracy 

of boundary layer thickness predictions at flight conditions, based solely on these 

comparisons, is not well supported. As a result, the predicted boundary layer thickness at 

flight conditions presented in the CFD for Cavity Heating Tool Draft Final 

documentation does not have a quantitative support for validation and represents a 

significant assumption for the tool. It was recommended that further assessment of the 

validity of this assumption should occur as follow-on work that examines the relationship 

between δ, Re, Me, Te, Tw, Pr and γ through unit CFD tests for flat plates with and 

without high enthalpy. This should also be for the unit CFD tests for the Orbiter 

configuration at flight conditions to quantify the sensitivities of the solutions to various 

parameters (in work). 

However, it is anticipated that hard validation of the boundary layer thickness at flight 

conditions will not be possible without high enthalpy experimental data. Therefore, it is 

also recommended that the possibility of obtaining high quality experimental validation 

data from a ground test facility for high enthalpy boundary layer thickness predictions be 

studied. If an experimental test proves feasible (i.e., considering resource and time 

constraints), such tests should be performed to survey the boundary layer thickness at 

high enthalpy conditions. It should be noted that the need for this data was recognized by 

the OPO, which requested that a delta-funding requirement and test strategy be submitted 

for consideration. (in work)
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

54 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

2. Comprehensive Uncertainty Quantification 

The CFD for Cavity Heating Tool Draft documentation did not adequately address 

comprehensive uncertainty quantification. The report did not give adequate treatment to 

the separation of uncertainty contributors including: numerical uncertainty (i.e., 

truncation error or mesh resolution, scheme accuracy, and convergence accuracy), 

physical model uncertainty (i.e., chemistry models, real-gas transport models, surface 

properties), geometric uncertainty (i.e., geometry accuracy), post processing uncertainty 

(i.e., calculation of the boundary layer edge location), experimental or instrumentation 

uncertainty, and inherent system uncertainty. It was recommended that the report address 

the above parameters and document uncertainty bias and maximum deviation in addition 

to the standard deviation. Much of this work has been completed and included in the 

updated documentation provided to the peer review team. (closed) 

3. Clear Assumptions, Objectives and Limitations 

Greater clarity on the assumptions should be made. The objectives/purpose of the 

database and the limitation/restrictions of the database should be included in the 

documentation. This has been completed and included in updated documentation 

provided to the peer review team. (closed)

4. Other Issues, etc. 

One reviewer noted confusion on the methodology for calculating the boundary layer 

edge. Additional descriptions shall be added to clarify the methodology. It is noted that 

the BLAYER utility calculates along gridlines and not an interpolated normal axis. An 

attempt will be made to calculate the orthogonality of these lines. (closed) 

Instrumentation uncertainty is not quantified in the boundary layer report and thus cannot 

be properly addressed. However, more discussion on this topic should be added. The 

added discussion should address the issue of why different methods were tried for the 

computation of tunnel free stream conditions. (in work) 

Discussion needs to be added that describes the differences between the LAURA and 

DPLR implementation of the physical models, and how it is an exercise for a future study 

to try and get the physical models precisely the same between the two codes. The 

chemical non-equilibrium portions of the two codes contain enormously complicated and 

extensive models to account for the non-ideal gas effects. Ensuring that these are done 

precisely the same in both codes would take a very long time. Also, the numerical 

dissipation schemes for the two codes are quite different making exact code verification 

studies impossible. (closed) 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

55 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

8.0 CFD FOR CAVITY HEATING: FLIGHT TRACEABILITY 

Peer Review Team Members 

Name Affiliation 

Steve Labbe NASA JSC, NESC 

Charles Campbell NASA JSC 

E. Vincent Zoby NASA LaRC 

Joseph Olejniczak NASA ARC 

Chris Roy Auburn University 

Graham Candler University of Minnesota 

James Brown NASA ARC 

James Keenan U.S. Army 

Jeff Payne Sandia National Lab 

Dean Kontinos NASA ARC 

Richard Gaffney NASA LaRC 

Function(s) of Tool 

At the time of the NESC peer review, the CFD for Cavity Heating: Flight Traceability analysis is 

intended as a supporting study for the tile CHT. The CHT serves as the primary predictor of 

local heating augmentation that occurs within and around any encountered tile damage. The 

heating augmentation products of the tile CHT, in turn, feed the tile thermal and structural 

assessment tools to analyze the impacts of any change in heating on the health of the Orbiter TPS 

and structure. A noteworthy aspect of the CHT implementation is that the derived laminar flow 

cavity heating bump factors it provides are based entirely on low-enthalpy, ideal-gas, and wind 

tunnel experiments. The mapping of this experimental database of cavity heating results is 

performed via the CHT by directly relating boundary layer parameters at tunnel conditions to 

those at flight. An obvious concern is that heating bump factors, at high-enthalpy real-gas flight 

conditions, will not correlate to boundary layer parameters in the identical manner they do at 

tunnel conditions. The implication is that the heating bump factors predicted by the CHT might 

prove to be a poor estimate of the actual heating to the damaged tile. These flight traceability 

results are not intended to form a basis for determining the heating bump factors for a given 

cavity damage assessment on-orbit. Instead, this CFD based study is simply a supporting effort, 

providing greater insight for the correlation of heating bump factors occurring at flight 

conditions. 

Under the current study, CFD solutions for idealized tile cavities are computed at both wind 

tunnel and flight conditions to understand the cavity heating bump factor relationships between 

the two. The study considers only laminar flows on rectangular cavities that are aligned with the 

flow. At present, the CHT (version 2) also idealizes all cavities as rectangular. Again, the 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

56 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

objective of the study is not to develop a comprehensive local heating CFD prediction database 

for Orbiter tile cavities, but to develop supporting evidence for the relationship between tunnel 

heating bump factors and flight heating bump factors for equivalent tile cavities. 

Assumptions and Limitations 

Several key assumptions should be noted when interpreting the results of this study. 

1. It is assumed that the CFD methods used in this study are able to quantitatively assess 

detailed local heat-flux differences related to idealized cavity geometries. 

2. These differences are reported as heating bump factors both at tunnel and flight 

conditions which are computed on the basis of the ratio of (local heat-flux) / (reference 

heat-flux). Note: Heating bump factors use a ratio of direct radiation equilibrium heatfluxes and not a ratio of heat transfer coefficients.

3. At wind tunnel conditions, the CFD solutions are computed using iso-thermal walls. 

4. At flight conditions, CFD solutions are computed using non-conducting, RCG catalytic, 

radiation equilibrium boundary conditions, with emissivity set at 0.89. It should be noted 

that these are not the correct conditions for exposed cavity surfaces. However, proper 

treatment would require extensive coupling between the thermal math, and the tile 

thermal and the CFD models, which are currently unavailable.

Several key limitations of the study are as follows: 

1. This is only a study, and the CFD tools do not represent a certified capability for on-orbit 

in flight application. 

2. Results from the study should only be used for feedback to the CHT and process. 

3. Only flows aligned with rectangular cavities were examined. 

4. The observed findings for pressure gradients are not currently confirmed with any 

experimental data. 

Major uncertainty contributors to this study involve the following: 

1. The calculated boundary layer thickness and surface heating at tunnel and flight 

conditions from the CFD have inherent uncertainty (reference Section 7.0, CFD for 

Cavity Heating: Smooth Baseline). 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

57 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

2. Interactions between emissivity, catalysis, radiation and conduction on cavity heating 

levels, especially at flight conditions, are complicated coupled physics that are not 

entirely captured by the CFD study assumptions. 

3. Cavity geometries are modeled with sharp edges in CFD calculations. 

4. CFD results are for steady-state converged solutions. Any inherent unsteadiness is not 

properly modeled or captured. 

Observations 

An independent Peer Review Panel was established by the tool developers and augmented with 

NESC designees. The group was chartered to assess the Flight Traceability study results for 

supporting STS-114 RTF. The peer review team’s observation is that, overall, the level of effort 

put forth by the NASA External Aerothermal Analysis Team is appropriate for the role that CFD 

is playing in assessing the Orbiter CHT. A concern central to the present study is "whether the 

heating bump factors evaluated at cold tunnel conditions translate to equivalent bump factors at 

flight conditions". 

As previously noted, the CHT uses boundary layer parameters (δ, θ, Me and Re) and tile cavity 

relative dimensions (H/δ, L/δ, and W/δ) to determine correlations for heating bump factors. By 

using the boundary layer parameters and relative dimensions, flight-observed damage is mapped 

to equivalent tunnel cavity cases to determine local heating bump factors. The wind tunnel 

results support the idea of dividing the laminar portion of the database of experimental solutions 

into three families based on the boundary and relative dimensions. These are classified as 

Shallow, Everhart and Closed cavities. For each of the three families, separate estimates of the 

local cavity heating bump factors were developed and implemented in the CHT, based strictly on 

the wind tunnel data. The CFD Flight Traceability study provided assessments for each of the 

three families as well as cavities located in regions of pressure gradients and/or streamline 

curvature. The primary findings and observations of the study are summarized below: 

1. In general, the flight CFD solutions for all cavity types show regions in the cavity with 

significant increase in bump factor when compared to equivalent tunnel CFD solutions. 

Accepting assumptions, this increase between tunnel and flight is the most significant finding 

for this preliminary CFD study. 

2. For Shallow cavities and Everhart cavities, recommended cavity heating maps are presented 

attempting to bound the observed flight increases. Note: For Shallow cavities, the bounding 

values are less than the CHT BF=1.0 on the cavity floor. For Everhart cavities, the bounding 

values exceed the CHT BF=0.62 over the last 25 percent of the cavity floor. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

58 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

3. For Closed cavities, the CFD study has not provided enough cases to provide recommended 

Hybrid Bloom Filter (HBF) maps. However, very significant bump factor heating increases 

are observed in flight compared to tunnel for closed cavities. 

4. A very limited set of CFD solutions for streamwise and spanwise pressure gradients indicate 

that while streamwise pressure gradients alone do not significantly alter either the peak or 

averaged bump factors, spanwise pressure gradients can produce significant increases in peak 

bump factor values, but do not alter average values. 

5. The current study should be considered as a preliminary look at cavity heating traceability. 

The heat flux based bump factors predicted at flight must be studied using an integrated 

approach including downstream tools. 

6. A very significant short coming for the validation of current cavity heating CFD estimates is 

the lack of high resolution, high quality experimental data for cavity heating. 

The peer review team found that the conclusions were well supported and that the 

recommendations for future work address the identified limitations of the current work. As 

noted, the main significant finding from this study is that the CFD analysis results show that for 

all cavity types, there exist regions in the cavity with significant increases in bump factor when 

compared to equivalent tunnel CFD solutions. Extending this finding to the wind tunnel-based 

CHT, could result in the finding that the CHT under predicts the actual heating observed in an 

Orbiter tile cavity damage scenario. However, at this point, the CFD of the experimental 

configurations while providing increased fidelity remain un-validated, with no experimental data 

presented along with the CFD for the wind tunnel cases. 

The initial data package included no validation by comparison with benchmark quality 

experiments of either the codes DPLR or LAURA CFD tools for hypersonic cavity heating. 

(Note, that a single preliminary comparison with archived experimental data using the DPLR 

code was generated during the review period and did show excellent agreement between the 

analysis and test results). It should be noted that the code (LAURA) to code (DPLR) 

comparisons are a means of verification and not validation. Similar solutions do not necessarily 

indicate a low uncertainty, due to the different physical modeling in the codes. However, these 

comparisons do help to verify that the coding of the two physical models do not contain 

significant errors. To substantiate the accuracy of the physical models, a comparison with 

experimental data is required. This is lacking in the current study. The comparisons of CFD 

results with the analytic CHT method are in the gray area between validation and verification. 

As for validation of the CFD analysis method, further effort is required before direct application 

to on-orbit damage assessments can be considered. The CFD tools can provide insight into trends 

and physics with fully 3-D solutions and using parametric studies. However, these studies must 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

59 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

be grounded with experimental data before the validity of the conclusions drawn from the trends 

can be established. 

The CHT uses boundary layer thickness as the input normalization length scale primarily as a 

selection of which model to use: "Shallow", "Everhart" or "Closed" cavity heating model. With 

a free-stream at the edge of a boundary layer, subject to both vertical and pressure gradient 

effects and complicated with real-gas effects, finding the edge of the boundary layer from 3-D 

flight Navier-Stokes calculations can be problematical. The flow conditions most relevant to the 

cavity are those affecting the separating streamline coming off the lip of the front wall of the 

cavity. The most appropriate conditions affecting this streamline likely are due to the inner 

boundary layer than for the boundary layer edge. Thus, either displacement thickness or 

momentum thickness may prove to be a better length scale to delineate the different cavity 

heating models as conditions vary from wind tunnel to flight. Noting that the experiments are all 

for cavities in a flat-plate without these complicating effects, the determination of which 

boundary layer thickness parameter that best extends flat-plate cavity experience to flight 

conditions may yet be unresolved. 

Lastly, one very important preliminary conclusion of the Flight Traceability study is that the 

CHT model for “Closed” cavities under predicts heating for at least some flight conditions. 

Minor damage will typically be of the “Shallow” or “Everhart” cavities, but the worst damage 

will be of “Closed” type. The number of flight conditions where “Closed” cavities were looked 

at with both the CHT and CFD is relatively small. This needs to be expanded to establish the 

extent by which this possible under prediction by the CHT would affect the integrated heat load. 

Recommendations 

1. Develop experimental tests to provide good validation data for low-enthalpy tunnel condition 

cavities: heating values, surface sheer stresses, oil flows and other diagnostics of detailed 

local physical phenomenon. It is recommended that additional experiments be performed to 

provide adequate validation data for both the CHT and CFD heating tools. These experiments 

should be designed in collaboration with CFD and CHT analysts to ensure they provide the 

proper type of information needed for model validation. (in work)

2. Explore the feasibility of obtaining quantitative test data for local laminar cavity heating at 

high enthalpy conditions. Note: Extension of Recommendation 1 in Section 7.0. (in work)

3. Follow-on work is needed to understand the sensitivities for the integration of CFD 

computed heating bump factors with downstream tools: Heat transfer coefficient basis, 

TMM, Emissivity, Catalysis, Radiation exchange, and Conduction. Note: This analysis was 

initially addressed as part of the end-to-end process. (in work)
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

60 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

4. It is recommended that the proposed CFD bump factor maps be tested through the tile 

thermal and structural tools to examine if differences between the CHT and the CFD values 

yield significant changes in the results. (open)

5. Perform a greater number of flight solutions for Closed cavities and those encountering 

significant pressure gradients to more fully evaluate the preliminary results of this study. 

(open)

6. The following expansions of the Flight Traceability study should be considered within the 

priorities of the Aerothermal team’s activities: (in work)

a. Perform a more comprehensive validation of CFD’s predictive ability for local cavity 

heating at both low and high enthalpy conditions. 

b. Perform a CFD study of tile cavity edge radii to understand the relationship of heating 

spikes to edge radii. 

c. Perform an independent CFD parameter study for H/delta, L/delta, L/W, and other 

parameters such as Medge, Re-theta, etc. (The current study only matched wind tunnel 

parameter settings and did not provide comprehensive coverage).

d. Examine the dependence of heating bump factors on the entrance and exit angles. 

e. Examine of the dependence of heating bump factors on the orientation to the flow of 

various types of cavities. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

61 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

9.0 CATALYTIC HEATING TOOL: DAMAGED 

Peer Review Team Members 

Name Affiliation 

Steve Labbe NASA JSC, NESC 

E. Vincent Zoby NASA LaRC 

Carl Scott NASA JSC 

Joseph Olejniczak NASA ARC 

Function(s) of the Tool 

1. For the hyper velocity entry of the Orbiter, the KE of the air molecules processed by the 

Orbiter bow shock relaxes into other energy modes, such as chemical and thermal energy. 

The high temperatures associated with this conversion of KE into chemical and thermal 

energy cause the air molecules to dissociate into their constituent atoms absorbing large 

amounts of the total available energy. When these atoms recombine into stable molecules 

at the surface of the vehicle, due to catalytic effects, the latent dissociation energy is 

released producing increased heating levels to the TPS. 

2. Different TPS surface materials can have different surface catalytic properties and can 

modify the rate at which these catalytic reactions take place. For example, because of 

increased surface catalycity, the surface heat rate will be correspondingly increased. The 

Catalytic Heating Tool (CHFT) provides these augmentation factors as enthalpydependent laminar heating augmentation factors for the damaged TPS Bare Tile and RCC 

substrate as well as the proposed TPS repair materials. Specifically, these are catalytic 

augmentation factors for uncoated tiles (LI-900, LI-2200, and FRCI-12), tile repair 

materials (emissivity wash and STA-54), damaged reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC) 

substrate, and RCC repair materials (NOAX – RCC Crack repair material, MCM-700 

coated CSiC – RCC Plug repair material). The CHFT is used both for pre-flight damage 

tolerance and in-flight damage/repair assessments. 

3. The catalytic heating augmentation factors defined are applied as follows: 

 

Final Local Heating = Catalytic Heating Augmentation Factor* Baseline Heating 

The development of these catalytic heating factors is based on arcjet test data from 

NASA ARC and JSC facilities. The basic approach was to determine maximum 

augmentation factors relative to heating for healthy (undamaged) coated tile and RCC. 

Damaged, uncoated RCC catalytic heating factors were developed using analyses that are 

validated by tile Orbiter Experiment Support System (OEX) flight data (STS-2, 3 and 5), 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

62 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

and then verified by limited RCC arcjet data. The variation of factors with flight 

conditions was based on the OEX flight measurements on tiles that were coated with a 

highly catalytic material. 

4. Several enhancements are provided by the CHFT. Previously, catalytic heating data for 

damaged, bare tiles were not available and the heating was assumed to be the same as the 

heating on healthy RCG-coated tiles. Data are now available to support this assumption. 

Additionally, analytical tools and limited test data are now available to quantify catalytic 

heating to damaged, uncoated RCC and some candidate RCC repair materials. However, 

data for the tile repair material, STA-54, does not yet exist (testing is planned). 

5. Other factors that can affect the heating, such as damage geometry, are accounted for in 

other tools. The catalytic heating augmentation factor applies to the change in heat flux 

due to the change in catalytic recombination rates of the oxygen and nitrogen. Since the 

nominal (undamaged) material on the tile surfaces of the Orbiter is RCG, the black 

coating on the windward TPS tiles, the catalytic heating factor of other TPS, and TPS 

repair materials are given as a ratio to the RCG heat rate. 

Assumptions and Limitations (and Uncertainties) 

Several key assumptions were made during the development of the CHFT. 

1. Foremost among these is that the arcjet data bound (place an upper limit on) the catalytic 

heating effect, and that the resulting heating factors can be scaled to flight. This flight 

extrapolation depends on assuming that the variation with total enthalpy of the catalytic 

heating factor is the same as that derived from the catalytic tile effects flight experiments 

on the OEX flights (STS-2, 3, and 5). In deriving the catalytic heating factors, an 

assumption regarding emissivity is required to adjust the radiative heating in the energy 

balance. 

2. This assumption has a direct effect on the catalytic results. For the CHFT development, 

the nominal emissivity values were used by the Thermal Group in this data analysis. 

3. There is limited available arcjet data to use as the basis for some catalytic heating factors 

(Bare LI-900: Two test points – 1600 F & 1800 F on RCG; Bare FRCI-12 and LI-2200: 

Two test points – 2000 F and 2300 F on RCG; Emittance Wash: Four test points – 1600, 

1800, 2000 and 2300 F on RCG). 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

63 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

A few key limitations have been noted in the development of the CHFT for windward surface 

tiles, RCC surfaces, and other materials tested. 

1. The CHFT provides enthalpy-dependent heating augmentation factors for damage and 

repair materials for the laminar portion of the flight trajectory. 

2. Turbulent factors are ignored. 

3. The CHFT results are simplistic; and bounding heating factors are based on limited test 

data. As such, they should be considered as preliminary. 

Sources of uncertainty that contribute to the CHFT overall prediction accuracy have been 

identified. 

4. As stated, the catalytic heating factors were developed by bounding available data. 

Additionally, any uncertainty in emittance values directly affects the analysis of arcjet 

test data and values derived from these data. 

5. Emittance is typically difficult to determine, even to define. It directly affects the 

uncertainties in catalycity. Most importantly, the end-to-end analysis must use the same 

emittance for flight predictions. For bare tiles, the emittance can be particularly difficult 

to define. Bare tiles are volume emitters; therefore, radiation comes from inside as well 

as from the tile surface. However, the tiles are modeled with surface emittance only. 

The effect of neglecting the volume emittance of the tiles has not been quantified. 

Observations 

1. The NESC peer review team’s assessment is that the CHFT (augmentation factor 

approach) can be used on STS-114 for damaged TPS with the accepted risk of recognized 

limitations, some significant, to the application and validity of the tool. 

2. Catalytic factors for damaged TPS (bare tile and RCC substrate) are based on the limited 

available testing. However, the analysis is acceptable for application on STS-114. The 

TPS bare tile assumptions and results appear reasonable and bounding. The 

bare/damaged RCC substrate also appears bounding. It should be noted that catalysis of 

reacting surfaces, i.e., bare RCC, may be a misnomer and referring to this as fully 

catalytic heating might be an invalid concept. 

3. It is more accurate to call this "augmented heating" since the process includes oxidation, 

combustion, mass injection, catalysis, etc., that occurs with "bare RCC". 

4. The catalytic factors for TPS repair (STA-54, RCC crack & plug, emittance wash) are 

based on limited and incomplete arcjet test data. The tile emittance wash and RCC crack 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

64 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

repair catalytic factors are based on limited available arcjet test data and are reasonable 

and bounding. The analysis is acceptable for application on STS-114. 

5. For the tile repair material, STA-54, a good catalytic factor based on engineering data is 

not available. This is further compounded by the lack of thermal property data. 

Therefore, no credible uncertainty analysis exists and the use of the present CHFT factors 

is suspect. 

6. For the RCC plug repair material, an average catalytic factor based on arcjet test data 

does not address the split line effects (boundary between plug and RCC), which could 

result in local increased heating. This potential increase in heating at the split line 

requires further assessment. 

7. The nominal emittance assumption is a significant limitation to establishing the catalytic 

factors. Emittance is a major parameter in the energy balance equation that is used to 

estimate the catalytic factor. The lack of accurate emittance data will drive catalytic 

factor uncertainties. The determination and use of emittance is one of the critical end-toend analysis validation topics that must be addressed. 

Recommendations 

The CHFT peer review has highlighted several major findings and has provided specific 

recommendations to address each. Many of these findings address the recognized assumptions, 

limitations, and uncertainty factors noted above. The following recommendations have been 

developed from this peer review regarding the CHFT. 

1. Future Enhancements 

Recommendations for continuing development of the CHFT were presented at the OCCB 

and recognized by the OPO, which requested that a delta-funding requirement be 

submitted for consideration. The NESC concurs with this course of action. 

Enhancements to consider should include replacing bounding factors with an engineering 

method of modeling catalytic heating as a function of surface temperature and of reentry-gas energy-state. The characterization of STA-54 in arcjet tests should be 

completed. The catalycity and emittance of RCC repair materials should be measured. 

The emittance assumptions for other materials must be reviewed and updated as required. 

(in work)

2. Emittance 

The development of the CHFT revealed that a major uncertainty in the catalytic heating 

effects stems from uncertainty in the emittance of the materials. Any uncertainty in 

emittance values directly affect the analysis of arcjet test data and values derived from 

these data. Emittance is typically difficult to determine. For bare tile, emittance can be 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

65 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

particularly difficult to define. Bare tiles are translucent; therefore, radiation comes from 

inside as well as from surface of tile. Most importantly, the end-to-end analysis must use 

the same emittance for flight predictions. It is recommended that the emittance values 

used throughout the analysis by the CHFT, the TPS TMM, and other associated models 

be verified as the same values (closed). Additionally, it is recommended that additional 

test and analyses be conducted to improve confidence in emittance values for uncoated 

tiles. (open) 

3. Split Line Effects 

The magnitude of the heating increase at the split line between coated RCC and the repair 

plug, and the resulting effect from the thermal analysis needs to be addressed. (Actually, 

the increase in heating at material split lines is a problem to some degree for most of the 

materials with different catalycity covered in the CHFT). However, the critical nature of 

the plug performance installed in the RCC is of primary concern. For the RCC plug 

repair material, an average catalytic factor based on arcjet test data does not address these 

split line effects (boundary between plug and RCC), which could result in local increased 

effects. Prior to utilization of on-orbit repair materials for RCC, this potential increase in 

heating at the split line requires further assessment, including the estimates of the stated 

average catalytic factor. (open)

4. Bare RCC Catalysis 

Catalysis of reacting surfaces, i.e., bare RCC, may be a misnomer and referring to this as 

fully catalytic heating might be an invalid concept. The RCC substrate surface oxidizes, 

rather than promotes recombination of oxygen atoms. Surface reactions with nitrogen 

atoms are not addressed; and they are assumed essentially to be fully catalytic. As 

previously noted, it is more accurate to call this "augmented heating" since the process is 

essentially a coupling of gas physics and surface (bare RCC) physics phenomena. Two 

offsetting factors led the analysts to recommend assuming fully catalytic heating on bare 

RCC. Bare RCC oxidizes at entry conditions leading to increased heating due to the 

addition of heat of combustion. However, ablation or erosion of the surface tends to 

reduce the heating by blowing effects. A catalytic heating factor cannot rigorously 

consider these opposing effects, particularly since the factor includes an effect of 

discontinuous surface catalysis. However, due to the overall uncertainties, this 

approximation seems reasonable. It is recommended that this phenomenon be considered 

for further investigation by measuring the heat flux to bare RCC in pure nitrogen, as well 

as an inert gas (argon) to discriminate between catalytic reactions from other reactions on 

the surface, and thus to identify actual catalytic heating factors. (open) 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

66 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

10.0 BOUNDARY LAYER TRANSITION (BLT) PREDICTION TOOL 

Peer Review Team Members 

Name Affiliation 

Steve Labbe NASA JSC, NESC 

Joe Haney The Boeing Company 

Sun Hong The Boeing Company 

Roger Kimmel Air Force Research Laboratory 

David Kuntz Sandia National Laboratories 

Anthony Martellucci Science Application International Corporation 

John Schmisseur Air Force Research Laboratory 

E. Vincent Zoby NASA LaRC 

Kathryn Wurster NASA LaRC 

Function(s) of Tool 

BLT from laminar to turbulent flow conditions results in a marked increase in surface heating to 

the Orbiter during re-entry flight. Damage from ascent debris impacts could result in conditions 

that promote early or asymmetric transition. The objective of the BLT Prediction Tool is to 

predict BLT time during re-entry based on damage and/or TPS repair information. High level 

inputs required to make the BLT time assessment include up-to-date trajectory information, 

detailed and accurate dimensions of the critical damage sites, and any repair concepts that are 

available. The BLT Prediction Tool provides a transition time or corresponding Mach number 

for output. 

The BLT Prediction Tool can be used prior to entry to provide a prediction of transition onset, 

based on updated BLT correlation results, using flight trajectory and OML damage/repair 

information as inputs. The results of the BLT predictions are then used in the process to assist 

the disposition decisions regarding which damage sites require further assessment. (i.e., a 

damage site downstream of a more forward damage site could be flagged for further assessment, 

if BLT predictions indicate the forward damage site would promote transition to turbulent flow). 

The BLT Prediction Tool approach is based on a Fortran program that includes a database of 

computed boundary layer parameters that cover a range of nominal trajectories for entry and 

utilizes an interpolation tool to extract specific local properties used to predict the boundary layer 

state during the mission trajectory. The interpolation tool accesses a database of boundary layer 

conditions based on analytical flow field predictions. Currently, a BLT threshold of no earlier 

than Mach 18 is assumed, along with a higher uncertainty for the initial flights. This will be 

assumed until new detailed information can be obtained to further refine the use of ground-based 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

67 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

methodology for flight above this historical observed limit for early Orbiter BLT. Overall the 

tendency of the BLT is conservative in that BLT is set at the earliest of the three allowable times. 

Assumptions and Limitations 

A peer review was conducted at NASA Langley on March 8th and 9th 2005 with the objective of 

reviewing the development of predictive tools to support disposition of the TPS damage and 

repair, and to provide comments as to the applicability of those tools to support STS-114. The 

peer review team was presented with an overview of the RTF perspectives and requirements of 

the BLT task along with a review of the recent mission simulation results. A review of the 

databases associated with prediction of the Orbiter flow field attachment line determination was 

conducted. Additionally, a review was conducted of the data on protuberances, cavities, and 

ablation (associated with a tile patch repair) the BLT team was using to establish new prediction 

techniques. Correlation results were provided for protuberances and cavities as well as flight data 

and comparisons using the prediction tools. 

Based on this review, the following assumptions and limitations were noted: 

1. Based on historical flight observations, a BLT threshold of no earlier than Mach 18 is 

assumed. 

2. The cavity prediction technique assumes that the protuberance correlation approach is 

applicable to cavity-based transition. It is also based on limited ground test data with an 

even more limited set of Space Shuttle Orbiter flight data to compare against. 

3. Attempting to have the cavity technique in a form similar to the protuberance correlation 

approach may not be the best correlation approach for cavities. 

4. The ablation technique has significant weaknesses in that it has not yet reached the stage 

of actually being a prediction technique or correlation. However, based on the 

information presented, it is not clear that the levels of ablation out-gassing that would 

occur during re-entry from a potential tile repair, and their axial location were properly 

simulated in the limited ground test that was conducted. The correlation parameters were 

viewed as not adequate and recommendations were made on a better approach. 

Observations 

1. The peer review team recognizes that a tremendous amount of effort has been dedicated 

by the NASA team regarding the effects of TPS damage on BLT and the attempts to 

correlate newly acquired wind tunnel test data in support of RTF schedules. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

68 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

2. Based on the information presented to the team, it was determined that there were not any 

tools that were significantly deficient to the effect that they could not be used to support 

STS-114. However, it was also determined that the tools were not acceptable to be used 

for STS-114 exactly as presented; nor were the tools considered to be at an end state 

requiring no further development to support future flights. Recommendations were made 

to address these deficiencies in time for STS-114. 

3. The team observed the protuberance prediction technique had been developed further 

than either the cavity or ablator prediction techniques. However, each wind tunnel test 

provided data with different correlation levels. 

4. Regarding use on STS-114, the protuberance prediction correlation needs to incorporate a 

limited set of Space Shuttle Orbiter flight data to augment the ground-based prediction 

correlation. 

5. The computational techniques and engineering codes were considered to have acceptable 

uncertainties to support RTF. Continued improvement and incorporation of higher order 

physics results or correlations into the engineering codes are encouraged. 

6. The cavity prediction technique has significant weaknesses. Attempting to have the 

cavity technique in a form similar to the protuberance correlation approach may not be 

the best correlation approach for cavities. 

7. For the cavity prediction technique, the Reθ/Me versus D/δ (where D is the damage depth) 

may not be best considered the primary prediction technique and modifications should be 

performed. 

8. The ablation technique has significant weaknesses in that it has not yet reached the stage 

of actually being a prediction technique or correlation. The data should be evaluated 

using a more appropriate correlation technique. 

9. Test data for developing the correlations was not gathered at AOA greater than 40 

degrees. 

10. Testing roughness on small models (0.75 percent scale) may have limitations and larger 

model testing may be required for further development. 

Recommendations 

The peer review team found that the level of maturity on the different approaches varies and that 

the correlation approaches should be updated, to a limited extent, to support STS-114. Continued 

development efforts are recommended for the BLT prediction tools, particularly with respect to 

the cavity and surface blowing transition prediction capabilities. The following recommendations 

were developed from the results of the review. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

69 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

1. Roughness Requirements 

The various step and gap requirements used on the Orbiter and the associated equivalent 

roughness values were explained along with the values associated with transition at Mach 

14 and Mach 18. It was unclear as to the margin around the Mach 18 transition time and 

it was not evident that a study had been performed to assess the impacts of earlier 

transition occurrence to a fully turbulent flow, i.e., prior to Mach 18.

Recommendation: 

An effort should be expended to understand the uncertainty associated with transition 

occurring prior to Mach 18, regarding impact on the vehicle. (open) 

2. Flight Data 

A review of the flight data involving transition was presented and discussed regarding the 

impacts on surface heating and back face temperatures. It was unclear why there was a 

large difference in surface temperature on instrument VO7T9674 for STS-28 and STS93. It was also unclear why there appears to be a higher frequency of large roughness 

induced transition post STS-70. 

Recommendation:

Transition data on all flights prior to STS-25 should be included in the correlation 

development. (closed) Note: There is no thermocouple data available from STS-5 

through STS-25. Only the already assessed STS-1 cavity near the wheel well door 

appears to have caused early transition. 

3. Attachment Line 

The attachment line location defines the regions on the Orbiter lower surface, where if 

transition occurs as the result of damage or TPS repair, it would tend to be washed 

outboard and thus not impact the Orbiter lower surface. It was viewed as an indicator 

rather than a hard and fast rule. A concern was with the assumption that the attachment 

line could be used to define the influence zone within which damages can trigger the 

early downstream BLT. The approach assumes that the flow originates only from the 

nose stagnation point, thus resulting attachment lines make the effective influence zone 

too small. (Note: Original Orbiter roughness maps were based on interpretation of data 

from many sources and allowed for transition spreading across vehicle streamlines). It 

might be more appropriate to use wind tunnel roughness induced transition data to 

identify where the separating regions should be and then to validate using existing flight 

test data. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

70 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Recommendation: 

Consider the effects of AOA from 45 to 30 degrees in evaluating turbulence spreading as 

well as Mach 18 real gas effects rather than M=6 perfect gas estimates. (open)

4. Protuberances 

The protuberance correlation established an engineering prediction technique that could 

be used to determine the impact of protuberances on transition. The approach was to 

correlate wind tunnel test data from three NASA Langley wind tunnels (20-inch M=6, 

31-inch M=10, and the 20-inch CF4) and limited AEDC M=8 test data. BLT tripping 

points were simulated based on TPS tiles protruding from the OML using various heights 

of Teflon tape on a 10-inch long Orbiter model. The baseline correlation was Reθ/Me

versus K/δ. The initial correlation was based on the 20-inch M=6 tunnel results. 

Incorporation of wall temperature effects and momentum thickness, (K/θ)(Tw/Te), were 

used to achieve an alternate correlation with less wind tunnel test data scatter. 

Recommendations:

1. Incorporate additional analyses identified into the initial correlation of Reθ/Me

versus K/δ prior to STS-114. These include using a limited amount Space Shuttle 

Orbiter flight data to verify the correlation trends; separation of the incipient and 

effective transition data to allow for determination of uncertainty levels; and, 

review of roughness data from early in the SSP. (closed)

2. Future work should consider testing of additional roughness shapes and locations; 

further evaluation on the impact of the wall temperature and consideration for 

testing larger models. (open)

5. Cavities 

The cavity correlation is used to assess TPS tile gouges relative to BLT. The approach 

was to attempt to correlate cavity transition data along the lines used for the protuberance 

data, i.e., Reθ/Me versus K/δ where a cavity dimension, either depth (D) or length (L) was 

substituted for ‘K’ (roughness element height). Use of the D/δ correlation relies on 

having cavity depth information provided while on-orbit. In addition, the correlation 

approach had only one point on the correlation line, raising concern of the correct slope. 

The D/δ correlation if extended to very small values of D/δ resulted in transition less 

severe than the smooth body flight experience. The cavity correlation is significantly less 

mature than the protuberance correlation, based on limited wind tunnel test data and 

without incorporating any flight data. The approach does not necessarily capture either 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

71 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

the physics of the transition phenomena or historical correlation techniques. The cavity 

technique as presented possesses significant limitations. 

Recommendations: 

With these changes, this correlation could be applied, with caution, to STS-114. 

1. Incorporate flight data into both D/δ and L/δ correlations to either develop a new 

trend line or verify the existing trend line. The D/δ correlation needs to be 

modified so that when extrapolated to small values it approaches smooth body 

transition. Since cavity depth information may not be available on-orbit and the 

L/δ correlation may be a better choice. In addition, similar to the 

recommendations made for the protuberance correlation, the incipient and 

effective transition data needs to be correlated separately and uncertainty bands 

developed for each (closed). Note: Ongoing work will address the use of an 

effective length rather than the geometric length as currently implemented in the 

correlation. The effective length will change based on the orientation of the flow 

to the alignment of the cavity.

2. Re-examination at the STS-1 flight data to determine when incipient transition 

occurred. This should be attempted using thermal analyses of aft fuselage bond 

line data. (closed)

6. Ablation 

The ablation correlation determines the impact of out-gassing/mass flow from the STA54 cavity repair and whether the out-gassing was sufficient to impact BLT above and 

beyond the roughness generated by the STA-54 repair. The intent was to correlate data 

similar to the protuberance data (Reθ/Me) versus a blowing parameter instead of K/δ. 

Wind tunnel testing was conducted varying mass flow, porosity of the orifice, and density 

of the gas. Based on the wind tunnel data and the prediction of mass flow rates from a 

STA-54 tile repair on the fuselage at 60 percent length, it appeared that out-gassing 

would not be an issue during flight. 

This was the least developed of the approaches and it is unclear whether the conclusions 

drawn are correct. It was not clear if the blowing rate from the 60 percent body length 

location used would represent the worst blowing on the windward surface. A station 

closer to the Orbiter nose would have been more appropriate, based on available 

supersonic/hypersonic test data. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

72 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Recommendations: 

1. The limited wind tunnel test data needs to be re-correlated against more 

traditional correlation parameters, i.e., using a normalized blowing rate such as 

(ρv)w/(ρu)e, to verify that the expected blowing level is being scaled properly. In 

addition, the blowing rate needs to be verified that it is representative of the 

hottest region just behind the nose cap on the Orbiter. The impact of blowing at 

locations further forward on the Orbiter need to be tested as well as the combined 

effects with roughness. Note: available literature on ground test data indicates 

that downstream transition is more sensitive to blowing near the nose than from a 

downstream source. Until this is resolved this approach has significant 

limitations. (open) 

7. Computations 

The computational portion of the BLT tool is an interpolation through a data base of 

computational solutions that output the boundary layer edge and surface quantities for the 

windward Orbiter surface. These quantities are used with the developed transition 

correlations to predict transition due to a given TPS damage site. The approach used 

within the computational tool involved interpolating within the data base using trajectory 

parameters and user input quantities (x, y, z, Re, M, α, V∞, ρ∞), and then scaling to 

account for differences in Reynolds number. The data base is currently based on a 

combination of Navier-Stokes and Two-Layer (Euler + Boundary Layer) computational 

solutions. The code provides surface pressure, laminar heat rate, and boundary layer edge 

properties such as θ, δ, Reθ/Me, Tw/Te, etc. This tool is used by the BLT team to provide 

the flow transition time and associated Keq that will be used for aerothermal/thermal 

evaluations of the damage locations. The tool uses α and Mach number interpolation of a 

given trajectory based on two reference trajectories of STS-107 and ISS heavy weight 

mission.

 

Based on the information provided, there did not appear to be any significant issues in 

this area. The use of the presented engineering tool to predict flow field properties for 

BLT estimation appeared to have acceptable uncertainties for STS-114. 

One minor concern was that by mixing the solutions from the dissimilar codes could 

create the possibility of introducing data discontinuity, thus producing unrealistic 

analytical problems when used by non expert users. It is important to maintain 

consistency between the code/tool used to correlate transition data and to predict 

transition on both STS-114 and on future flights. It is also important that these 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

73 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

engineering tools continue to be advanced by adding more flow field physics based on 

calculations from the higher order CFD codes. 

Recommendation:

Data continuity in data matrices should be thoroughly checked before releasing the code. 

Continual enhancement of the data bases should be sought to improve the accuracy of the 

outputs by continuously employing more physics accounted for CFD results. (closed)
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

74 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

11.0 3-D ACREAGE TILE THERMAL MODEL 

Peer Review Team Members 

Name Affiliation 

Maurice Prendergast NASA MSFC 

Mickey White NASA MSFC 

Ruth Amundsen NASA LaRC 

Function(s) of Tool 

The TMM was developed to aid in the assessment of damage sustained by the Orbiter TPS 

during ascent. The TMM predicts the temperature response of the Orbiter’s lower surface 

acreage TPS materials and structure at damaged locations. Results from the model serve as input 

to the structural/stress tools for margin assessments. Once a damaged location is analyzed, the 

model will be used as supporting information with flight experience to determine whether the 

damage is acceptable to fly “as is” or if a repair is necessary before re-entry is attempted. 

Assumptions and Limitations 

1. The TMM uses a constant thickness approach. A sensitivity analysis on this constant 

thickness approach was not performed. The thickness at the damaged location is used in 

the model, but no data was presented showing how the thickness varied over an analyzed 

location. 

2. Cavity (damaged) heating augmentation factors were considered “out of scope” for the 

thermal reviewers. However, several items that would affect the augmentation factor 

were listed are still under investigation. These items include surface catalytic factors, gap 

heating inside cavity, porosity/permeability characteristic of uncoated silica, emittance of 

bare tile, and glazing and melting of RSI and wormholes. 

3. Thermal model is just one component in the overall assessment. Considering that several 

items were considered “out of scope” for the thermal team, it was not clear how all 

reviews (stress, aeroheating, etc.) are being coordinated to ensure the integrated product 

is adequate (ensuring consistency between inputs and outputs). 

Observations 

1. Tile De-bonding in Flight Data Comparisons 

The fact that the model predicted tile de-bonding in flight data comparisons when debonding did not occur is a cause for concern. Boeing is updating the stress tool used to 

evaluate bondline integrity and will verify/validate the new tool. The thermal review 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

75 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

team did not receive any information on how the thermal data is used by the stress tool to 

evaluate margin assessments. As such, we did not examine how the temperature data 

from the thermal TMM (which uses a constant thickness approach) is mapped onto the 

structural math models. 

2. Damage Location to Flight Data Comparison 

A survey of historical tile damage to the Space Shuttle was performed and selected cases 

were evaluated. No temperature data was available (flight instrumentation) to compare 

TMM temperature results for these analyzed cases. Results for the three locations 

analyzed using the 3-D TMM indicated Room Temperature Vulcanizing (RTV) bond failure 

limits would be exceeded in all but one case. Post-flight examination of the damaged 

sites revealed that tile loss did not occur. The thermal tool identifies how much of the 

tile/Strain Isolation Pad (SIP) bondline exceeds the bond failure criteria (RTV bond 

failure criteria requires that 50 percent of the tile RTV-560 footprint exceeds 625°F). 

Tile loss is highly dependent on flight load cases. To address this issue, Boeing is 

developing a new stress tool (to be embedded in the 3-D TMM). The stress tool 

identifies forces on the tile from flight loads and using the temperature data determines if 

de-bonding will occur. 

3. Uncertainty of Uncoated (Damaged) Tile Area Hemispherical Emittance 

During the STS-107 investigation, M&P recommended using the TPSX database for 

uncoated tile emissivity values. TPSX data are theoretical projections based on room 

temperature measurements. TPSX tile emissivity data are significantly lower (at high 

temperatures) than previous values used in Boeing thermal models. Thus, TPSX data 

predicted conservative tile temperatures. Arcjet tests were performed at JSC to evaluate 

bare tile emissivity in the 2800°F range to assess this tile property change. Based on test 

data, M&P recommended continuing to use the TPSX data. For LI-2200, the TPSX data 

is lower than test data, but this is not the case for LI-900 (test data is lower than TPSX – 

potentially non-conservative). Damaged tile has different surface properties (i.e., 

roughness, glazing, etc.) than pristine arcjet test samples and could result in different 

emissivity values than TPSX. Boeing stated that no sensitivity studies of emissivity have 

been performed to understand the criticality of this assumption. 

4. Inter-Tile Gap Heating 

The 3-D TMM does not simulate the individual 6” x 6” Space Shuttle tiles and, thus, has 

no inter-tile gap heating in unfilled gaps. Gap heating is accounted for with a heating 

augmentation factor of 1.2. This augmentation factor is used in undamaged areas. The 

factor was identified using test data (Comparison of Orbiter STS-2 Development Flight 

Instrumentation Data with Thermal Math Model Prediction, 1982). In the past, the 

method used to account for gap heating was to apply a factor of 0.8 on the tile thickness 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

76 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

(not on the heating). Boeing claimed that this new approach is equivalent and produces 

conservative results.

Recommendations 

1. Damage Location to Flight Data Comparison 

Re-run more flight Platinum history dataset comparisons to determine if 3-D TMM (with 

new embedded stress tool) still predicts tile loss and compare temperature predictions 

against the forensic evidence confirming the integrity of the bond. (complete)

2. Uncertainty of Uncoated (Damaged) Tile Area Hemispherical Emittance 

Perform an emissivity sensitivity analysis with 3-D TMM for various tile types, with 

guidance from M&P in defining uncertainty band to be used. If results show a high 

sensitivity, the Program needs to re-evaluate the use of the TPSX data. The Program 

should consider testing damaged tile (emissivity test) via a calorimetric thermal vacuum 

test of a tile sample. (open)

3. Inter-Tile Gap Heating 

Perform inter-tile gap heating sensitivity analysis and compare results with test data. 

Justify value used by calculating the ratio of model sidewall heating to surface heating. 

This will not be an exact number, but should serve as a rough confirmation of the value 

used. (open)
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

77 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

12.0 SPECIAL CONFIGURATION THERMAL MODELS 

Peer Review Team Members 

Name Affiliation 

Maurice Prendergast NASA MSFC 

Mickey White NASA MSFC 

Ruth Amundsen NASA LaRC 

12.1 Elevon Lower Cove 3-D Thermal Math Model (TMM) 

Function(s) of Tool 

This model was developed to perform a thermal assessment of debris impact damage of the 

Elevon Lower Cove (EC) on flight specific missions and to provide entry temperature data for 

structural evaluation. The modeled area includes 56 percent Half Span (HS) – 77 percent HS of 

the EC. It extends one tile forward and aft in acreage areas, upward to the cove-closeout 

honeycomb panel and through the primary seal to the secondary seal curtain. The modeled area 

also includes the wing stub structure and TPS components between inboard and outboard 

elevons. 

Assumptions and Limitations 

1. The TMM can be used as an approximation for other EC sections. However this 

capability has not been validated. Major differences in the EC as you move along the 

wing (inboard to outboard) include tile thickness, rub tube diameter, and hinge location. 

Boeing stated modifications could be made in the future to incorporate more of the 

elevon into the model. 

2. Flow past the primary and secondary seals is considered outside the scope of this TMM. 

If impact damage is extensive enough to create a flow path through the cove tiles and 

cause damage to the primary or secondary seals, it would automatically be considered as 

a case for repair. 

Observations 

1. A formal test program was not established for the 3-D TMM. Validation is accomplished 

by comparison with flight data and to the predictions of the existing certified 2-D 

undamaged model. There is no 2-D damaged model. Direct one-to-one comparison 

between the 3-D TMM and both flight data and 2-D certified undamaged model is 

difficult due to thermocouple locations and configuration differences. Boeing stated that 

the 20°F/40°F flight verification criteria was imposed prior to having a full understanding 

of the substantial changes that some areas of the vehicle had undergone since flight data 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

78 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

was collected. In some instances there have been changes made that cause temperatures 

to be different by much more than 40°F. FRCI-12 tile material was not available for the 

early flights but half of the elevon leading edge tiles are now FRCI-12. Earlier flights 

used different configurations for the cove closeout and had no thermal barrier covering 

the honeycomb panel. There was also no flow restrictor present between the carrier panel 

and seal retainer panel on STS-3 (source of flight data). 

2. Several 3-D/2-D comparison plots violated the 20°F validation criteria. Boeing stated 

that these variations can be explained by EC configurations differences between the 

models. 

Recommendations 

1. Perform arcjet testing for comparison with the model. (open)

2. Modify either the 2-D or 3-D TMM to more closely match configuration/property 

differences between models. (open)

3. Expand the 3-D model to include thermocouple locations (where available) from early 

flights. (open)

12.2 Forward Reaction Control System (FRCS) Canopy 3-D TMM 

Function(s) of Tool 

This model was developed to predict temperatures on the forward portion of the FRCS Canopy. 

