Search

In this paper, several aerodynamic reduced-order models (ROMs) are generated and coupled with structural models to form aeroelastic ROMs. The aerodynamic ROMs generated here include the effects of control surface motion and are appropriate for use in aeroservoelastic applications. Simple observer-based full-state feedback controllers were designed from these aeroelastic ROMs. Additionally, observer gain matrices were designed from and coupled to the aeroelastic ROMs. Each (linear) observer was then used to estimate the dynamics of a (nonlinear) stand-alone computational fluid-structure dynamics simulation. Then, using the estimated states and the full-state feedback controller, control surface commands were fed back into the computational fluid-structure dynamics simulation to successfully achieve active flutter suppression. The process, as well as some results, are presented in this paper.

As aircraft become more flexible, aeroelastic considerations become increasingly important and complex, particularly for transonic flight where nonlinearities in the flow render linear analysis tools less effective. In order to analyze these aeroelastic interactions between the fluid and the structure efficiently, reduced order models (ROMs) are sometimes generated from and used in place of computational fluid dynamics solutions. In this paper, several aerodynamic ROMs are generated and coupled with structural models to form aeroelastic ROMs. The aerodynamic ROMs generated here include the effects of control surface motion. Hence, the aeroelastic ROMs presented here are appropriate for use in aeroservoelastic applications and are intended to be used for aeroservoelastic control law development. These ROMs are used to simulate a number of test cases with and without control surface involvement. Results show that several of the ROMs generated in the paper are able to predict results similar to solutions of higher-order computational methods.

Aircraft designers are to a growing extent using vehicle flexibility to optimize performance with objectives such as gust load alleviation and drag minimization. More complex aerodynamically optimized configurations may also require dynamic loads and perhaps eventually flutter suppression. This paper considers an aerodynamically optimized truss-braced wing aircraft designed for a Mach 0.745 cruise. The variable camber continuous trailing edge flap concept with a feedback control system is used to enhance aeroelastic stability. A linearized reduced order aerodynamic model is developed from unsteady Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes simulations. A static output feedback controller is developed from that model. Closed-loop simulations using the reduced order aerodynamic model show that the controller is effective in stabilizing the vehicle dynamics.

Active flutter suppression has been demonstrated in simulation by many researchers, generally using methods based on linear aerodynamics and often with simplistic geometries. In this paper, active flutter suppression is demonstrated in a simulation using a Navier-Stokes aerodynamics code, FUN3D (Fully Unstructured Navier-Stokes Three-Dimensional), and a realistic transport aircraft configuration. This is accomplished using simple observer-feedback controllers derived from linear aeroelastic models, including reduced order models built via FUN3D data. The development of these reduced order models is described here. It is shown that controllers derived from reduced order models of the nonlinear aerodynamics outperform controllers based on linear aerodynamics.

Structural optimization with a flutter constraint for a vehicle designed to fly in the transonic regime is a particularly difficult task. In this speed range, the flutter boundary is very sensitive to aerodynamic nonlinearities, typically requiring high-fidelity Navier-Stokes simulations. However, the repeated application of unsteady computational fluid dynamics to guide an aeroelastic optimization process is very computationally expensive. This expense has motivated the development of methods that incorporate aspects of the aerodynamic nonlinearity, classical tools of flutter analysis, and more recent methods of optimization. While it is possible to use doublet lattice method aerodynamics, this paper focuses on the use of an unsteady high-fidelity aerodynamic reduced order model combined with successive transformations that allows for an economical way of utilizing high-fidelity aerodynamics in the optimization process. This approach is applied to the common research model wing structural design. As might be expected, the high-fidelity aerodynamics produces a heavier wing than that optimized with doublet lattice aerodynamics. It is found that the optimized lower skin of the wing using high-fidelity aerodynamics differs significantly from that using doublet lattice aerodynamics.

A nonlinear structural solver has been implemented internally within the NASA FUN3D computational fluid dynamics code, allowing for some new aeroelastic capabilities. Using a modal representation of the structure, a set of differential or differential-algebraic equations are derived for general thin structures with geometric nonlinearities. ODEPACK and LAPACK routines are linked with FUN3D, and the nonlinear equations are solved at each CFD time step. The existing predictor-corrector method is retained, whereby the structural solution is updated after mesh deformation. The nonlinear solver is validated using a test case for a flexible aeroshell at transonic, supersonic, and hypersonic flow conditions. Agreement with linear theory is seen for the static aeroelastic solutions at relatively low dynamic pressures, but structural nonlinearities limit deformation amplitudes at high dynamic pressures. No flutter was found at any of the tested trajectory points, though LCO may be possible in the transonic regime.

The NASA Langley Aeroelasticity Branch is involved in a number of research programs related to fixed wing aeroelasticity and aeroservoelasticity. These ongoing efforts are summarized here, and include aeroelastic tailoring of subsonic transport wing structures, experimental and numerical assessment of truss-braced wing flutter and limit cycle oscillations, and numerical modeling of high speed civil transport configurations. Efforts devoted to verification, validation, and uncertainty quantification of aeroelastic physics in a workshop setting are also discussed. The feasibility of certain future civil transport configurations will depend on the ability to understand and control complex aeroelastic phenomena, a goal that the Aeroelasticity Branch is well-positioned to contribute through these programs.

Research focus in recent years has been given to the design of aircraft that provide significant reductions in emissions, noise and fuel usage. Increases in fuel efficiency have also generally been attended by overall increased wing flexibility. The truss-braced wing (TBW) configuration has been forwarded as one that increases fuel efficiency. The Boeing company recently tested the Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research (SUGAR) Truss-Braced Wing (TBW) wind-tunnel model in the NASA Langley Research Center Transonic Dynamics Tunnel (TDT). This test resulted in a wealth of accelerometer data. Other publications have presented details of the construction of that model, the test itself, and a few of the results of the test. This paper aims to provide a much more detailed look at what the accelerometer data says about the onset of aeroelastic instability, usually known as flutter onset. Every flight vehicle has a location in the flight envelope of flutter onset, and the TBW vehicle is not different. For the TBW model test, the flutter onset generally occurred at the conditions that the Boeing company analysis said it should. What was not known until the test is that, over a large area of the Mach number dynamic pressure map, the model displayed wing/engine nacelle aeroelastic limit cycle oscillation (LCO). This paper dissects that LCO data in order to provide additional insights into the aeroelastic behavior of the model.

The Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research (SUGAR) Truss-Braced Wing (TBW) aeroservoelastic (ASE) wind-tunnel test was conducted in the NASA Langley Transonic Dynamics Tunnel (TDT) and was completed in April, 2014. The primary goals of the test were to identify the open-loop flutter boundary and then demonstrate flutter suppression. A secondary goal was to demonstrate gust load alleviation (GLA). Open-loop flutter and limit cycle oscillation onset boundaries were identified for a range of Mach numbers and various angles of attack. Two sets of control laws were designed for the model and both sets of control laws were successful in suppressing flutter. Control laws optimized for GLA were not designed; however, the flutter suppression control laws were assessed using the TDT Airstream Oscillation System. This paper describes the experimental apparatus, procedures, and results of the TBW wind-tunnel test. Acquired system ID data used to generate ASE models is also discussed.2 study.

Considerable attention has been given in recent years to the design of highly flexible aircraft. The results of numerous studies demonstrate the significant performance benefits of strut-braced wing (SBW) and trussbraced wing (TBW) configurations. Critical aspects of the TBW configuration are its larger aspect ratio, wing span and thinner wings. These aspects increase the importance of considering fluid/structure and control system coupling. This paper presents high-fidelity Navier-Stokes simulations of the dynamic response of the flexible Boeing Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research (SUGAR) truss-braced wing wind-tunnel model. The latest version of the SUGAR TBW finite element model (FEM), v.20, is used in the present simulations. Limit cycle oscillations (LCOs) of the TBW wing/strut/nacelle are simulated at angle-of-attack (AoA) values of -1, 0 and +1 degree. The modal data derived from nonlinear static aeroelastic MSC.Nastran solutions are used at AoAs of -1 and +1 degrees. The LCO amplitude is observed to be dependent on AoA. LCO amplitudes at -1 degree are larger than those at +1 degree. The LCO amplitude at zero degrees is larger than either -1 or +1 degrees. These results correlate well with both wind-tunnel data and the behavior observed in previous studies using linear aerodynamics. The LCO onset at zero degrees AoA has also been computed using unloaded v.20 FEM modes. While the v.20 model increases the dynamic pressure at which LCO onset is observed, it is found that the LCO onset at and above Mach 0.82 is much different than that produced by an earlier version of the FEM, v. 19.