Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T00:16:56.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aeroservoelastic simulation by time-marching

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

L. Djayapertapa  and
C. B. Allen
L. Djayapertapa
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Bristol, UK
C. B. Allen
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Bristol, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The coupling of independent structural dynamic and inviscid aerodynamic models, in the time domain, is considered. The accuracy and CPU requirements of the two common approaches, namely ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ coupling procedures, are investigated. It is found that the strong coupling scheme is more accurate than the weak coupling approach, and only for large real time-steps is the strong coupling scheme more expensive. The computational method developed is used to perform transonic aeroelastic and aeroservoelastic calculations in the time domain, and used to compute stability (flutter) boundaries of 2D wing sections. A control law is implemented within the aeroelastic solver to investigate active means of flutter suppression via control surface motion. Comparisons of open and closed loop calculations show that the control law can successfully suppress the flutter and results in a significant increase in the allowable speed index in the transonic regime. The effect of structural nonlinearity, in the form of hinge axis backlash is also investigated. The effect is found to be destabilising, but the control law is shown to still alleviate the destabilising effect.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 105 , Issue 1054 , December 2001 , pp. 667 - 678
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2001 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. Macneal Schwendler Corporation MSC/ Nastran Aeroelastic Analysis, Seminar Notes Version 68, May 1995.Google Scholar
2. Bland, S.R. and Edwards, J.W. Airfoil shape and thickness effects on transonic airloads and flutter, J Aircr, March 1984, 21, pp 209-2173.Google Scholar
3. Bendiksen, O.O. and Kousen, K.A. Transonic flutter analysis using the Euler equations, AIAA Paper, 1987. 87-0911-CP.Google Scholar
4. Kousen, K.A. and Bendiksen, O.O. Non-linear aspects of the transonic aeroelastic stability problem, 1988, AIAA Paper 88-2306. Also in AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS 29th structures, structural dynamics and material conference. 1988.Google Scholar
5. Kousen, K.A. and Bendiksen, O.O. Limit cycle phenomena in computa tional transonic aeroelasticity, J Aircr, Nov-Dec 1994, 31, (6), pp 1257–1263.Google Scholar
6. Alonso, J.J. and Jameson, A. Fully-implicit time-marching aeroelastic solutions, AIAA Paper, January 1994, 94-0056.Google Scholar
7. Guruswamy, G.P. Unsteady aerodynamic and aeroelastic calculations for wings using Euler equations, AIAA J, March 1990, 28, (3), pp 461–469.Google Scholar
8. Robinson, B.A., Batina, J.T. and Yang, H.T.Y. Aeroelastic analysis of wings using the Euler equations with s deforming mesh, J Aircr, November 1991, 28, (11), pp 781–788.Google Scholar
9. Badcock, K.J., Sim, G. and Richards, B.E. Aeroelastic studies using transonic flow CFD modelling, 1995, International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics, June 1995, pp 18.1–18.12.Google Scholar
10. Prananta, B.B., Hounjet, M.H.L. and Zwaan, R.J. Thin layer Navier- Stokes solver and its application for aeroelastic analysis of an airfoil in transonic flow, 1995. International forum on aeroelasticity and structural dynamics, June 1995. pp 1.1–1.9.Google Scholar
11. Prananta, B.B. and Hounjet, M.H.L. Aeroelastic simulation with advanced CFD methods in 2D and 3D transonic flow, 1996, Symposium unsteady aerodynamics, 17-18 July 1996, RAeS, London, UK.Google Scholar
12. Meijer, J.J., Hounjet, M.H.L., Eussen, B.J.G. and Prananta, B.B. NLR-TU Delf experience in unsteady aerodynamics and aeroelastic simulation applications, March 1998, AGARD Report 822, Numerical unsteady aerodynamic and aeroelastic simulation, pp 11–1-11-21.Google Scholar
13. Schuster, D.M., Beran, P.S. and Huttsell, L.J. Application of the ENS3DAE Euler/Navier-Stokes aeroelastic method, 1998, AGARD Report No 822, Numerical unsteady aerodynamic and aeroelastic simulation, March 1998, pp 3–1-3-11.Google Scholar
14. Försching, H. Challenges and perspectives in computational aeroelasticity, 1995, International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics, June 1995, pp 1.1-1.9.Google Scholar
15. Bennett, R.M. and Edwards, J.W. An overview of recent developments in computational aeroelasticity, 1998, AIAA 98-2421, 29th AIAA Fluid dynamics conference, 15-18 June 1998, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.Google Scholar
16. Noll, T.E. Aeroservoelasticity, Flight-vehicle materials, structures, and dynamics-assessment and future direction, 1993, Chapter 3, Vol 5, Structural Dynamics and Aeroelasticity, Noor, A.K. and Venneri, S.L., pp 179–212.Google Scholar
17. Nissim, E. Recent advances in aerodynamic energy concept for flutter suppression and gust alleviation using active controls, 1977, NASA TN D-8519.Google Scholar
18. Nissim, E., Caspi, A. and Lottatti, I. Application of the aerodynamic energy concept to flutter suppression and gust alleviation by use of active controls, 1978. NASA TP 1137.Google Scholar
19. Nissim, E. and Abel, I. Development and application of an optimization procedure for flutter suppression using the aerodynamic energy Concept, 1978, NASA TP 1137.Google Scholar
20. Nissim, E. Design of control laws for flutter suppression based on the aerodynamic energy concept and comparisons with other design methods, 1990, NASA TP 3056.Google Scholar
21. Edwards, J.W., Breakwell, J.V. and Bryon, A.E. Active flutter control using generalized Unsteday aerodynamic theory, J Guidance and Control, January 1978, 1, (1), pp 32–40.Google Scholar
22. Horikawa, H. and Dowell, E.A. An elementary explanation of the flutter mechanism with active feedback controls, J Aircr. April 1979, 16, (4), pp 225–232.Google Scholar
23. Karpel, M. Design for active flutter suppression and gust alleviation using state-space aeroelastic modelling J Aircr, March 1982, 19, (3). pp 221–227.Google Scholar
24. Batina, J.T. and Yang, T.Y. Application of transonic codes to aeroelastic modelling of airfoils including active controls, J Aircr, August 1984, 21, (8), pp 623–630.Google Scholar
25. Whalley, R. and Ebrahimi, M. Vibration and control of aircraft wings, 1998, Proceeding of IMechE, 212, Part G. pp 353–365.Google Scholar
26. Guruswamy, G.P and Tu, E.L. Transonic aeroelasticity of fighter wings with active control surfaces, AIAA J, 1988, 27, (6). pp 788–793.Google Scholar
27. Guruswamy, G.P. Integrated approach for active coupling of structures and fluids, AIAA J, 1988, 27, (6), pp 788–793.Google Scholar
28. Pak, C.G., Friedman, P.P. and Livne, E. Tansonic adaptive flutter suppression using approximate unsteady time domain aerodynamics, AIAA-9I-0986-CP.Google Scholar
29. Guillot, D. and Friedman, P.P. A fundamental aeroservoelastic study combining unsteady CFD with adaptive control, AIAA 94-1721.Google Scholar
30. Guillot, D. and Friedman, P.P. Adaptive control of aeroelastic instabilities in transonic flow using CFD-based loads. 1995, International forum on aeroelasticity and structural dynamics, June 1995, pp 73.1–73.13.Google Scholar
31. Nissim, E. Flutter suppression using active controls based on the concept of aerodynamic energy, NASA TN D-6199, 1971.Google Scholar
32. Gordon, W.J. and Hall, C.A. Construction of curvilinear co-ordinates systems and applications to mesh generation. Int J for Numerical Methods in Eng, 1973, 7, pp 461–477 Google Scholar
33. Gordon, W.J. and Thiel, L.C. Transfinite mappings and their application to grid generation, Numerical Grid Generation, 1982, Thompson, J.F. (Ed), North Holland.Google Scholar
34. Eriksson, L.E. Generation of boundary conforming grids around wing- body configurations using transfinite interpolation, AIAA J, October 1982, 20, (10), pp 1313–1320.Google Scholar
35. Gaitonde, A.L. and Fiddes, S.P. A three dimensional moving mesh method for the calculations of unsteady transonic flows, 1993, Paper 13 in Proceedings of the 1993 European forum for recent developments and applications in aeronautical CFD, Bristol.Google Scholar
36. Gaitonde, A.L. A dual-time method for the solution of the unsteady Euler equations. Aeronaut J, October 1994, 99, (978) pp 283–291.Google Scholar
37. Allen, C.B. Central-difference and upwind biased schemes for steady and unsteady Euler aerofoil flows. Aeronaut J, February 1995, 99, (982), pp 52–62.Google Scholar
38. Allen, C.B. The reduction of numerical entropy generated by unsteady Shockwaves, Aeronaut J, January 1997, 101, (1001), pp 9–16.Google Scholar
39. Jameson, A., Schmidt, W. and Turkel, E. Numerical solutions of the Euler equations by finite volume methods using Runge-Kutta time step ping schemes. 1981, AIAA-Paper No 81 -1259.Google Scholar
40. Kroll, N. and Jain, R.K. Solution of two dimensional Euler equations experience with a finite volume code, 1987, DLR Report, DFVLR-FB87-41. October 1987.Google Scholar
41. Thomas, P.D. and Lombard, C.K. Geometric conservation laws and its application to flow computations on moving grid, AIAA J, 1979, 17, (10), pp 1030–1037.Google Scholar
42. Dowell, E.H. ET AL. (Ed) A Modern Course in Aeroelasticity, 1994, Third revision and enlarged edition, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, USA.Google Scholar
43. Fung, Y.C. An Introduction to the Theory of Aeroelasticity, 1955, John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA.Google Scholar
44. Glaser, J. Seminar on aeroelasticity, 1987, de Havilland, Canada.Google Scholar
45. Djayapertapa, L. Coupled aerodynamic-structural calculations for 2D aerofoil in unsteady transonic flow, November 1999, Aerospace engineering department Report No AE9904, Bristol University.Google Scholar
46. Bathe, K.J. Finite Element Procedures in Engineering Analysis, 1982, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA.Google Scholar
47. Schulze, S. Transonic aeroelastic simulation of a flexible wing section, March 1998, AGARD Report 822, Numerical unsteady aerodynamic and aeroelastic simulation, pp 10–1– 11-20.Google Scholar
48. Isogai, K. On the transonic-dip mechanism of flutter of a sweptback wing, AIAA J, July 1979, 17, (7), pp 793–795.Google Scholar
49. Edwards, J.W., Bennett, R.M. Whitlow, W. and Seidel, D.A. Timemarching transonic flutter solutions including angle-of-attack effects, November 1983, J Aircr, 20, (11), pp 899–906.Google Scholar