The Impact of Truth Surrogate Variance on Quality Assessment/Assurance in Wind Tunnel Testing
Minimum data volume requirements for wind tunnel testing are reviewed and shown to depend on error tolerance, response model complexity, random error variance in the measurement environment, and maximum acceptable levels of inference error risk. Distinctions are made between such related concepts as quality assurance and quality assessment in response surface modeling, as well as between precision and accuracy. Earlier research on the scaling of wind tunnel tests is extended to account for variance in the truth surrogates used at confirmation sites in the design space to validate proposed response models. A model adequacy metric is presented that represents the fraction of the design space within which model predictions can be expected to satisfy prescribed quality specifications. The impact of inference error on the assessment of response model residuals is reviewed. The number of sites where reasonably well-fitted response models actually predict inadequately is shown to be considerably less than the number of sites where residuals are out of tolerance. The significance of such inference error effects on common response model assessment strategies is examined.