The tool will be used to evaluate the temperature response of the TPS tile, RTV, SIP, thermal 

barrier and structure due to damage caused by debris impact. The modeled area extends aft and 

upward from the forward-most corner of the FRCS cavity seal for approximately eight tiles in 

both directions. 

Assumptions and Limitations 

1. No internal FRCS components are modeled (i.e., thrusters, valves, tanks, lines, etc.). The 

current standard approach to flow path damage sites is to recommend repair. The 

capability to predict the temperature of internal components due to ingested air flow was 

not considered as part of the original task scope. Boeing stated that the model could be 

expanded to include these components. Similarly a breach beyond the thermal barrier 

could be simulated with model adjustments, but the accuracy of the predictions would be 

based on the capability to determine flow path impingement and heat rate deposition in 

the breach cavity. 

2. To model another area the TMM would need to be modified for tile type, tile thickness, 

and underlying structure at that particular location. The TMM can be modified but 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

79 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

predictions would carry the caveat that the model has been modified and not validated for 

the location. 

Observations 

1. A formal test program was not established for the 3-D TMM. Validation is accomplished 

by comparison with the existing certified 2-D undamaged model. There is no damaged 

2-D model. No flight data is available for comparison. Due to differences between the 2-

D and 3-D models, exact one-to-one comparison is not feasible. Therefore, comparisons 

are limited top surface nodes of the thermal barrier and tiles (considered as critical areas). 

Boeing stated that the lack of flight data was accepted by the technical community. 

Recommendations 

1. Perform arcjet testing for comparison with the model. (open)

2. Modify either the 2-D or 3-D TMM to more closely match configuration/property 

differences between models to either confirm or improve the TMM. (open)

12.3 WLE Panel 9 Lower Access Panel (LAP) 3-D TMM 

Function(s) of Tool 

This model was developed to perform a thermal assessment of the WLE LAP on flight-specific 

missions and to provide re-entry temperature data for structural evaluations of damage locations 

due to debris impact. The TMM is used to predict temperatures on the HRSI and FRCI tile, 

RTV, SIP, gap filler, horse collar, thermal barrier and supporting structure. The 3-D TMM 

models the LAP for Panel 9, an aluminum frame that is bolted to the lower attachment, internal 

insulation, and part of the RCC panel which is in contact with the horse collar, and one row of 

adjacent Orbiter acreage tiles. 

Assumptions and Limitations 

1. The model does not include the T-seal between RCC panels. The T-seal is considered 

part of the WLE RCC model. 

2. The model can be used as an approximation for other LAPs, but mechanical differences 

must be well understood. Differences include tile thickness variations and different 

heating rates. Different panels will present similar trends, but different peak values. 

Management will be made aware that the model was modified to simulate an area that 

has not been validated. Therefore, the results will need to show more margins from 

allowable temperature limits than the area for which the model has been validated to 

make a repair/no-repair decision. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

80 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Observations 

1. A formal test program was not established for the 3-D TMM. Validation is accomplished 

by comparison with flight data and to the predictions of the existing certified 2-D 

undamaged model. There is no 2-D damaged model. Direct one-to-one comparison 

between the 3-D TMM and both flight data and 2-D certified undamaged model is 

difficult due to thermocouple locations and configuration differences. 

2. The flight data comparisons show differences greater than the 20°F/40°F flight 

verification criteria. Boeing stated that the 20°F/40°F criteria became imposed prior to 

having a full understanding of the substantial changes that some areas of the vehicle had 

undergone since the flight data was collected. In some instances, there have been 

changes made that cause temperatures to be different by much more than 40°F. Model 

had to be compared to flight data that is only "near" the modeled area and does not truly 

represent the actual modeled location. 

3. The 3-D model over predicts flight data (similar profiles) while the 2-D under predicts 

flight data (not similar profiles). The 3-D model does not compare favorably to the 

certified 2-D model. The 3-D model compares better than 2-D for maximum temperature 

comparisons. Boeing stated the 2-D model tends to under predict due to boundary 

assumptions. 

Recommendations 

1. Perform arcjet testing for comparison with the model. (open)

2. Modify the 2-D or 3-D TMM to more closely match configuration/property differences 

between models. (open)

3. Expand the 3-D model to include thermocouple locations (where available) from early 

flights to either confirm or improve the TMM. (open)

12.4 Main Landing Gear Door (MLGD) 3-D TMM 

Function(s) of Tool 

This model was developed to perform a thermal assessment of damage to the MLGD tiles. The 

TMM covers the forward 60 percent of the MLGD, the thermal barrier, and three surrounding 

rows of tiles. Critical components of the MLGD are the thermal barrier, pressure seal, RTV, 

SIP, and aluminum structure. 

Limitations 

1. Flow past the thermal barrier is considered outside the scope of this TMM. The sidewalls 

of tiles on either side of the thermal barrier slant away at approximately 45 degrees. As 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

81 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

such, damage 0.3" deep that reaches within 0.3" of the surface edge is considered a 

penetration that would cause flow past the thermal barrier. Any flow past the thermal 

barrier that would impinge on the pressure seal would be repaired. 

Observations 

1. A formal test program was not established for the 3-D TMM. Validation is accomplished 

by comparison with flight data and to the predictions of the existing certified 2-D 

undamaged model. There is no 2-D damaged model. 

2. Direct one-to-one comparison between the 3-D TMM and both flight data and 2-D 

certified undamaged model is difficult due to thermocouple locations and configuration 

differences. 

3. The surface thermocouples temperature comparison with the 3-D TMM temperature 

predictions is conservative, but not so for skin thermocouple comparisons. Boeing stated 

that the predicted surface temperatures depend almost exclusively on heat flux input and 

emissivity. The over prediction of temperature at the surface is due to conservative heat 

flux data from the aeroheating subsystem. The temperature of the internal thermocouple 

trails the surface by about 500 seconds, and the cooling of the surface in the later stages 

of flight keeps the over predicted spike in temperature from impacting the aluminum skin 

temperature. 

4. The reason that the 3-D model predicts a lower temperature for the aluminum skin is that 

the honeycomb core of the door on OV-103 transmits more heat to the door interior than 

is transmitted by the unfilled void on OV-102 test data. 

Recommendations 

1. Perform arcjet testing for comparison with the model. (open)

2. Modify either the 2-D or 3-D TMM to more closely match configuration/property 

differences between model. (open)

3. Expand the 3-D model to include thermocouple locations (where available) from early 

flights to either confirm or improve the TMM. (open)
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

82 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

12.5 Vertical Tail Leading Edge (VTLE) 3-D TMM 

Function(s) of Tool 

This model was developed to predict temperatures of the VTLE. The primary purpose of the 

tool is to evaluate the temperature response of the TPS tile, RTV, SIP and structure due to a 

debris impact. The model areas include 20 percent and 90 percent along the vertical tail span. 

Assumptions and Limitations 

1. Other areas of the VTLE are excluded from the TMM. The justification is that 

temperature results indicate the temperature profile is highest at the 90 percent location 

along the vertical span. 

2. If impact occurs at a location other than the 20 percent and 90 percent areas, the 90 

percent TMM is used to assess it for conservatism. If required, the model can be altered 

to reflect the damaged location. If this occurs, then additional margin as compared to 

allowable temperatures will be required to make repair/no-repair decisions. This 

capability is not validated and management would be made very aware that the model 

was being used outside of its original intended area. 

Observations 

1. A formal test program was not established for the 3-D TMM. 

2. Validation is accomplished by comparison with flight data and to the predictions of the 

existing certified 2-D undamaged model. 

3. There is no 2-D damaged model. 

4. Direct one-to-one comparison between the 3-D TMM and both flight data and 2-D 

certified undamaged model is difficult due to thermocouple locations and configuration 

differences. 

5. TMM (at 20 percent and 90 percent) correlated with flight data at the 30 percent and 80 

percent span location. Data presented shows flight data from the 80 percent span and 

TMM results from the 90 percent span. It is difficult to compare curves and highlight 

differences. Also, the flight data and TMM tile materials are not the same. 

Recommendations 

1. Perform arcjet testing for comparison with the model. (open)
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

83 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

2. Modify either the 2-D or 3-D TMM to more closely match configuration/property 

differences between models. (open)

3. Expand the 3-D model to include thermocouple locations (where available) from early 

flights to either confirm or improve the TMM. (open)

12.6 Forward Window # 3 Perimeter 3-D TMM 

Function(s) of Tool 

This model was developed to predict temperatures on the perimeter of the Forward Window #3 

Periphery. It is used to evaluate the temperature response of the TPS tile, RTV, SIP, thermal 

barrier and structure due to damage caused by debris impact. The modeled area covers four tiles 

along the Orbiter centerline lower corner of the Forward Window #3. 

Assumptions and Limitations 

1. Only four tiles modeled – other window periphery tiles may be analyzed with this model, 

but the configuration differences must be well understood. The modeled location was 

identified by the debris analysis team as a critical area. Boeing stated that there is a great 

deal of symmetry among the window periphery tiles so that the model can be adapted for 

other areas. Window configuration similarity is well understood. Management will be 

made aware that the model was modified to simulate an area that has not been validated, 

thus the results will need to show more margin from allowable temperature limits than 

the area for which the model has been validated to make a repair/no-repair decision. 

2. Breaches (caused by damage) beyond the thermal barrier can be simulated with model 

adjustments, but the accuracy of the predictions is based on the ability to define the flow 

path impingement and cavity heat rates. The current standard approach to flow path 

damage locations is to recommend repair. 

3. If damage is large enough to change the edge temperatures of the TMM (that is, TMM 

not sized properly), then a repair is recommended due to the criticality of the modeled 

location. 

Observations 

1. A formal test program was not established for the 3-D TMM. Validation is accomplished 

by comparison with flight data and predictions of the existing certified 2-D undamaged 

model. 

2. There is no 2-D damaged model. Direct one-to-one comparison between the 3-D TMM 

and both flight data and 2-D certified undamaged model is difficult due to thermocouple 

locations and configuration differences. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

84 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

3. Boeing stated that the V&V flight comparison criteria was adopted in advance of fully 

understanding some of the discrepancies the model would encounter relative to flight 

data. 

4. The 3-D TMM is built to current configuration data which differs from the original 

certified 2-D TMM. 

Recommendations 

1. Perform arcjet testing for comparison with the model. (open)

2. Modify either the 2-D or 3-D TMM to more closely match configuration/property 

differences between models. (open)

3. Expand the 3-D model to include thermocouple locations (where available) from early 

flights to either confirm or improve the TMM. (open)

12.7 External Tank Door (ETD) 3-D TMM 

Function(s) of Tool 

The 3-D TMM covers the ETD, thermal barrier, and two rows of surrounding tiles. It uses the 

effective structure thickness for the fuselage and the thickness from the 2-D certified model for 

the door. Hinges and latch fittings are not modeled. The TMM performs a thermal assessment 

of damage to the door tiles and two rows of adjacent tiles on the wing/fuselage. Critical 

components of the ETD include the thermal barrier, pressure seal, RTV, SIP and 

aluminum/beryllium structure. 

Assumptions and Limitations 

1. Model does not include the hinge and latch fittings and the effects of vent door 

convective cooling. 

2. Activation of the vent doors occurs at approximately 80,000 feet, at a velocity 

approximately 2,400 feet/second and is continuous until landing. 

3. TMM results under predict flight data prior to vent door opening and then over predict 

flight data after vent door opening. 

4. The air temperatures at this altitude range from -90 to -50°F. The model also uses a 

constant thickness for the door which in reality is not the case.

Observations 

1. A formal test program was not established for the 3-D TMM. 

2. Validation is accomplished by comparison with flight data and the predictions of the 

existing certified 2-D undamaged model. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

85 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

3. There is no 2-D damaged model. 

4. Direct one-to-one comparison between the 3-D TMM and both flight data and 2-D 

certified undamaged model is difficult due to thermocouple locations and configuration 

differences. 

5. The flight data and 3-D TMM predicted results appear to be out of phase in the 

comparison plots. Boeing stated this “phase” difference is due to assumptions in the 

analytical aeroheating data. Specifically, the time peak heating and transition occurs. 

Recommendations 

1. Perform arcjet testing for comparison with the model. (open)

2. Modify either the 2-D or 3-D TMM to more closely match configuration/property 

differences between models. (open)

3. Expand the 3-D model to include thermocouple locations (where available) from early 

flights to either confirm or improve the TMM. (open)

12.8 Nose Landing Gear Door (NGLD) 3-D TMM 

Function(s) of Tool 

The NLGD 3-D SINDA TMM was developed to perform a thermal assessment of the NLGD on 

flight-specific missions and to provide entry temperature data for structural evaluations of 

damage due to debris impact. The 3-D TMM consists of the thermal barrier, one row of tiles 

adjacent to the thermal barrier, door acreage tiles, and aluminum structure. The model can 

predict re-entry temperatures and temperature profiles for the modeled components. 

Assumptions and Limitations 

1. The TMM results in the supplied package show a temperature violation for the Inconel 

flexible spring. Boeing stated that this violation was corrected with 3-D TMM 

modifications. Specifically the addition of AB312 fabric, AB312 cord and changes to the 

Inconel spring configuration (based on SDS drawings). 

2. The current temperature is 683o F which is well below the 1500o F temperature limit. 

The current temperature was reported in correspondence from Boeing personnel 

addressing model review questions. 

3. The aft half of the NLGD will be modeled prior to the next flight (entire door not 

modeled in current version) and will go through a similar V&V process. Therefore, this 

model can be considered a work in progress. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

86 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Observations 

1. A formal test program was not established for the 3-D TMM. 

2. Validation is accomplished by comparison with flight data and to the predictions of the 

existing certified 2-D undamaged model. 

3. There is no 2-D damaged model. 

4. Direct one-to-one comparison between the 3-D TMM and both flight data and 2-D 

certified undamaged model is difficult due to thermocouple locations and configuration 

differences. 

5. The flight data and 3-D TMM predicted results comparisons appear to exceed the 20o 

F/40o F verification requirement. They do show similar profiles. Boeing replied that 

additional detail was added to the 3-D TMM since the review package was presented. 

6. Model modifications (AB312 cord and ceramic sleeving covering the Inconel springs) 

have resulted in temperature predictions closer to the 2-D TMM. Based on the Boeing 

reply (flight data comparison rather than 2-D/3-D comparison), it is not clear if the flight 

data comparison plots show 3-D or 2-D TMM predicted temperature profiles. 

7. The 2-D and 3-D TMM predicted comparison plots also exceed the 20° F criteria. 

Current model predictions (not in package reviewed) show the maximum temperature of 

the hottest Inconel spring as 683° F. The RTV and pressure seal are 33° F colder, and the 

aluminum skin is 26° F colder in the 3-D model than in the 2-D model. All predicted 3-D 

component temperatures are within material temperature limits. 

8. Boeing stated that the differences between the 2-D and 3-D model predictions are well 

understood and result from material and configuration differences since the 2-D model 

was developed. 

9. Boeing also stated that large differences in the maximum temperatures are still evident in 

the results. This is contradictory to the previous explanation. 

Recommendations 

1. Perform arcjet testing for comparison with the model. (open)

2. Modify either the 2-D or 3-D TMM to more closely match configuration/property 

differences between models. (open)

3. Expand the 3-D model to include thermocouple locations (where available) from early 

flights to either confirm or improve the TMM. (open)
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

87 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

13.0 TILE STRESS TOOL – RTV BOND LINE (45 DEGREES) 

Peer Review Team Members 

Name Affiliation 

Andrew Brown NASA MSFC, ER 

Julie Kramer White NASA JSC, NESC 

Trevor Kott NASA JSC, ES (iTA), Lead 

Omar Hatamleh NASA JSC, ES (iTA) 

Eli Rayos NASA JSC, ES (iTA) 

Louise Shivers NASA JSC, ES (iTA) 

Function(s) of Tool 

The tile stress and RTV bond tool is a new tool and is one of a series of computer tools 

developed to evaluate on-orbit tile damage. Stress analysis equations have been programmed to 

calculate entry factors of safety (FOS) for the lower surface new 6” x 6” LI-900 HRSI (black) 

acreage tiles with damage oriented at 45 degrees. Failure modes include tension at the RTV 

bond, compression and shear in the LI-900, and shear in the SIP. RTV bonds subjected to 

temperatures greater than 650°degrees F lose all tensile strength; however, the strength recovers 

after an initial reduction at temperatures between 470°F and 650°F. 

Entry airloads, aerodynamic pressures, vibro-acoustic dynamic loads, tile damage dimensions, 

bond dimensions, material properties, and structural out-of-plane deflections are used to 

calculate corresponding FOSs. Airloads are tabulated for Mach numbers from 25 to 0.4 and 

downstream tile pressures and applied to the damaged acreage HRSI tiles. Entry random 

vibration levels, maximum 9.0 g (3.0 g’s at 3-sigma) during TAEM are applied at the center of 

mass of the tile. Initially, default OOPD from the TIPS database for Performance Enhancement 

(PE) loads for TAEM are used, and then updated with OOPD from the stress assessor tool or 

non-linear finite element analysis (FEA). The determination to utilize non-linear FEA is made 

by the stress analysis, based on a manual review of the stress assessor tool output. The bondline 

stress tool is essentially a post processor to the TMM where temperatures at thermal nodes from 

critical Mach numbers, calculated by and obtained from the 3-D TMM tool, are superimposed on 

a tile damage map. This process allows for the damage to each tile to be categorized as single 

tile, multiple tile aft, multiple tile center, multiple tile side or multiple tile forward (see Figure 

13.0-1). A rectangular area subjected to temperatures greater than 650°F is deleted from the 

bonded 5” x 5” footprint. Material properties are adjusted for temperature. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

88 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Figure 13.0-1. Categorization of Tile Damage for Analysis 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

89 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

The RTV bondline tool code was originally developed and checked out at Boeing in Huntington 

Beach, California in a Microsoft Excel© format. In an effort to improve computational 

efficiency, the code was migrated to Boeing Houston and integrated with the 3-D TMM. An 

implementation datapack was provided to describe how the RTV bond stress equations interface 

with the 3-D TMM TPS screening program and the process for choosing the model 

configuration, loads, etc; checks during the program (internal and by user); and output examples 

during their verification/validation exercise. The integration required that the code be turned into 

a FORTRAN subroutine called by the 3-D TMM. The RTV bond subroutine also contains the 

code to perform the interpolations of the pressure and material property databases that are used 

during the analysis process. 

Assumptions and Limitations 

1. The on-orbit inspection will not be able to detect any internal tile damage; therefore, the 

structural integrity of the damaged tile above the densified layer is not considered. 

2. Tool applies only to new lower surface 6” x 6” HRSI acreage tiles (LI-900 and FRCI-12) 

with 0.160” and 0.90 SIP. 

3. Damage is assumed to have an orientation of 45 degrees with respect to the tile. 

4. Orbiter Vehicle End Item (OVEI) Specification FOS required is 1.40. Analysis calculates 

the actual FOS. 

5. The damaged overtemperature SIP is located at the center, which was verified to be 

conservative. 

6. The overtemperature area of the RTV bondline is assumed to be rectangular for 

computational efficiency. 

7. If the RTV overtemperature area exceeds 75 percent of the bondline footprint, the tile is 

assumed to be failed. 

Observations 

1. Worst-case (Lowest FS) tends to be when the overtemperature area is directly under the 

damage and when the damage/overtemperature is centered in the tile causing larger moments 

to the remaining bond area. The offset forward/aft area causes a higher moment such that 

MC/I may dominate.

2. The secant modulus is adjusted linearly for temp effect in the OOPD calculation (i.e., 

softness lowers deflection). 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

90 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

3. The FOS failure modes are only RTV bond tension, LI-900 compression and shear, and SIP 

shear. These are the dominant failure modes if the remaining tile undamaged assumption 

exists.

4. The RTV bond and tile stress tool has not been correlated to any test data, but validated to be 

within 10 percent of FEA. 

5. The integrated (FORTRAN subroutine) program validates within 2 percent of the stand-alone 

(Excel) program.

Recommendations 

1. The tool inputs/outputs and effects on adjacent tools should be understood through a 

comprehensive end-to-end tile damage analysis tool check. (complete)

2. Tile damage analysis models should be brought in-house to NASA to enable additional 

evaluation and independent tile damage risk trades through structured, parametric model 

sensitivity studies. (complete)

3. RTV bondline failure is the critical failure mode identified on the damage map for many 

vehicle zones; however, it is the least validated of all the models. Efforts should be made to 

better validate the performance of the RTV/Tile/SIP system under elevated temperature. 

(open)

4. The assumption of secant modulus and shear allowable at 625° F being extrapolated just as 

flatwise tension to 15 percent of value at 450° F should be validated by test. (open)

5. The tool should be expanded for upper surface acreage tile and penetration perimeter tile, if 

possible. (open)

6. The effects of aged tiles should be included. (open)

7. This tool has already been used for pre-flight assessment in the development of the foam on 

tile and ice on tile damage maps, as well as the on-orbit (2”/3”) criteria tile damage map. 

Thus, the restriction that it be used only for on-orbit assessment should be lifted. (open)
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

91 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

14.0 STRESS ASSESSOR TOOL 

Peer Review Team Members 

Name Affiliation 

Andrew Brown NASA MSFC, ER 

Julie Kramer White NASA JSC, NESC 

Trevor Kott NASA JSC, ES (iTA) 

Omar Hatamleh NASA JSC, ES (iTA), Lead 

Eli Rayos NASA JSC, ES (iTA) 

Louise Shivers NASA JSC, ES (iTA) 

Function(s) of Tool 

The stress assessment tool was developed to provide a capability to define damage tolerance of 

the Orbiter vehicle skin structure due to the local temperature increase resulting from Orbiter 

damage. The damage is converted into thermal loads, and is then used to analyze Orbiter 

stresses due to these loads. The tool is capable of combining the existing mechanical loads based 

on 6.0 and Performance Enhancement (PE) certification loads cycle data combined with the 

increased thermal loads due to damage in order to define structural margins of safety and out of 

plane deflections. The results will then be utilized to support a vehicle safe to enter “as-is” or 

repair decision. The tool is applicable for pre-flight and real time on-orbit assessment. The 

analysis is based on maintaining an ultimate structural FOS of 1.4 (Orbiter Vehicle End 

Item (OVEI) Specification Requirement). 

Assumptions and Limitations 

1. The tool can only analyze the Orbiter bottom skin and the Orbiter Maneuvering System 

(OMS) pod structure, which includes the following types of construction: 

a. Mid fuselage sheet stringer. 

b. Mid fuselage/wing glove area sheet stringer. 

c. Mid fuselage/wing carry through area waffle panel. 

d. Aft fuselage waffle panel. 

e. Elevon/wing honeycomb skins. 

f. Forward fuse/chine sheet stringer. 

g. MLGD honeycomb. 

h. OMS pod composite honeycomb skin. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

92 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

2. The body flap and NLGD acreage construction is not specifically modeled, and most 

leeward (upper fuselage) areas of the vehicle and their representative types of 

construction are not covered by these tools. 

3. Temperature limits are assumed to be 350o

 F on the bottom skin, and 250o F on the OMS 

pod. Model performance is not validated beyond these temperatures. 

4. Damage is assumed to be “small” in comparison to critical panel dimensions so as to 

preclude significant boundary effects. This critical dimension (Lcrit) varies for each type 

of construction and zone on the vehicle. The “thermally affected length” (Leff) is 

assumed to be twice the corner-to-corner dimension of the damage. Leff is then 

compared to Lcrit to establish if damage can be considered within the valid application of 

the tool. 

5. Structural response is assumed to remain linear; therefore, large out of plane deflection 

problems may have to be resolved with non-linear computational capability outside of the 

current Stress Assessor suite of tools. In cases where out of plane deflections exceed 

0.040 inches non-linear analysis using NASTRAN Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is 

considered. 

6. The tool assumes no significant damage cavity growth during entry which may not be 

conservative, particularly for damages which are susceptible to “worm holes”, or 

burrowing. 

7. These models represent general, acreage behavior of types of construction. Many design 

details are absent from these models and, therefore, are not represented in the final 

solution. If damage occurs near one of these design details (critical seals, penetrations, 

structural splices), location specific modeling may be required to meet mission analysis 

needs. 

8. Tool assumptions were reviewed for appropriateness per the Analysis Validation Review 

Assessment Worksheet shown in Table 14.0-1. 

Observations 

General 

1. Tools are derived from closed form solutions, which capture changes in stress and loads 

due to thermal gradient, and compute out of plane deflections based on geometry of the 

local area. Many of the tools depend on automated Excel spreadsheets or calls to 

certification codes (i.e., “Waffle” and “PASCO”) as subroutines to compute margins. 

2. Several data bases and programs are scripted together to provide the complete “Stress 

Assessor” capability. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

93 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

3. Models have generally been validated against FEM solutions, or hand calculations. 

Correlation requirement is +10 percent; however, in general, the tools perform much 

better than this criterion (typically within +5 percent). 

4. In an infinite plate, strain produces a ratio of compression and tension zones (or K factor) 

of 0.5. In reality, as the panel-to-damage ratio gets smaller (less like an infinite plate), 

the zone ratio increases. For the range of panel-to-damage ratios considered valid for this 

analysis, Boeing established 0.6 as a more appropriate ratio of compression to tension 

zones through the use of NASTRAN FEA at various panel to damage ratios. 

5. Models address both local (i.e., crippling, local buckling) and global panel (i.e., general 

instability, panel buckling) load effects due to increased thermal loads. 

6. General quality checks have been run on all tools to ensure that as temperature and 

damage dimension increase, that margin and out of plane deflections respond in a rational 

fashion. 

Sheet Stringer Construction - Wing 

7. Wing assessment is conducted by thermal comparison only, since descent stress puts 

tension into the lower wing. Therefore, mechanical loads are not additive to gradient 

driven, compressive loads. 

Sheet Stringer Construction – Mid Fuselage, Wing Glove

8. Models represent structure as either equivalent skin thickness (tbar) or actual geometry as 

appropriate for the particular computation. 

High Curvature Sheet Stringer Construction - Wing Glove and Forward Fuselage 

9. Modeling of high curvature areas, such as the Wing Glove and parts of the Forward 

Fuselage, incorporate correction factors due to the redistribution of load due to the radial 

deflection of these curved geometries. This methodology was developed and utilized as a 

part of the original certification of these structural assemblies. 

10. Loads are adjusted and panels are analyzed as flat plates. 

11. Forward Fuselage utilizes certification analysis programs in the computation of margin. 

Waffle Construction – Mid and Aft 

12. Utilizes certification analysis programs “Waffle” and “PASCO” in the computation of 

margin. 

Honeycomb Construction – Elevon, Intermediate Wing, MLGD 

13. Stress-based computation rather than loads. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

94 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

14. Elevon and mid wing region utilizes elevon derived certification analysis program for 

margin computation; however, additional equations are required for out of plane 

deflections. 

15. Orthotropic NASTRAN panels were used to simulate the structure and validate tool 

output for out of plane deflections. 

Recommendations 

1. The stress assessor tool should be brought in-house to NASA to enable additional 

evaluation and independent tile damage risk trades through structured, parametric model 

sensitivity studies. (in-work)

2. Better define the tool analysis range as it relates to the damage site. (complete)

3. Most of the analytical equations used to calculate the delta loads resulting from the 

damage sites have been verified. Need to verify the remaining analytical equations. 

(complete). 

4. Verification of correction factors for curved surfaces. (in-work)

5. An independent review of the NASTRAN models used to validate assumptions in the 

tool is needed. (open)

6. Provide capability for electronic transfer of out of plane deflections to the 3-D TMM. 

(closed)

7. Provide capability to determine NLGD stresses and out of plane deflections. (open)

8. Need to perform several end-to-end runs to validate the tool. (complete)

9. Expand the capability of the tool to include other areas beside the bottom skin and OMS 

pod. (open)

10. An independent review of the out-of-plane deflections non-linear FEA models is needed. 

(open)

11. An independent review of the NASTRAN models used for honeycomb structure (elevon, 

mid-wing, MLGD) is needed. (open)
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

95 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Table 14.0-1. Analysis Validation Review Assessment Worksheet 

Requirements Comments Conserv./Nominal 

Geometry Definition 

 

Mid Fuse sheet stringer Simplified Geometry Predictive 

Mid Fuse/Wing Glove sheet 

Stringer Simplified Geometry Predictive 

Mid Fuse/Wing Carry Thru 

Waffle Simplified Geometry Predictive 

Aft Fuse Waffle Simplified Geometry Predictive 

Elevon/Wing Honeycomb Simplified Geometry Predictive 

Fwd Fuse/chine Simplified Geometry Predictive 

MLGD honeycomb Simplified Geometry Predictive 

OMS pod fwd skin panels 

Inner & Out face sheets assumed at the same 

temperature Unconservative 

Damage Cavity Idealized cavity received from thermal tools Conservative 

Material Definition 

 

 

Bottom skin structure, 350o

 F;OMS Pod 250o F 

temperature 

 

2024-T81 Aluminum face sheets for 

Honeycomb structure Nominal 

Key Assumptions 

 

 

Combines existing loads database with loads 

associated with increased temperatures from 

the thermal assessment tool to create input 

loads for the analysis tools. Nominal 

 Temperature provided by thermal group Nominal 

 

Margin of Safety, out of plane deflections for 

bottom skin structure underneath tile and OMS 

pod structure Nominal 

 

Body flap, RCC panels, thermal barriers, and 

vertical tail cannot be analyzed using this tool. Unconservative 

 Ultimate factor of safety 1.4 per OVEI spec. Nominal 

 

Thermal effective length, Leff =2*(L2

+W2)

.5, up 

to overall panel length or width Conservative 

 No significant cavity growth during entry Unconservative 

 

Wing assessment by thermal comparison, not 

by Stress Assessor tool 

Unconservative, no 

out of plane 

deflections 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

96 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Requirements Comments Conserv./Nominal 

 

Body flap assessment not by Stress Assessor 

tool 

Unconservative, no 

out of plane 

deflections 

 

For mid-fuselage region, Lower Wing Carry 

Thru certification analysis program used. Nominal 

 

For aft-fuselage region, Waffle and Pasco 

programs used. Nominal 

 

For elevon and mid wing areas, elevon 

certification analysis program used. Nominal 

 

For MLGD areas, a certification analysis 

program used. Nominal 

 

Curved panel theory for the forward fuselage 

and wing glove based on Timoshenko "Theory 

of Plates and Shells" Nominal 

BC, Loading 

Using PE/6.0 certification database for prelaunch assessment Nominal 

 

Using Modified (with reduced mechanical & 

ISS derived thermal cases) database. Nominal 

 Thermal loads determined Nominal, equations verified 

Numerical solution 

Accuracy 

Using PE/6.0 loads replicate certification case 

margin within +1% 

 

OMS Pod analysis replicate certification case 

margin within +4% 

Analysis Trend Check Varying temperature change while maintaining 

damage size Nominal 

 

Varying damage size while maintaining 

temperature change Nominal 

 

K value - under thermal loading the ratio 

between comp./tension zone -0.6 rather than 

0.5 for NASTRAN Conservative 

Quantitative Correlation 

 

Tension/Compression Verification of the elevon honeycomb structure 

and the mid fuselage was by NASTRAN FEA 

Correlation of Global Response 

 

Parametric Studies See historical reconstruction 

 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

97 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

15.0 INTEGRATED TOOLS FOR END-TO-END COMPUTATION OF TILE 

DAMAGE 

Peer Review Team Members 

Name Affiliation 

Julie Kramer White NASA JSC, NESC, Lead 

Steve Labbe NASA JSC, NESC 

Hank Rotter NASA JSC, NESC 

Andy Brown NASA MSFC 

Joe Olejniczak NASA ARC 

Vincent Zoby NASA LaRC 

Kathryn Wurster NASA LaRC 

Background 

Previous sections of this report have dealt with the review, verification and validation efforts on 

individual tools. Ultimately, the performance of the suite of tools must be evaluated in an endto-end fashion in an attempt to establish the accuracy of the final solution. The correctness of the 

analytical output will be a product of both the quality of the input and the accuracy of the 

computed output which is passed from tool to tool. Therefore, the end-to-end review focused not 

only on the final tool output, but the interactions between tools and the processes for assuring 

data integrity between tools (particularly for manual input data). 

Function(s) of Tool 

The damage assessment tools are used in two capacities by the SSP: preflight and on-orbit (see 

Figure 15.0-1). The end-to-end review was focused principally on the on-orbit application of the 

tools; however, the tools are the same tools. The difference in application centers on the 

description of the damage shape. In both applications, there are three basic components to the 

assessment: 

1. Describing the shape of the damage for analysis 

2. Determining the effect of the damaged TPS configuration on local heat rate relative to the 

undamaged state 

3. Performing analysis of the resulting TPS and structural system performance against five 

criteria: 

a. RTV bondline temperature. 

b. RTV bondline stress. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

98 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

c. Structural temperature. 

d. Structural margin. 

e. Structural out of plane deflection. 

Figure 15.0-1. Flow of Data Defining Environment, Modeling Damage, Analyzing 

Capability and Culminating in the “Damage Tolerance Threshold Map” 

Preflight 

The tools are used pre-flight to support RTF rationale, and probabilistic computation of risk of 

critical impact. This application of the tools produces the allowable tile damage depth for the 

Orbiter’s lower surface on a “damage map”. This map is constructed by dividing the Orbiter 

lower surface into approximately 33 zones, and determining the maximum allowable penetration 

depth using a combination of several analytical models including: 

• Rapid Response Damage Model (ice and foam on tile) 

• Cavity Aeroheating Augmentation Tools 

– Boundary Layer Transition Tool 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

99 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

– Cavity Heating Tool 

• Thermal Analysis Tools 

– 3-D TMM 

• Stress Assessment Tools 

– Stress Assessor 

– RTV Bond Tool 

On-Orbit 

The tools were primarily developed to support on-orbit “return as is” or repair decisions by the 

Space Shuttle Program Mission Management Team (SSP MMT). In this application, the rapid 

response tile damage models are not required, as the damage geometry is described through a 

series of on-orbit inspections. These inspections include photographs taken during the Roll Pitch 

Maneuver and focused, laser inspections using the Orbiter Boom Sensor System (OBSS). While 

exact damage geometry is defined as a 3-D point cloud, a process is used to define a simplified 

cavity definition, otherwise known as the “shoebox” (see Figure 15.0-2). Therefore, the on-orbit 

tool suite includes: 

• Simplified Cavity Defintion Tool 

• Cavity Aeroheating Augmentation Tools 

– Boundary Layer Transition Tool 

– Cavity Heating Tool 

• Thermal Analysis Tools 

– 3-D Thermal Math Model (TMM) 

– Special Configuration 3-D tools 

– Repaired Tile Tool (TRAP/CHAP/STG) 

• Stress Assessment Tools 

– Stress Assessor 

– RTV Bond Tool 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

100 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Figure 15.0-2. Simplified Impact Geometry 

While the analysis of tile repair is a part of on-orbit evaluation capability, it was not considered a 

part of the NESC individual or end-to-end tool reviews. These tools are neither certified, nor 

baselined for use on the STS-114 mission. 

Analysis Process Flow 

The analytical process flow was assessed through the review of several reports, spreadsheets, and 

briefings which document the analysis execution: 

1. “TPS Damage Assessment Script”. 

2. “Product Spread Sheet”. 

3. “Damage Assessment Analysis Data Transfer Files”. 

4. “TPS Tools List Spread Sheet”, June 24, 2005. 

5. “STS-114 Operations Integration Plan for Thermal Protection System Assessment”, June 9, 

2005. 

6. “Analytical Tools Requirements Document for On-Orbit Debris Damage and Repair 

Assessment”, NS05HB022, Revision A, June 2005. 

7. “Tile Repair Program Analytical Tools Interface Control Document”, NS05HB023, Revision 

NEW, June 28, 2005. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

101 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

The tile damage assessment process delivers analysis in a specific order with handoffs of data in 

a specific format. For in-flight assessments, actual cavity dimensions are defined by the OBSS. 

The OBSS output is damage location and volume, represented as a 3-D point cloud, which is fed 

to the Damage Assessment Team (DAT) to begin the analysis process. The point cloud is used 

by the simplified cavity definition tool to establish the geometry for analysis based on a “50/50 

rule”. This draws the plane of the simplified damage walls and floor with 50 percent of the 

volume of the damage inside the plane and 50 percent of the volume of the damage outside the 

plane. This is effectively the “average” plane, and smoothes out local surface features which are 

not anticipated to affect the global behavior. The BLT time is a function of location and depth of 

damage, and is used to identify the aeroheating time history. The cavity heating tool then 

provides any required aeroheating augmentation factors. The TMM uses output from the 

simplified cavity definition tool, the aeroheating, and the associated augmentation factors as 

input to calculate temperature time history at specified locations. The stress assessor tool and the 

RTV bondline stress tools use the temperature and gradient information from the TMM to 

establish margins of safety at critical load events during reentry (i.e., Mach 5, TAEM, and Touch 

Down). The flow of data for on-orbit analysis is summarized in Figure 15.0-3. While much of 

the process is automated, there are several interfaces that are accomplished through manual user 

input. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

102 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Figure 15.0-3 On-orbit TPS Damage Assessment Data Flow

Accuracy and Uncertainty 

The accuracy of the tool performance was measured principally against a series of historical 

reconstructions. Eleven historical reconstructions were completed from a candidate list of 19 

damages (see Figure 15.0-4). These 19 damages were selected from the “Platinum Database” as 

representative damage across all zones of the vehicle with sufficient data (PRACA data, 

measurements, photos, post-landing reports, etc.) available to make at least qualitative 

comparison with the analytical predictions possible. The downselect from 19 to 11 cases was 

based principally on the quality of the data available to define the geometry of the historical 

damage, and the quality of TPS documentation and structural condition after damaged tile 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

103 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

removal. No “Platinum Database” historical damage was located sufficiently close to vehicle 

instrumentation (i.e., thermocouple or strain measurements) to anchor analytical results in a 

quantitative way to flight history.

Damage geometry for these reconstruction cases was sometimes based on nothing other than a 2-

D image of the damage. This led to significant uncertainty in the most appropriate “shoebox” 

geometry. Therefore, multiple cases (best estimate, best case, worst case) for geometry of the 

cavity were run. In all cases, the historical reconstruction showed that with a “reasonable” set of 

assumptions about the cavity geometry, the entry environment conditions, and the material 

properties, the tools would predict an outcome which qualitatively correlated to the flight 

outcome. Therefore, it is expected that with an accurate definition of cavity geometry, the 

analytical tools can provide a reasonable representation of system behavior. It also showed that 

for 2 or 3 cases, that a recommendation to repair would have been made to preserve the full FOS 

for re-entry. A complete summary of this methodology and results is available in the briefing 

entitled, “Historical Data Reconstruction Assessment Using Tile Damage Analytical Tools”, 

OCCB S064065R1, presented at the July 5, 2005 OCCB. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

104 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Figure 15.0-4. Eleven Damage Sites used in Historical Reconstruction Analysis 

The uncertainty inherent in the solution remains a significant question. Preliminary analysis has 

been conducted by Ares Corporation at the direction of Boeing. Initial attempts to quantify 

uncertainty and sensitivity have focused on approximately 10 variables of interest. These 

variables were selected because of the anticipated sensitivity of the result to the selected 

parameter, and because of the availability of data to describe possible variation of the parameter 

being evaluated. Uncertainty distributions evaluated included: 

• Cavity depth 

• BLT time 

• Thermal conductivity 

• Surface emmisivity 

• Ultimate tensile stress 

• Interpolation between body points 

• BLT correlation 

• Heat rate augmentation: flat regions 

• Heat rate augmentation: high pressure gradient regions 

• K-Factor for thermal expansion calculation 

Simplified models were developed to extrapolate the relationships established by running the 

detailed models (i.e., relationship between heat rate and back face temperature). Monte Carlo 

analysis was then run to obtain distributions on critical output data (i.e., structural temperature, 

RTV bondline temperature, structural FOS). The summary of this methodology and preliminary 

assessment is available in the briefing entitled, “Status Report on Uncertainty Analysis of the 

Tile Damage Assessment Process”, Bell, Madera, Benjamin, SSP PRCB, July of 2005. Further 

detailed assessment of the uncertainty is planned. 

Assumptions and Limitations 

Limitations and assumptions for the individual tools are identified in the appropriate sections of 

this report. However, there is an overarching limitation on surfaces/locations where tools may 

be applied. The tools may be used, and are test-verified for acreage tile areas, such as: 

• Lower surface acreage 

• Lower surface elevon acreage 

• Lower surface body flap acreages 

Tools are available, but not test verified, for other areas, such as: 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

105 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

• Wing Glove/Chine 

• Vertical Stabilizer Leading Edge 

• Forward Reaction Control System 

• Window Frame Periphery 

• Elevon Cove 

• Forward OMS tiles 

• Lower surface seals (MLGD, NLGD and ETD) 

• Leading Edge Structural Subsystem (LESS) carrier panels 

Observations 

Process 

1. The analysis tool input and output requirements are adequately documented in the 

Analysis Tool Requirements Document for On-Orbit Debris Damage and Repair 

Assessment. 

2. The majority of tool interface issues have been mitigated or eliminated through 

simulations and table top reviews. 

3. The DAT has assigned a Damage Assessment Analysis Coordinator to facilitate 

communication and data transfer between analysis groups during the damage assessment 

process. 

4. Maturity of the TPS Status Assessment Tool (TSAT) site (where DAT data is stored and 

disseminated) is undemonstrated and could result in some issues with timeliness of data 

transfer. 

Integrated Application of Analysis Tools 

5. The preflight application of these tools has inherent conservatisms that make an apriori

determination of capability very restrictive. These conservatisms are related to analyzing 

with “certification rigor”, and making bounding assumptions for physical, geometric and 

computational simplicity. Many of these conservatisms are either removed or 

significantly reduced in a damage-specific, mission-specific application. 

a. The use of certification trajectory and re-entry parameters (HWISS return trajectory, 

maximum Orbiter weight, maximum G’s and sink rate, and End of Mission (EOM) 

sun, etc.). These types of conservatisms can be significantly reduced for any given 

mission by using mission-specific parameters such as trajectories and weights. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

106 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Operational constraints can also be imposed on G’s and sink rate to reduce heating in 

contingency conditions. 

b. Non-case-consistent margins (minimum tile thickness, maximum heating and 

minimum structural margin for an entire zone @ one location). This is a practicality 

associated with having to analyze the entire lower vehicle surface. Areas of the 

vehicle are grouped by similar tile thickness and similar structural configuration. 

There are options available to reduce this conservatism, such as averaging minimum 

capabilities over a percentage of the zone, so as not to be inordinately penalized by a 

local minima or maxima across the entire zone. 

c. Damage cavity definition with a goal of exceedance of only 1/100 cavities (95 

percent depth, 95 percent length, 95 percent width => 99 percent+ overall cavity 

volume; conservative wall angle assumptions). This conservatism is removed when 

these tools are used in an on-orbit scenario, as tile damage geometry becomes a 

measurable parameter from inspection. For a less conservative pre-flight assessment, 

percentages of test data enveloped could be reduced. Recommendations to reduce 

cavity definition parameters may be supported by the evaluation of actual flight data 

damage geometry, such as the “Platinum” dataset. 

d. Treatment of orientation and impact angle. A foam projectile is assumed to always 

impact in the worst possible orientation (smallest edge first) to induce the greatest 

amount of damage. An ice projectile is assumed to always impact in the worst 

orientation excluding a flat piece of ice impacting flat. This latter ice scenario was 

deemed unrealistic, as ice does not form in large flat sheets when attached to the 

Orbiter. Also, if the projectile can hit with any orientation, then the probability of it 

hitting within 12 degrees of flat is a low probability of occurrence (roughly 2-sigma). 

All projectiles are assumed to impact with a 90 degree beta angle (alpha is defined by 

the DTA). 

e. Tile bondline failure model simplifications and limited allowables drive many 

locations to premature bondline overtemperature and failure. These models 

conservatively locate tile damage in the center of the tile, so as to localize heating on 

one tile footprint. 

f. Aerothermal environments include several conservative assumptions. The cavity 

heating augmentation factors are based on rectangular cavities (90 degrees 

entrance/exit angles), which yield higher “bump factors”; catalytic heating factors 

bound rather than fit test data; BLT time is set to a bounding equivalent roughness 

that tends to initiate “early” transition. 

g. The 3-D TMM Tool does not simulate the individual 6” x 6” Orbiter tiles and has no 

inter-tile gap heating. This is accounted for with a conservative heating augmentation 

factor of 1.2. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

107 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

h. The limitations and gaps in the development of the damage map, and its use in the 

flight rationale, are driven by the limitations and gaps of the individual tools. 

i. Modeling methodology has been subjected to sufficient peer review to understand the 

basic workings of all models, assumptions, limitations and key parameters passed 

between the models. 

j. The damage tolerance methodology used in the production of the 1st generation 

damage map incorporates all the standard, certification rigor methodology and 

factors. Therefore, the reliability is believed to be quite high. 

6. OBSS measurement accuracy for tile damage is currently baselined at +0.25 inches. 

However, development testing indicates it may do as well as +0.10 for HRSI in good 

lighting conditions. 

Historical Reconstruction 

7. Historical reconstruction cases do not cover the area of OOPD sensitivity in the forward 

mid fuselage. 

8. Models can explain Orbiter survival with historical damage given a reasonable 

interpretation of input cavity geometry and a known BLT environment. 

9. Historical reconstruction analysis used the mission-specific flight profile, including 

reconstructed BLT time. While this did not exercise all of the analytical tools, it was 

necessary to get the most predictive result out of the analysis. Utilization of the full suite 

of aeroheating augmentation tools would have resulted in a more conservative 

environment for many of the damage cases (due to earlier boundary layer transition); 

therefore, a more conservative prediction of damage, and potentially more 

recommendations to repair. 

10. Small deep impacts lead to analysis that may or may not predict local overtemperature 

conditions. This is highly dependent on the proximity to gaps and the presence of 

wormholes. Regardless, these types of impact are not an issue for global failures that the 

Damage Assessment Team is most concerned about. 

11. Sintering tools were removed from the tool set during development. However, TMM 

shows temperatures in excess of the tile single use values (2800-3100F). Whether the 

model is conservative or unconservative in these regimes is unknown. 

Uncertainty Analysis 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

108 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

12. This uncertainty analysis is a good start towards understanding uncertainty even though 

limited do to the lack of incorporation of actual computational tools. 

13. The preliminary assessment indicates that there is quite a large amount of uncertainty in 

the estimates of tile to SIP bond line temperature and, therefore, predicting RTV failure. 

This sensitivity is not as pronounced at the structural interface due to the thermally 

isolating effects of the RTV and SIP; however, the resulting spread in FOS computation 

is not negligible. For example, for a specific body point (1100), a FOS of 1.4 is actually 

more accurately described as between 1.3 and 1.9. 

14. Results appear to be biased in conservative direction in most cases. 

15. Uncertainties are all assumed to be independent, but some are actually coupled. 

16. There is really insufficient information available from this preliminary uncertainty 

analysis to draw any firm conclusions with respect to the overall accuracy of the analysis 

methodology. 

Recommendations 

Process 

1. A more rigorous process to ensure the quality and integrity of manually input data must 

be implemented prior to flight. (complete)

2. Graphical display of thermal analysis results should be considered for implementation 

during the analytical process as a part of the QA and solution verification process. (open)

3. Develop standard coordinate system nomenclature for damage reference (i.e., center of 

damage vs. center of simplified damage vs. tile centroid) to ensure accurate 

communication and utilization of damage geometry. (complete)

4. A back-up capability should be provided for the Stress Assessor tool suite. (in-work; 

ECD 9/2/05)

Integrated Application of Analysis Tools 

5. The implementation of the catalycity lookup table in 3-D TMM should be verified, as this 

is a new capability since the last simulation. (open)
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

109 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

6. The role of CFD in real-time mission support applications should be clarified. (complete; 

pitch C. Campbell)

7. Confirm that a bump factor is not applied in cooling region. (complete)

8. Evidence indicates that using 1.0 bump factor for shallow cavities is very conservative. 

Further evaluation with CFD and test is required. (open)

9. Additional CFD sensitivity studies are recommended including, but not limited to: 

a. Everhart Cavity analysis. (open)

b. Turbulent cavity assessments (CFD all laminar in/laminar out). (open)

c. Lower Mach number studies (i.e., M=12 lower end of catalytic effects, M=3 

effects of negative heating and bump factor). (open)

d. Bump factor sensitivity (heating rate ratio, heat transfer coefficient ratio, 

emissivity, catalytic surface effects). (open)

Historical Reconstruction 

10. Historical reconstruction case 9 has shown unusual behavior in the bondline stress tool 

which should be investigated. (complete)

11. Redo Historical Reconstruction #1 (Best Estimate) following the preflight process for 

determining aeroheating augmentation to gain a better understanding of effect of BLT 

assumptions on analysis. (complete)

12. Re-evaluate the platinum dataset to try to find a case for historical reconstruction in the 

OOPD sensitive area. (complete – none available)

Uncertainty 

13. A better understanding of uncertainties and sensitivities to input parameters is critical 

when making re-entry decisions, particularly those that may result in accepting reduced 

margins for re-entry. Preliminary results would indicate large uncertainties on bond line 

temperature, which currently drives many of the capability limitations. These 

uncertainties should be further explored. (in work)

14. Parameters that are identified as primary drivers of analytical uncertainty should be 

assessed for further analytical and test efforts to narrow the uncertainty bands on the 

analytical results. (open)
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

110 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

15. Quarter inch uncertainty on cavity depth is probably too large based on OBSS 

demonstrated accuracy, and +0.1 would be more appropriate for conditions expected onorbit. (in work)

16. Emphasis should be given to establishing the uncertainty associated with the cavity 

geometry simplification process. (open)

17. Reasonable attempts should be made to incorporate appropriate correlation of factors 

rather than assuming they are all independent. (open)

18. Revisit list of significant input parameters to identify the most meaningful contributors. 

(open)
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

111 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

16.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF FORWARD WORK 

The NESC recognizes the considerable amount of effort that the NASA and contractor technical 

community has put into the development and verification of these analytical tools over the last 2-

1⁄2 years. Overall, the team found that these tools represent a vastly improved analytical 

capability than was previously (pre-Columbia) available to the SSP for the resolution of debris 

impact issues. While there is always the opportunity to improve analytical tools in terms of 

validation and correlation, range of applicability and quantification of analytical uncertainty; 

these tools were all found to be suitable for application to STS-114 under the restrictions and 

limitations documented by the developers. These restrictions and limitations were all clearly 

documented and presented to the OPO at the OCCB as a part of the base-lining of these tools for 

use in STS-114. 

As a part of these reviews, the NESC made several recommendations regarding opportunities to 

improve the validation, expand the application, and understand the accuracy of these math 

models. Many of these recommendations were accepted and addressed in real time by the model 

developers and, as such, are identified as “closed” in the body of the report. Recommendations 

that remain open are summarized in Table 16.0-1 with the NESC point of contact. These 

recommendations will be provided to the Orbiter Project Office (OPO) for consideration as a part 

of their post-flight tool development and improvement initiatives. 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit Assessment of 

Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

112 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Table 16.0-1. Remaining “Open”, “In Work” and “Partially Complete” Recommendations from the NESC 

Damage Assessment Tools 

Model Reference 

(section, 

page) 

Recommendation Status NE

RCC DYNA 

2.1, 19 

Engineering data are needed to validate the nose cap and chin panel FEMs and predictions – mesh sensitivity, material orientation, etc. 

In Work 

RCC DYNA 

2.1, 19 

Engineering data are needed for comparing full-scale panel test results with LS-DYNA© predictions (time-history plots 

of deflections and strains as well as end-state deformation patterns) - in particular, for Panel 9 tests that did not exhibit impact damage. 

Open 

RCC DYNA 

2.1, 19 

The small mass factor for BX and PDL foams need to be documented. Valid bounds of this factor need to be established, especially as size limits are approached. 

Partially Completed, July 18, 

2005

RCC DYNA 

2.1, 19 

RCC material characterization data including: effects of aging (or conditioning), strain-rate effects, failure modes and mechanisms, fracture toughness, and load-unload behavior needs to be completed. These data will be useful in developing next generation material models that could be used with LS-DYNA©. 

Open 

RCC DYNA 

2.1, 19 

Investigation of through-the-thickness material layout (rather than smeared), such as discrete layer modeling of SiC outer layers and CC substrate, needs to be undertaken. 

Open 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit Assessment of 

Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

113 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Model Reference 

(section, 

page) 

Recommendation Status NE

RCC DYNA 

2.1, 19 

The effect of multiple strikes at the same (or nearly the same) location and KE levels using the LS-DYNA© tool 

needs to be quantified. 

Open 

RCC DYNA 

2.1, 19 

Completion of documentation in the LS-DYNA© Data Pack. 

Open 

IMPACT2 

2.2, 22 

Demonstrate the rapid response of IMPACT2 using 6” x 6” and 6” x 12” flat panels. Open 

IMPACT2 

2.2, 22 

Validate IMPACT2 with 6” x 6” and 6” x 12” flat panel test data. Open 

IMPACT2 

2.2, 22 

Demonstrate the rapid response tool application for the nose cap and chin panel structures Open 

IMPACT2 

2.2, 22 

Provide a complete data pack of all analyses, data, and results for archival purposes and traceability. Open 

IMPACT Tools Simulation 

2.3, 24 

Communication among the IMPACT2 team, the DYNA 

team and LESS PRT needs to be improved. The angles for debris-Alpha and debris-Beta were misinterpreted by the team members and the need for graphic depiction of these angles was identified. 

Open 

IMPACT Tools Simulation 

2.3, 24 

Margin reporting by the teams need to be consistent in terms of units and metrics. The team needs a consistent basis of working the issues and reporting results. 

Open 

IMPACT Tools Simulation 

2.3, 24 

Team members should use certification rigor as basis of all results reported to the LESS PRT. Open 

RCC Damage Growth Tool 3.0, 28-29 

Input Parameters. Delamination Extent - Validated onorbit NDE techniques should be developed for determining Open 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit Assessment of 

Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

114 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Model Reference 

(section, 

page) 

Recommendation Status NE

the extent of delamination. For STS-114, the current tool should only be used by an experienced subject matter expert, such as the tool developers, to predict hole growth. 

RCC Damage Growth Tool 3.0, 28-29 

Input Parameters. Mid-plane Delamination - Additional 

time to burn-through data should be obtained from arcjet tests of full-scale impact damaged RCC panels to determine whether the predicted burn-through times are conservative. 

Open 

RCC Damage Growth Tool 3.0, 28/29 

Model Physics. Mass Loss Expression - Future versions of 

the code should be more physics-based and use the convective boundary conditions as the driving parameters which determine surface removal rates. Even if empirical expressions are selected, mass transfer rate should be used as a primary variable that determines material removal rates. 

Open 

RCC Damage Growth Tool 3.0, 28-29 

V&V. Arcjet Testing - Impact-damaged wedge test data is urgently required for development and validation of a maximum damage criterion and a wedge/crossflow damage tool. Pending development and validation of a wedge/crossflow tool, the stagnation tool should be used to “predict” the results of existing wedge testing. . 

Open 

RCC Damage Growth Tool 3.0, 28-29 

V&V. Conservatisms - More test data, for both stagnation and wedge cases, is required to test the sensitivity of tool conservatism to damage parameters. Additionally, the tool should be exercised to assess the sensitivity of tool predictions to likely uncertainties in the tool’s assumptions. Those uncertainties include variations in damage locations, trajectory profiles, and the effects of multiple delaminations. The results of this analysis should be bundled into the tool documentation. 

Open 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit Assessment of 

Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

115 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Model Reference 

(section, 

page) 

Recommendation Status NE

Tile Rapid 

Response 

Damage 

Model (Ice) 

4.0, 33 

An effort should be made to quantify how much the uncertainties from the input are propagated into the results. Sensitivity or response surface analysis could be a method to make this determination. 

Open 

Tile Rapid 

Response 

Damage 

Model (Ice) 

4.0, 33 

There are some significant exceedances of the 2-to-1 crater width to projectile width factor in the high-density ice on LI900 tile. A more complete explanation of why this is not important may be necessary. 

Open 

Tile Rapid 

Response 

Damage 

Model (Ice) 

4.0, 33 

Present rationale for entry angle equaling impact angle (and contrast with foam-on-tile model rationale for assuming otherwise). 

Open 

Tile Rapid 

Response 

Damage 

Model (Ice) 

4.0, 33 

Provide evidence of solution verification. It is critical that the analytical model be quantitatively debugged by running the solution on simplified materials and/or short time frames that can be checked independently (outside of the solution code itself). 

Open 

Tile Rapid 

Response 

Damage 

Model (Ice) 

4.0, 33 

Evaluate Lagrangian finite element solution of angledimpact problem, such as that applied with LS-DYNA©, to 

assess effects that may have been missed by lack of a frictional coefficient. 

Open 

Tile Rapid 

Response 

Damage 

Model (Ice) 

4.0, 33 

Provide evidence to verify assumption # 8 – that the glass layer of the tile is assumed to not provide noticeably more strength. 

Open 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit Assessment of 

Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

116 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Model Reference 

(section, 

page) 

Recommendation Status NE

Tile Rapid 

Response 

Damage 

Model (Ice) 

4.0, 33 

The decrease in the slope of the depth versus velocity curves for the CTH results for higher velocities (at all angles) should be examined in further detail. If this effect is accurate, then the analytical model predictions at these higher velocities are excessively conservative, which can lead to undesirable decisions. 

In Work 

Tile Rapid 

Response 

Damage 

Model 

(Foam) 

5.0, 38 

Tile damage analysis models should be brought in-house to NASA to enable additional evaluation and independent tile damage risk trades through structured, parametric model sensitivity studies. 

In-Work 

Tile Rapid 

Response 

Damage 

Model (Foam) 

5.0, 38 

The assumption of “no tumbling” as a conservative assumption in the model needs to be substantiated. In-Work 

Tile Rapid 

Response 

Damage 

Model (Foam) 

5.0, 38 

The “corners of the box” for which the foam on tile model is considered applicable should be compared to CTH or LSDYNA© hydrocode predictions. In-Work 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit Assessment of 

Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

117 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Model Reference 

(section, 

page) 

Recommendation Status NE

Tile Rapid 

Response 

Damage 

Model (Foam) 

5.0, 38 

Additional data should be gathered at 5 degrees for low mass impact damage prediction. A test set with more velocities for lower (0.022) and mid (0.13) range masses should be considered, as well as larger masses (0.4), if that is still a legitimate mass out of latest transport analysis. 

Open 

Tile Rapid 

Response 

Damage 

Model (Foam) 

5.0, 38 

Additional test data should be gathered on RCG and substrate properties for aged tile. The tile tested should be more representative of fleet leader tile (~30 flights) to validate the assumption that tile aging occurs early in the life of the tile and does not continue to degrade properties as a function of age. 

In-Work 

Cavity 

Heating Tool 6.0, 43-48 

Augmentation Factors for Non-Rectangular Cavities. 

Additional understanding of the effects of non-rectangular cavities must be pursued before analysis can be accomplished with data already available. It is recommended that these wind tunnel test results be re-evaluated to determine: a) the exact nature of the boundary/shear layer in the vicinity of these cavities, and b) a relationship between the enhancement in bump factor and the deviation of the geometry from the standard rectangular cavity. 

Open 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit Assessment of 

Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

118 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Model Reference 

(section, 

page) 

Recommendation Status NE

Cavity 

Heating Tool 6.0, 43-48 

Laminar Wind Tunnel Test Data Base. It is recommended that an investigation be conducted in which the turbulent cavity methodology is applied to the transitional/turbulent wind tunnel cases to determine the extent to which this historical methodology is conservative. 

In Work 

Cavity 

Heating Tool 6.0, 43-48 

Application to Limited to Windward Side Damage. It is recommended that the CHT, BLT, and TMM teams perform sensitivity studies to assess the need for a leeside capability and provide some rationale for the engineering judgment that will necessarily be used for leeside damage should it occur. 

Open 

Cavity 

Heating Tool 6.0, 43-48 

Tile Gap Effects. It is recommended that a properly designed test be conducted after RTF so the tile gap effect on cavity heating can be quantified. As the tools mature and the end-to-end conservatism are eliminated, the tile gap effect, as established by test, should be employed. 

Open 

Cavity 

Heating Tool 6.0, 43-48 

Pressure Gradient Effects. It is recommended that before 

RTF, CFD results should be used to determine a value of the correction factor and the threshold value of the pressure gradient for which it is applicable. In the longer term, further analysis, testing, and/or CFD results are needed to quantify heating bump factors and uncertainties as functions of pressure gradient, body location, and free stream conditions. This objective should be added to the planned follow-on development testing to address crossflow and cavity shape effects. 

Open 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit Assessment of 

Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

119 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Model Reference 

(section, 

page) 

Recommendation Status NE

Cavity 

Heating Tool 6.0, 43-48 

Pressure Gradient Effects. It is recommended that if cavity heating data are needed in a region with a pressure gradient during STS-114, that the heating bump factor be determined 

manually, using CFD solutions if at all feasible. 

Open 

CFD for 

Cavity 

Heating: 

Smooth 

Baseline 

7.0, 53-55 

Flight Boundary Layer Thickness. The boundary layer thickness accuracies and uncertainties at flight conditions in the SOASD are reliably correlated to accuracies and uncertainties of heating at flight conditions and boundary layer thicknesses at tunnel conditions. It was recommended that further assessment of the validity of this assumption should occur as follow-on work that examines the relationship between δ, Re, Me, Te, Tw, Pr and γthrough 

unit CFD tests for flat plates with and without high enthalpy. This should also be for the unit CFD tests for the Orbiter configuration at flight conditions to quantify the sensitivities of the solutions to various parameters. 

In Work 

CFD for 

Cavity 

Heating: 

Smooth 

Baseline 

7.0, 53-55 

Flight Boundary Layer Thickness. It is recommended that 

the possibility of obtaining high quality experimental validation data from a ground test facility for high enthalpy boundary layer thickness predictions be studied. If an experimental test proves feasible, such tests should be performed to survey the boundary layer thickness at high enthalpy conditions. 

In Work 

CFD for 

Cavity 

Heating: 

Smooth 

Baseline 

7.0, 53-55 

Instrumentation uncertainty is not quantified in the boundary layer report and thus cannot be properly addressed. However, more discussion on this topic should be added. The added discussion should address the issue of why different methods were tried for the computation of tunnel free stream conditions. 

In Work 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit Assessment of 

Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

120 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Model Reference 

(section, 

page) 

Recommendation Status NE

CFD for 

Cavity 

Heating: 

Flight 

Traceability 

8.0, 59-60 

Develop experimental tests to provide good validation data for low-enthalpy tunnel condition cavities: heating values, surface sheer stresses, oil flows and other diagnostics of detailed local physical phenomenon. It is recommended that additional experiments be performed to provide adequate validation data for both the CHT and CFD heating tools. 

In Work 

CFD for 

Cavity 

Heating: 

Flight 

Traceability 

8.0, 59-60 

Explore the feasibility of obtaining quantitative test data for local laminar cavity heating at high enthalpy conditions. In Work 

CFD for 

Cavity 

Heating: 

Flight 

Traceability 

8.0, 59-601 

Follow-on work is needed to understand the sensitivities for the integration of CFD computed heating bump factors with downstream tools: Heat transfer coefficient basis, TMM, Emissivity, Catalysis, Radiation exchange, and Conduction. Note: This analysis was initially addressed as part of the end-to-end process. 

In Work 

CFD for 

Cavity 

Heating: 

Flight 

Traceability 

8.0, 59-60 

It is recommended that the proposed CFD bump factor maps be tested through the tile thermal and structural tools to examine if differences between the CHT and the CFD values yield significant changes in the results. 

Open 

CFD for 

Cavity 

Heating: 

Flight 

Traceability 

8.0, 59-60 

Perform a greater number of flight solutions for Closed cavities and those encountering significant pressure gradients to more fully evaluate the preliminary results of this study. 

Open 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit Assessment of 

Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

121 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Model Reference 

(section, 

page) 

Recommendation Status NE

CFD for 

Cavity 

Heating: 

Flight 

Traceability 

8.0, 59-60 

The following expansions of the Flight Traceability study should be considered within the priorities of the Aerothermal 

team’s activities: 

• Perform a more comprehensive validation of CFD’s 

predictive ability for local cavity heating at both low and high enthalpy conditions. 

• Perform a CFD study of tile cavity edge radii to 

understand the relationship of heating spikes to edge radii. 

• Perform an independent CFD parameter study for 

H/delta, L/delta, L/W, and other parameters such as Medge, Re-theta, etc. (The current study only matched wind tunnel parameter settings and did not provide comprehensive coverage).

• Examine the dependence of heating bump factors on the 

entrance and exit angles. 

• Examine the dependence of heating bump factors on the 

orientation to the flow of various types of cavities. 

In Work 

Catalytic 

Heating Tool: 

Damaged 

9.0, 64-65 

Future Enhancements. Enhancements to consider should 

include replacing bounding factors with an engineering method of modeling catalytic heating as a function of surface temperature and of re-entry-gas energy-state. The 

characterization of STA-54 in arcjet tests should be completed. The catalycity and emittance of RCC repair materials should be measured. The emittance assumptions 

for other materials must be reviewed and updated as 

required. 

In Work 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit Assessment of 

Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

122 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Model Reference 

(section, 

page) 

Recommendation Status NE

Catalytic 

Heating Tool: 

Damaged 

9.0, 64-65 

Emittance. Additional test and analyses should be 

conducted to improve confidence in emittance values for uncoated tiles. 

Open 

Catalytic 

Heating Tool: 

Damaged 

9.0, 64-65 

Split Line Effects. The magnitude of the heating increase at 

the split line between coated RCC and the repair plug, and the resulting effect from the thermal analysis needs to be addressed. 

Open 

Catalytic 

Heating Tool: 

Damaged 

9.0, 64-65 

Bare RCC Catalysis. Catalysis of reacting surfaces, i.e., 

bare RCC, may be a misnomer and referring to this as fully catalytic heating might be an invalid concept. It is recommended that this phenomenon be considered for further investigation by measuring the heat flux to bare RCC in pure nitrogen, as well as an inert gas (argon) to discriminate between catalytic reactions from other reactions on the surface, and thus to identify actual catalytic heating factors.

Open 

BLT 

Prediction 

Tool 

10.0, 68-73 

Roughness Requirements. An effort should be expended to understand the uncertainty associated with transition occurring prior to Mach 18, regarding impact on the vehicle. 

Open 

BLT 

Prediction 

Tool 

10.0, 68-73 

Attachment Line. Consider the effects of AOA from 45 to 30 degrees in evaluating turbulence spreading as well as Mach 18 real gas effects rather than M=6 perfect gas estimates. 

Open 

BLT 

Prediction 

Tool 

10.0, 68-73 

Protuberances. Future work should consider testing of additional roughness shapes and locations. Further evaluation is recommended on the impact of the wall temperature and consideration for testing larger models. 

Open 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit Assessment of 

Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

123 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Model Reference 

(section, 

page) 

Recommendation Status NE

BLT 

Prediction 

Tool 

10.0, 68-73 

Ablation. The limited wind tunnel test data needs to be recorrelated against more traditional correlation parameters, i.e., using a normalized blowing rate such as (ρv)w/(ρu)e, to 

verify that the expected blowing level is being scaled properly. In addition, the blowing rate needs to be verified that it is representative of the hottest region just behind the nose cap on the Orbiter. The impact of blowing at locations further forward on the Orbiter need to be tested as well as the combined effects with roughness. Until this is resolved this approach has significant limitations. 

Open 

3-D Acreage 

Tile Thermal 

Model 

11.0, 76 

Uncertainty of Uncoated (Damaged) Tile Area Hemispherical Emittance. Perform an emissivity 

sensitivity analysis with 3-D TMM for various tile types, with guidance from M&P in defining uncertainty bands to be used. If results show a high sensitivity, the Program needs to re-evaluate the use of the TPSX data. The Program should consider testing damaged tile (emissivity test) via a calorimetric thermal vacuum test of a tile sample. 

Open 

3-D Acreage 

Tile Thermal 

Model 

11.0, 76 

Inter-Tile Gap Heating. Perform inter-tile gap heating sensitivity analysis and compare results with test data. Justify value used by calculating the ratio of model sidewall heating to surface heating. This will not be an exact number, but should serve as a rough confirmation of the value used. 

Open 

Special 

Configuration 

Thermal 

Models 

12.0- 12.8 12.1 through 12.8 listed below. See below 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit Assessment of 

Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

124 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Model Reference 

(section, 

page) 

Recommendation Status NE

Elevon Lower 

Cove 3-D 

TMM 

12.1, 78 

• Perform arcjet testing for comparison with the model. 

• Modify either the 2-D or 3-D TMM to more closely 

match configuration/property differences between models. 

• Expand the 3-D model to include thermocouple 

locations (where available) from early flights. 

Open 

Forward 

Reaction 

Control 

System 

(FRCS) 

Canopy 3-D 

TMM 

12.2, 79 

• Perform arcjet testing for comparison with the model. 

• Modify either the 2-D or 3-D TMM to more closely 

match 

• configuration/property differences between models to 

either confirm or improve the TMM. 

Open 

WLE Panel 9 

Lower Access 

Panel (LAP) 

3-D TMM 

12.3, 80 

• Perform arcjet testing for comparison with the model. 

• Modify the 2-D or 3-D TMM to more closely match 

configuration/property differences between models. 

• Expand the 3-D model to include thermocouple 

locations (where available) from early flights to either 

confirm or improve the TMM. 

Open 

Main Landing 

Gear Door 

(MLGD) 3-D 

TMM 

12.4, 81 

• Perform arcjet testing for comparison with the model. 

• Modify either the 2-D or 3-D TMM to more closely 

match configuration/property differences between model. 

• Expand the 3-D model to include thermocouple 

locations (where available) from early flights to either confirm or improve the TMM. 

Open 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit Assessment of 

Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

125 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Model Reference 

(section, 

page) 

Recommendation Status NE

Vertical Tail 

Leading Edge 

(VTLE) 3-D 

TMM 

12.5, 82 

• Perform arcjet testing for comparison with the model. 

• Modify either the 2-D or 3-D TMM to more closely 

match configuration/property differences between models. 

• Expand the 3-D model to include thermocouple 

locations (where available) from early flights to either confirm or improve the TMM.

Open 

Forward 

Window # 3 

Perimeter 3-D 

TMM 

12.6, 84 

• Perform arcjet testing for comparison with the model. 

• Modify either the 2-D or 3-D TMM to more closely 

match configuration/property differences between models. 

• Expand the 3-D model to include thermocouple 

locations (where available) from early flights to either confirm or improve the TMM.

Open 

External Tank 

Door (ETD) 3-

D TMM 

12.7, 85 

• Perform arcjet testing for comparison with the model. • Modify either the 2-D or 3-D TMM to more closely 

match configuration/property differences between models. 

• Expand the 3-D model to include thermocouple 

locations (where available) from early flights to either 

confirm or improve the TMM. 

Open 

Nose Landing 

Gear Door 

(NGLD) 3-D 

TMM 

12.8, 86 

• Perform arcjet testing for comparison with the model. 

• Modify either the 2-D or 3-D TMM to more closely 

match configuration/property differences between models. 

• Expand the 3-D model to include thermocouple 

locations (where available) from early flights to either confirm or improve the TMM. 

Open 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit Assessment of 

Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

126 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Model Reference 

(section, 

page) 

Recommendation Status NE

Tile Stress 

Tool 13.0, 90 

RTV bondline failure is the critical failure mode identified on the damage map for many vehicle zones; however, it is the least validated of all the models. Efforts should be made to better validate the performance of the RTV/Tile/SIP system under elevated temperature. 

Open 

Tile Stress 

Tool 13.0, 90 

The assumption of secant modulus and shear allowable at 625° F being extrapolated just as flatwise tension to 15 

percent of value at 450° F should be validated by test. 

Open 

Tile Stress 

Tool 13.0, 90 

The tool should be expanded for upper surface acreage tile and penetration perimeter tile, if possible. Open 

Tile Stress 

Tool 13.0, 90 

The effects of aged tiles should be included. 

Open 

Tile Stress 

Tool 13.0, 90 

This tool has already been used for pre-flight assessment in the development of the foam on tile and ice on tile damage maps, as well as the on-orbit (2”/3”) criteria tile damage map. Thus, the restriction that it be used only for on-orbit assessment should be lifted. 

Open 

Stress 

Assessor Tool 14.0, 94 

The stress assessor tool should be brought in-house to NASA 

to enable additional evaluation and independent tile damage risk trades through structured, parametric model sensitivity studies. 

In-Work 

Stress 

Assessor Tool 14.0, 94 

Verification of correction factors for curved surfaces. 

In-Work 

Stress 

Assessor Tool 14.0, 94 

An independent review of the NASTRAN models used to validate assumptions in the tool is needed. Open 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit Assessment of 

Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

127 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Model Reference 

(section, 

page) 

Recommendation Status NE

Stress 

Assessor Tool 14.0, 94 

Provide capability to determine NLGD stresses and out-ofplane deflections. Open 

Stress 

Assessor Tool 14.0, 94 

Expand the capability of the tool to include other areas beside the bottom skin and OMS pod. Open 

Stress 

Assessor Tool 14.0, 94 An independent review of the out-of-plane deflections nonlinear FEA models is needed. Open 

Stress 

Assessor Tool 14.0, 94 

An independent review of the NASTRAN models used for honeycomb structure (elevon, mid-wing, MLGD) is needed. Open 

Integrated 

Tools For

End-To-End 

Computation 

of Tile 

Damage

15.0, 108-110 

Process. Graphical display of thermal analysis results 

should be considered for implementation during the analytical process as a part of the QA and solution verification process.

Open 

Integrated 

Tools For 

End-To-End 

Computation 

of Tile 

Damage 

15.0, 108-110 

Process. A back-up capability should be provided for the 

Stress Assessor tool suite. In-Work; ECD 9/2/05 

Integrated 

Tools For 

End-To-End 

Computation 

of Tile 

Damage 

15.0, 108-110 

Integrated Application of Analysis Tools. The 

implementation of the catalycity lookup table in 3-D TMM should be verified, as this is a new capability since the last simulation. 

Open 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit Assessment of 

Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

128 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Model Reference 

(section, 

page) 

Recommendation Status NE

Integrated 

Tools For 

End-To-End 

Computation 

of Tile 

Damage 

15.0, 108-110 

Integrated Application of Analysis Tools. Evidence 

indicates that using 1.0 bump factor for shallow cavities is very conservative. Further evaluation with CFD and test is required. 

Open 

Integrated 

Tools For 

End-To-End 

Computation 

of Tile 

Damage 

15.0, 108-110 

Integrated Application of Analysis Tools. Additional CFD sensitivity studies are recommended including, but not limited to: 

a. Everhart Cavity analysis. 

b. Turbulent cavity assessments (CFD all laminar 

in/laminar out). 

c. Lower Mach number studies (i.e., M=12 lower end of 

catalytic effects, M=3 effects of negative heating and bump factor). 

d. Bump factor sensitivity (heating rate ratio, heat transfer 

coefficient ratio, emissivity, catalytic surface effects).

Open 

Integrated 

Tools For 

End-To-End 

Computation 

of Tile 

Damage 

15.0, 108-110 

Uncertainty. A better understanding of uncertainties and 

sensitivities to input parameters is critical when making reentry decisions, particularly those that may result in accepting reduced margins for re-entry. Preliminary results would indicate large uncertainties on bond line temperature, which currently drives many of the capability limitations. These uncertainties should be further explored. 

In Work 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit Assessment of 

Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

129 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Model Reference 

(section, 

page) 

Recommendation Status NE

Integrated 

Tools For 

End-To-End 

Computation 

of Tile 

Damage 

15.0, 108-110 

Uncertainty. Parameters that are identified as primary 

drivers of analytical uncertainty should be assessed for further analytical and test efforts to narrow the uncertainty bands on the analytical results. 

Open 

Integrated 

Tools For 

End-To-End 

Computation 

of Tile 

Damage 

15.0, 108-110 

Uncertainty. Quarter inch uncertainty on cavity depth is 

probably too large based on OBSS demonstrated accuracy, and +0.1 would be more appropriate for conditions expected 

on-orbit. 

In Work 

Integrated 

Tools For 

End-To-End 

Computation 

of Tile 

Damage 

15.0, 108-110 

Uncertainty. Emphasis should be given to establishing the 

uncertainty associated with the cavity geometry simplification process. 

Open 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit Assessment of 

Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

130 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Model Reference 

(section, 

page) 

Recommendation Status NE

Integrated 

Tools For 

End-To-End 

Computation 

of Tile 

Damage 

15.0, 108-110 

Uncertainty. Reasonable attempts should be made to 

incorporate appropriate correlation of factors rather than assuming they are all independent. 

Open 

Integrated 

Tools For 

End-To-End 

Computation 

of Tile 

Damage 

15.0, 108-110 

Uncertainty. Revisit list of significant input parameters to 

identify the most meaningful contributors. Open 
NASA Engineering and Safety Center 

Technical Assessment Report

Document #: 

RP-05-104 

Version: 

1.0 

Title:

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit 

Assessment of Impact Damage Report 

Page #: 

131 of 131

NESC Request No. 05-011-E 

Approval and Document Revision History 

Approved: Original signature on file 9/22/05 

 NESC Director Date 

Version Description of Revision Office of Primary Responsibility Effective 

Date 

1.0 Initial Release Principal Engineer’s Office 9/22/05 
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

2. REPORT TYPE 

Technical Memorandum

 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Inspection of the Math Model Tools for On-Orbit Assessment of Impact

Damage Report

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

 6. AUTHOR(S)

Harris, Charles E.; Raju, Ivatury S.; Piascik, Robert S.; Kramer-White,

Julie A.; Labbe, Steve G.; and Rotter, Hank A.

 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

NASA Langley Research Center

Hampton, VA 23681-2199

 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, DC 20546-0001

 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

L-19182 NESC-RP-05-104/05-011-E

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NASA

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

An electronic version can be found at http://ntrs.nasa.gov

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified - Unlimited

Subject Category 34

Availability: NASA CASI (301) 621-0390

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

STI Help Desk (email: help@sti.nasa.gov)

14. ABSTRACT

In Spring of 2005, the NASA Engineering Safety Center (NESC) was engaged by the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) to peer review the suite

of analytical tools being developed to support the determination of impact and damage tolerance of the Orbiter Thermal Protection Systems

(TPS). The NESC formed an independent review team with the core disciplines of materials, flight sciences, structures, mechanical analysis

and thermal analysis. The Math Model Tools reviewed included damage prediction and stress analysis, aeroheating analysis, and thermal

analysis tools. Some tools are physics-based and other tools are empirically-derived. Each tool was created for a specific use and

timeframe, including certification, real-time pre-launch assessments, and real-time on-orbit assessments. The tools are used together in an

integrated strategy for assessing the ramifications of impact damage to tile and RCC. The NESC teams conducted a peer review of the

engineering data package for each Math Model Tool. This report contains the summary of the team observations and recommendations

from these reviews.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Math Model Tool, TPS, LS-DYNA code, End-to-end review, RCC, Foam loss, Debris, Ice, STS-114, ET, Validation &

Verification (V&V), Test and analysis, Tile, Damage analysis

18. NUMBER

 OF 

 PAGES

136

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

(301) 621-0390

a. REPORT

U

c. THIS PAGE

U

b. ABSTRACT

U

17. LIMITATION OF 

 ABSTRACT

UU

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

August - October 2005

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

104-08-40

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT

 NUMBER(S)

NASA/TM-2005-213928/Version 1.0

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and 

Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person 

shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

01- 09 - 2005