28th Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference 1987
DOI: 10.2514/6.1987-854
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Nonlinear programming extensions to rational function approximationsof unsteady aerodynamics

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
45
0

Year Published

1989
1989
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 55 publications
(45 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
45
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although the choice of Roger's RFA and the independent fitting of the gust GAF leads to a state-space model whose size is greater compared to the Minimum-State method by Karpel [18], the model is afterwards reduced to a considerably smaller size through Model Order Reduction. Moreover, Roger's RFA is robust and offers less computational burden than the Minimum-State method [20], even though this cost, if a Model Order Reduction is not subsequently carried out, is ultimately overcome by the smaller resulting model employed in the simulations. The original formulation by Roger hereby used is extended considering the aerodynamic poles as free design variables of an optimization process, whose objective function is the minimization of the squared error between the approximated and tabulated GAF.…”
Section: Extended Rational Function Approximation Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Although the choice of Roger's RFA and the independent fitting of the gust GAF leads to a state-space model whose size is greater compared to the Minimum-State method by Karpel [18], the model is afterwards reduced to a considerably smaller size through Model Order Reduction. Moreover, Roger's RFA is robust and offers less computational burden than the Minimum-State method [20], even though this cost, if a Model Order Reduction is not subsequently carried out, is ultimately overcome by the smaller resulting model employed in the simulations. The original formulation by Roger hereby used is extended considering the aerodynamic poles as free design variables of an optimization process, whose objective function is the minimization of the squared error between the approximated and tabulated GAF.…”
Section: Extended Rational Function Approximation Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It also allows adapting the RFA to each Mach number of interest, since commonly, in the standard approach, the poles are held arbitrarily constant over a range of Mach numbers, whereas the GAF can change significantly with Mach number. Several studies have been presented on nonlinear optimization of the aerodynamic poles [20], [21], [22], [23]. In this work, an optimization is performed to select the aerodynamic poles minimizing the functional ℱ such that…”
Section: Extended Rational Function Approximation Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this work, Roger's formulation is extended considering the aerodynamic poles as free design variables of an optimization process whose objective function is the minimization of the squared error between the approximated and tabulated GAF. Several studies have been published on the nonlinear optimization of the aerodynamic poles [10,11,12]. In the present work, nonlinear non-gradient constrained optimizations are performed to select the aerodynamic poles minimizing the following objective function…”
Section: State-space Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…where the n coefficients j A and j B are still derived from constrained nonlinear curve-fitting [69]. Alternatively to employing a further exponential term [103], the proposed approximation has inherently been tuned to satisfy Kutta-Joukowsky condition at the impulsive start of the wake, since the latter initially moves as an "extension" of the wing and the resulting apparent flow inertia is obtained by considering the pressure difference , x p due to the kinetic flow potential , x over each two-dimensional wing section in normal motion, namely [20]:…”
Section: Appendix A: Generalised Structural Matricesmentioning
confidence: 99%