Structural Dynamics Modeling of HIRENASD in support of the Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop

Wieseman, Carol D.; Chwalowski, Pawel; Heeg, Jennifer; Boucke, Alexander; Castro, Jack F.

doi:10.2514/6.2013-1801

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this context an already available FEM model was further enhanced and validated by Wieseman et al [26]. The natural frequencies obtained from the numerical model are also included in table 1.…”

Section: Modal Parameter Identification -Evaluation and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Operational Modal Analysis of a wing excited by transonic flow

Neu

Janser

Khatibi

et al. 2016

Aerospace Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Operational Modal Analysis (OMA) is a promising candidate for flutter testing and Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) of aircraft wings that are passively excited by wind loads. However, no studies have been published where OMA is tested in transonic flows, which is the dominant condition for large civil aircraft and is characterised by complex and unique aerodynamic phenomena. We use data from the HIRENASD large-scale wind tunnel experiment to automatically extract modal parameters from an ambiently excited wing operated in the transonic regime using two OMA methods: Stochastic Subspace Identification (SSI) and Frequency Domain Decomposition (FDD). The system response is evaluated based on accelerometer measurements. The excitation is investigated from surface pressure measurements. The forcing function is shown to be non-white, nonstationary and contaminated by narrow-banded transonic disturbances. All these properties violate fundamental OMA assumptions about the forcing function. Despite this, all physical modes in the investigated frequency range were successfully identified, and in addition transonic pressure waves were identified as physical modes as well. The SSI method showed superior identification capabilities for the investigated case. The investigation shows that complex transonic flows can interfere with OMA. This can make existing approaches for modal tracking unsuitable for their application to aircraft wings operated in the transonic flight regime. Approaches to separate the true physical modes from the transonic disturbances are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Modal Parameter Identification -Evaluation and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Natural frequencies and damping ratios identified from accelerometer data using SSI, CFDD hammer impact test data from Korsch et al[13] and FEM data from Wieseman et al[26]. B stands for bending, T for torsion, F for a for-and-aft in-plane bending mode and P for a pressure-wave induced oscillation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Operational Modal Analysis of a wing excited by transonic flow

Neu

Janser

Khatibi

et al. 2016

Aerospace Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The current workshop series approaches the problem with multi-analyst code-to-code comparisons to assess the state of the art in computational aeroelasticity. The first Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop (AePW-1) was held in April 2012 [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] and served as a first step in assessing the state of the art of computational methods for predicting unsteady flow fields and aeroelastic response. The second Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop (AePW-2), held in January 2016, built on the experiences of the first workshop, extending the benchmarking effort to aeroelastic flutter solutions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overview and Data Comparisons from the 2^nd Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop

Heeg

Chwalowski

Raveh

et al. 2016

34th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents the computational results generated by participating teams of the second Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop and compare them with experimental data. Aeroelastic and rigid configurations of the Benchmark Supercritical Wing (BSCW) wind tunnel model served as the focus for the workshop. The comparison data sets include unforced ("steady") system responses, forced pitch oscillations and coupled fluidstructure responses. Integrated coefficients, frequency response functions, and flutter onset conditions are compared. The flow conditions studied were in the transonic range, including both attached and separated flow conditions. Some of the technical discussions that took place at the workshop are summarized.

show abstract

“…Normal modes analysis was performed on the modified FEM and the first 30 modes extracted for use in the aeroelastic computations. The effort documented by Wieseman 61 increased confidence in the structural dynamic rep- resentation and demonstrated the insensitivity of the results to small modifications or errors in the structural modeling. This was crucial to the Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop in that differences of the CFD results from different analysts as compared to experiment could then be clearly discussed in terms of aerodynamic differences and not structural modeling.…”

Section: Validation Aspect #3: Aeroelastic Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Specific details of the FEM are described by Wieseman. 61 The modified FEM was validated by comparing modal frequencies, modal assurance criteria, comparing leading edge, trailing edge and twist of the wing with data obtained from experiment. There was a significant change in the frequency of the second bending mode with minor impact on the other modal frequencies.…”

Section: Validation Aspect #3: Aeroelastic Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unsteady aerodynamic validation experiences from the Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop

Heeg

Chawlowski²

2014

52nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The AIAA Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop (AePW) was held in April 2012, bringing together communities of aeroelasticians, computational fluid dynamicists and experimentalists. The extended objective was to assess the state of the art in computational aeroelastic methods as practical tools for the prediction of static and dynamic aeroelastic phenomena. As a step in this process, workshop participants analyzed unsteady aerodynamic and weakly-coupled aeroelastic cases. Forced oscillation and unforced system experiments and computations have been compared for three configurations. This paper emphasizes interpretation of the experimental data, computational results and their comparisons from the perspective of validation of unsteady system predictions. The issues examined in detail are variability introduced by input choices for the computations, post-processing, and static aeroelastic modeling. The final issue addressed is interpreting unsteady information that is present in experimental data that is assumed to be steady, and the resulting consequences on the comparison data sets. Nomenclature C M Pitching moment coefficient C p Coefficient of pressure f Frequency, Hz M Mach number x/c Normalized chord location, chordwise coordinate/local chord length y + Dimensionless, sublayer-scaled wall coordinate of first node away from surface α Angle of attack η Normalized span location, spanwise coordinate/semi-span AePW

show abstract

Structural Dynamics Modeling of HIRENASD in support of the Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop

Cited by 5 publications

References 11 publications

Operational Modal Analysis of a wing excited by transonic flow

Operational Modal Analysis of a wing excited by transonic flow

Overview and Data Comparisons from the 2^nd Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop

Unsteady aerodynamic validation experiences from the Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Structural Dynamics Modeling of HIRENASD in support of the Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop

Cited by 5 publications

References 11 publications

Operational Modal Analysis of a wing excited by transonic flow

Operational Modal Analysis of a wing excited by transonic flow

Overview and Data Comparisons from the 2nd Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop

Unsteady aerodynamic validation experiences from the Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Overview and Data Comparisons from the 2^nd Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop