Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T06:05:08.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development of ground vibration test based flutter emulation technique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2020

J.-M. Yun  and
J.-H. Han Open the ORCID record for J.-H. Han [Opens in a new window]
J.-M. Yun
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon, Republic of Korea
J.-H. Han*
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon, Republic of Korea
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In demand of simpler and alternative ground flutter test, a new technique that emulates flutter on the ground has recently emerged. In this paper, an improvement of the test technique is made and verified through the experimental work. The technique utilizes general ground vibration test (GVT) devices. The key idea is to emulate the distributed unsteady aerodynamic force by using a few concentrated actuator forces; referred to as emulated flutter test (EFT) technique. The EFT module contains two main logics; namely, real-time aerodynamic equivalent force calculator and multi-input-multi-output (MIMO) force controller. The module is developed to emulate the subsonic, linear flutter on a specified target structure, which is a thin aluminum clamped-plate with aspect ratio (AR) of 2.25. In this study, doublet hybrid method (DHM) was applied to model the subsonic aerodynamic force, which restricts the application to a 2-dimensional structure. Given that, correlation of several experimental works, such as wind-tunnel flutter test, EFT using laser displacement sensor (LDS), and EFT using accelerometer, on the target structure are investigated to verify the technique. In addition to the flutter boundary, flutter mode shape and trend of aerodynamic damping effect are also presented in this work. Together with these various kinds of test results, application of more compact actuator and an accelerometer as a sensor, makes the current technique the most advanced ground flutter emulation test method.

Keywords

Aeroelastic flutterGround vibration testSpline matrixAccelerometerLaser displacement sensorDirect-drive-linear-actuatorWind-tunnel test
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 124 , Issue 1279 , September 2020 , pp. 1436 - 1461
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Hodges, D.H.Introduction to Structural Dynamics and Aeroelasticity, 2nd ed, Cambridge University Press, 2011, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ZONA Technology, ZAERO Theoretical Manual Version 9.2, ZONA Technology Inc., 2016, Scottsdale, AZ.Google Scholar
Amato, E.M., Polsinelli, C., Cestino, E. and Frulla, G.HALE wing experiments and computational models to predict nonlinear flutter and dynamic response, Aeronaut J, June 2019, 123, (1264), pp 912–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnett, E.L., Beranek, J.A., Holm-Hansen, B.T., Atkinson, C.J. and Flick, P.M.Design and flight test of active flutter suppression on the X-56A multi-utility technology test-bed aircraft, Aeronaut J, June 2016, 120, (1228), pp 893–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kehoe, M.W.A Historical Overview of Flight Flutter Testing, NASA Technical Memorandum 4720, October 1995.Google Scholar
Kayran, A.Flight flutter testing and aeroelastic stability of aircraft, AircrEng Aerosp Technol Int J, 2007, 79, (2), pp 150–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeng, J., Kingsbury, D.W., Ritz, E., Chen, P.C., Lee, D.H. and Mignolet, M.P. GVT-Based Ground Flutter Test Without Wind Tunnel, 52nd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, AIAA Paper, 2011-1942, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, Z., Ma, C. and Yang, C.New approach to the ground flutter simulation test, J Aircraft, September–October 2016, 53, (5), pp 1575–1580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, Z., Zhang, R., Ma, C. and Yang, C.Aeroelastic semiphysical simulation and wind-tunnel testing validation of a fin-actuator system, J Aircraft, January–February 2017, 54, (1), pp 235–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harder, R.L. and Desmarais, R.N.Interpolation using surface splines, J Aircraft, February 1972, 9, (2), pp 189–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MSC Software, MSC Nastran Version 68: Aeroelastic Analysis User’s Guide, Newport Beach, CA, 2015.Google Scholar
Eversman, W. and Pitt, D.M.Hybrid doublet lattice/doublet point method for lifting surfaces in subsonic flow, J Aircraft, September 1991, 28, (9), pp 572–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karpel, M. and Hoadley, S.T. Physically weighted approximations of unsteady aerodynamic forces using the minimum-state method, NASA Technical paper 3025, March 1991.Google Scholar
Kailash, D. and Han, J.-H.Panel flutter emulation using a few concentrated forces, Int’l J Aeronaut Space Sci, March 2018, 19, (1), pp 80–88.Google Scholar
Hassig, H.J.An approximate true damping solution of the flutter equation by determinant iteration, J Aircraft, May 1971, 8, (11), pp 885–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, K.A.An Introduction to Numerical Analysis, 2nd ed, John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1989, NY.Google Scholar
Lang, G.F. and Snyder, D., Understanding the physics of electrodynamic shaker performance, Dynamic Testing Reference Issue, Sound and Vibration, October 2001, pp 1–10.Google Scholar
Ljung, L.System Identification-Theory for the User, Prentice Hall, 1999, Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google Scholar
Savitzky, A. and Golay, M.J.E.Smoothing and differentiation of data by simplified least squares procedures, Analyt Chem, July 1964, 36, (8), pp 1627–1639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schafer, R.W.What is a Savitzky-Golay filter? IEEE Sig Process Mag, June 2011, 28, (4), pp 111–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eliasmith, C. and Anderson, C.H.Neural Engineering: Computation, Representation and Dynamics in Neurobiological Systems, MIT Press, 2003.Google Scholar
Yun, J.-M., Kim, H.-Y., Han, J.-H., Kim, H.-I. and Kwon, H.-J.Performance evaluation method of homogeneous stereo camera system for full-field structural deformation estimation, Int’l J Aeronaut Space Sci, August 2015, 16 (3), pp 380–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, B.J., Richardson, M.H.Introduction to Operating Deflecting Shapes, CSI Reliability Week, October 1999, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
Allemang, R.J.The modal assurance criterion – twenty years of use and abuse, Sound Vibr, August 2003, 37, (8), pp 14–21.Google Scholar