Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T08:29:08.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aeroelastic analysis through linear and non-linear methods: a summary of flutter prediction in the PUMA DARP

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

N. V. Taylor ,
C. B. Allen ,
A. L. Gaitonde ,
D. P. Jones ,
G. A. Vio ,
J. E. Cooper ,
A. M. Rampurawala ,
K. J. Badcock ,
M. A. Woodgate  and
M. J. de C. Henshaw
N. V. Taylor
Affiliation:
University of Bristol
C. B. Allen
Affiliation:
University of Bristol
A. L. Gaitonde
Affiliation:
University of Bristol
D. P. Jones
Affiliation:
University of Bristol
G. A. Vio
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
J. E. Cooper
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
A. M. Rampurawala
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow
K. J. Badcock
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow
M. A. Woodgate
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow
M. J. de C. Henshaw
Affiliation:
BAE Systems
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents a comparison of linear and non-linear methods for the analysis of aeroelastic behaviour and flutter boundary prediction. The methods in question include NASTRAN and ZAERO, based on linear aerodynamics, and the non-linear coupled CFD-CSD methods RANSMB and PMB, developed at the Universities of Bristol and Glasgow respectively. The test cases used for this comparison are the MDO and AGARD 445.6 weakened wing. In general, it was found that the non-linear methods demonstrate excellent agreement with respect to pressure distributions, deflections, dynamic behaviour, and flutter boundary locations for both cases. This is in contrast to previous studies involving similar methods, where notable differences across the MDO span were found, and is taken to imply good performance of the CFD-CSD interpolation schemes employed here. While the linear methods produce similar flutter boundaries to the coupled codes for the aerodynamically simple AGARD 445.6 wing, results for the transonic ‘rooftop’ MDO wing design did not agree as well.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 110 , Issue 1107 , May 2006 , pp. 333 - 343
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2006 

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

1. Osher, S. and Charkravarthy, S. Upwind schemes and boundary conditions with applications to Euler equations in general geometries, J Computational Physics, 1983, 50, pp 447–481.Google Scholar
2. Van Leer, B. Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme II: Monotonicity and conservation combined in a second order scheme, J Computational Physics, 1974, 14, pp 361–374.Google Scholar
3. Jameson, A. Time dependent calculations using multigrid, with applications to unsteady flows past airfoils and wings, AIAA Paper 91–1596.Google Scholar
4. Schmidt, W., Jameson, A. and Turkel, E. Numerical solutions of the euler equations by finite volume methods using Runge-Kutta time stepping schemes, 1981, AIAA-Paper 81–1259.Google Scholar
5. Gaitonde, A.L. A dual-time method for the solution of the unsteady euler equations, Aeronaut J, October 1994, 98, 978, pp 283–291.Google Scholar
6. Melson, N.D., Sanetrik, M.D. and Atkins, H.L. Time-accurate Navier-Stokes calculations with multigrid acceleration, 1993, Technical Report CP 3224, NASA.Google Scholar
7. Geradin, M. and Rixen, D. Mechanical Vibrations, Second edition, 1997, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
8. Bathe, K.J. Finite Element Procedures in Engineering Analysis, 1982, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
9. Goura, G.S.L. Time Marching Analysis of Flutter using Computational Fluid Dynamics, 2001, PhD thesis, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Glasgow University.Google Scholar
10. Jones, D.P. Force transfer in aeroelastic calculations, December 2002, Technical Report AE047, University of Bristol.Google Scholar
11. Gordon, W.J. and Hall, C.A. Construction of curvilinear co-ordinates systems and applications to mesh generation, Int J for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 1973, 7, pp 461–477.Google Scholar
12. Albano, E. and Rodden, W.P. A doublet-lattice method for calculating lift distributions on oscillating surfaces in subsonic flows, AIAA J, 1969, 7, pp 179–285.Google Scholar
13. Giesing, J.P., Kalman, T.P. and Rodden, W.P. Subsonic unsteady aerodynamics for general configurations; Part I, Vol I — direct application of the nonplanar doublet-lattice method, 1971, Technical Report AFFDL-TR-71–5, Part I, Vol I, Airforce Flight Dynamics Laboratory.Google Scholar
14. Rodden, W.P., Giesing, J.P. and Kalman, T.P. Refinements of the nonplanar aspects of the subsonic double-lattice lifting surface method, J Aircr, 1972, 9, pp 69–73.Google Scholar
15. Liu, D.D. Kao, Y.F. and Fung, K.Y. An efficient method for computing unsteady transonic aerodynamics of swept wings with control surfaces, J Aircraft, 1988, 52, (1), pp 25–31.Google Scholar
16. Yates, E.C. Standard aeroelastic configurations for dynamic response I — wing 445.6, September 1985, Technical Report 765, AGARD. Includes Tech Report TN-D-1616 as an Appendix.Google Scholar
17. Version 3.2. ZAERO Applications Manual, Zona Technology, Arizona.Google Scholar
18. Da Silva, R.G.A and Mello, De Faria, O.A. Prediction of transonic flutter using Nastran with aerodynamic coefficients tuned to Navier Stokes computations, 1999, CEAS/AIAA/ICASE/NASA meeting on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics, June 1999, Norfolk,VA, USA.Google Scholar
19. Batina, J.T., Bennett, R.M., Seidel, D.A., Cunningham, H.J. and Bland, S. Recent advances in transonic computational aeroelasticity, Computers and Fluids, 1998, 30, (172), pp 29–37.Google Scholar
20. Edwards, J.T. Calculated viscous and scale effects on transonic aeroelasticity, 1997, AGARD SMP meeting on Numerical Unsteady Aerodynamic and Aeroelastic Simulation, Aalborg, Denmark, Published in AGARD R-822, October 1997.Google Scholar
21. Gupta, K.K. Development of a finite element aeroelastic analysis capability, J Aircr, 1996, 33, (5), pp 995–1002.Google Scholar
22. Melville, R.B., Morton, S.A and Rizzetta, D.P. Implementation of fully-implicit aeroelastic Navier-Stokes solver, 1997, 13th Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, 29 June-2 July 1997, Snowmass Village, CO, USA, AIAA paper 97–2039, 1997.Google Scholar
23. Rausch, R.D., Batina, J.T, and Yang, H.T. Three-dimensional time-marching aeroelastic analyses using an unstructured-grid Euler method. AIAA J, 1993, 31, (9), pp 1626–1633.Google Scholar
24. Lesonne, M. and Farhat, C. High order subiteration-free staggered algorithm for nonlinear transient aeroelastic problems. AIAA J, 1998, 36, (9), pp 1754–1757.Google Scholar
25. Gordnier, R.E. and Melville, R.B. Transonic flutter simulations using an implicit aeroelastic solver, J Aircr, 2000, 37, (5), pp 872–879.Google Scholar
26. Taylor, N.V., Jones, D.P., Gaitonde, A., Allen, C.B., Badcock, K.J., Woodgate, M.A., Rampurawal, A.M., Cooper, J.E. and Vio, G.A. Evaluation of the influence of aerodynamic modelling on the transonic aeroelastic prediction of three wing test cases, October 2004, Technical report, PUMA DARP.Google Scholar
27. Girodoux-Lavigne, P., Grisval, J.P., Guillemot, S., Henshaw, M., Karlsson, A., Selmin, V., Smith, J., Teupootahiti, E. and Winzell, B. Comparison of static and dynamic fluid-structure interaction solutions in the case of a highly flexible modern transport aircraft win, J Aero Sci and Tech, 2003, 7, pp 121–133.Google Scholar
28. Girodoux-Lavigne, P., Grisval, J.P., Guillemot, S., Henshaw, M., Karlsson, A., Selmin, V., Smith, J., Teupootahiti, E. and Winzell, B. Comparative study of advanced fluid-structure interaction methods in the case of a highly flexible wing, 2001, Results from the UNSI program, International Forum Aeroelasticity Structural Dynamics, June 2001, Madrid.Google Scholar
29. Haase, W., Selmin, V. and Winzell, B. (EDS). Progress in Computational Flow-Structure Interaction, 2003, Vol 81 of Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics and Multidisciplinary Design, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar