CRD Fighter Wing Design Example 2 - METUyyaman/avt086/Kolonay/Ray_Kolonay_6.pdf · CRD Fighter Wing...

Kolonay 1

CRD

Fighter Wing Design Example 2

• 32,000. lbs tip load

• 17 in. z-disp allowable

• Von-Mises stress constraintσt = σc = 60,000. psi

σxy = 40, 000. psi

Nonlinear

• Flutter Only Design

Uf = 14565.46 in/sec

ωf = 17.51 Hz

designed weight = 426.91

(14.22% decrease from initial)

•Flutter, stress, and displacement Design4.8 hr YMP

Uf = 14571.53 in/sec

ωf = 18.74 Hz

designed weight = 462.91 lbs

(7.0% decrease from initial)

M∞ = 0.93,α0=0.5°, 20% Increase inUf,Stress and Displacement Constraints

Nonlinear Unsteady Aeroelastic Optimization

Kolonay 2

CRD


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Outer Loop Iteration Number

Nor

mal

ized

Con

stra

int/O

bjec

tvie

Fun

ctio

n V

alue

Objective Function

Flutter Constraint

Displacement Constraint Node 86

Stress Constraint CSHEAR # 9

Stress Constraint CSHEAR # 40

M∞ = 0.93,α0=0.5°, Flutter, Stress and Disp.


Kolonay 3

CRD


X

YZ

317.

295.

274.

253.

231.

210.

189.

167.

146.

125.

103.

82.

60.

39.

18.

-3.6

X

YZ ∆v6 = +0.46 lbs

∆v7 = -0.24 lbs

∆v8 = -0.03 lbs

∆v9 = 0.06 lbs

∆v23 = -0.07 lbs

∆v26= -0.49 lbs

∆v24= +4.47 lbs

∆v25= -0.45 lbs

∆v1 = +0.42 lbs

%


Flut./Flut., Stress, Disp. % Diff.,∆w


Kolonay 4

CRD


X

YZ

41.

38.

35.

33.

30.

27.

24.

22.

19.

16.

14.

11.

8.0

5.3

2.6

-.18

X

YZ

∆v2 = 0.00 lbs

∆v10= 0.00 lbs ∆v19= 0.00 lbs

∆v20= -0.02 lbs

∆v21= +1.32 lbs

∆v22= 0.0 lbs

∆v5 = 0.00 lbs

∆v4 = +0.26 lbs

∆v3 = 0.00 lbs

%




Kolonay 5

CRD


X

Y

Z

254.

236.

218.

200.

181.

163.

145.

127.

109.

91.

73.

55.

37.

19.

.79

-17.

X

Y

Z

∆v11= +0.79 lbs

∆v12= +0.64 lbs

∆v13= +0.36 lbs

∆v14= -0.13 lbs

∆v16= -6.97 lbs

∆v17= -0.80 lbs

∆v18= -0.22 lbs

∆v15= +36.10 lbs

%




Kolonay 6

CRD

Concluding Remarks on IRM Flutter Design

• IRM computationally efficient transonic unsteady aeroelastic designmethod.

• Did not update unsteady aerodynamics every exact analysis.

• Found nonlinear term in sensitivity analysis negligible for cases tested(fully analytic sensitivities).

• Compared linear versus nonlinear designs for transonic regime (differin both sizing and material distribution).

• IRM not restricted to TSD


Kolonay 7

CRD

Potential Research Areas in NonlinearUnsteady Aeroelastic Design

• More efficient functional representation of unsteady aerodynamicforces in the Laplace domain. (ASE applications)

• Higher level CFD theory for mean flow solutions

• Include rigid body modes

• Further investigation of nonlinear term in damping sensitivities

• Alternate unsteady aerodynamic force approximations

• Investigate other nonlinear flow phenomena (tail buffet, LCO etc.)


Kolonay 8

CRD

Critical Issues/Requirements• Requirements

- Accurate maneuver loads and aeroelastic response predictions are required forstructural design

- Well established linear methods exist for subsonic and supersonic flight- Linear methods are efficient, but not accurate when applied to Transonic Flow

Conditions

• Transonic Flow- Mixture of Subsonic and Supersonic Flow with Shocks at Interface- Flow Field Behavior is Highly Nonlinear across the Shock- Costly Partial Differential Equations must be Solved to Accurately Predict the

Transonic Pressure Field

Nonlinear Static Aeroelasticity For Design

Kolonay 9

CRD

Objectives/Scope

• Develop an Efficient and Accurate Analysis Technique, for the MDOEnvironment, Capable of Determining the Aeroelastic Response of aLifting Surface with an Articulated Control Surface inTransonic Flow

• Use the Technique to Predict the Rolling Performance and StaticAeroelastic Phenomena of a Lifting Surface in Transonic Flow Includ-ing Flow Nonlinearities and Aeroelastic Effects


Kolonay 10

CRD

Steady Aeroelastic Analysis

• Define Control Surface Effectiveness

• Control Surface Effectiveness

Indicates Ability of a Particular Control Surface to Generate a Rolling Moment

Control Surface Reversal Occurs whenε = 0

εCMδaflexible

CMδarigid

-------------------------=


Kolonay 11

CRD

Rectangular Wing Example[15]


120 in

18 in

Aero Model and CAP-TSD Mesh

6% Parabolic Airfoil

240 in

y

x

Elastic Axes (.33C)

C.G. (.43C)

72 in

Structural Model

Kolonay 12

CRD



0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

M

CM

R

Nonlinear CAP-TSD

Linear CAP-TSD

Linear ASTROS

Mach Number

CM

rig

id

Rigid Rolling Moment vs. Mach Number

Kolonay 13

CRD



ε ε

Control Surface Effectiveness

M=0.90 M=1.20M=0.70

0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

CM

A/C

MR

q (psf)

CM

A/C

MR

q (psf)

CM

A/C

MR

q (psf)

M=.70 Nonlinear

M=.70 Linear

M=.70 ASTROS Linear

0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

M=.90 Nonlinear

M=.90 Linear

M=.90 ASTROS Linear

0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

CM

A/C

MR

q (psf)

M=1.2 Nonlinear

M=1.2 Linear

M=1.2 ASTROS Linear

Dynamic Pressure Dynamic PressureDynamic Pressure

ε ε ε

Kolonay 14

CRD



.244

.228

.211

.195

.178

.162

.145

.129

.113

.0960

.0796

.0631

.0466

.0301

.0136

-.00283

.447

.412

.377

.342

.307

.272

.237

.202

.167

.132

.0974

.0624

.0275

-.00748

-.0424

-.0774

∆Cp Distributions

Rigid Linear Rigid Nonlinear

FreestreamM = 0.90

FreestreamM = 0.90

Kolonay 15

CRD



.0349

.0302

.0255

.0208

.0161

.0114

.00674

.00205

-.00265

-.00734

-.0120

-.0167

-.0214

-.0261

-.0308

-.0355

.403

.358

.313

.267

.222

.177

.132

.0865

.0412

-.00400

-.0492

-.0945

-.140

-.185

-.230

-.275

∆Cp Distribution Aeroelastic Deformation

Aeroelastic Nonlinear

FreestreamM = 0.90q = 250 psf

FreestreamM = 0.90q = 250 psf

Kolonay 16

CRD



0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

M

q reve

rsal (p

sf)

Nonlinear CAP-TSD

Linear CAP-TSD

Linear ASTROS

Mach Number

q rev

ersa

l

Reversal Dynamic Pressure

Kolonay 17

CRD

Fighter Wing Example[15]


160 in

40.3 in

140 in

99.6 in

18.9 in

40.3 deg

y

x

Aero Model and CAP-TSD Mesh Structural Model

Kolonay 18

CRD



0 40 80 120 160-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

Rigid, Nonlinear

Rigid, Linear

Aeroelastic, Nonlinear

Aeroelastic, Linear

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Rigid, Nonlinear

Rigid, Linear

Aeroelastic, Noninear

Aeroelastic, Linear

0.25 1.000.50 0.750.00.25 1.000.50 0.750.0

Cp

Cp

x/c x/c

M = 0.70 M = 0.94

Chordwise ∆Cp Distribution

Kolonay 19

CRD



0 40 80 120 160-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3Cp Upper & Lower, 0o deflection

Cp Upper, 1o Deflection

Cp Lower, 1o Deflection

Resultant ∆Cp, 1o Deflection

x/c

Cp

Chordwise Cp Distribution

Kolonay 20

CRD



0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

M

CM

R

Nonlinear CAP-TSD

Linear CAP-TSD

Linear ASTROS

Mach Number

Rigid Rolling Moment

0 20 40 60 80-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

M=0.70, NonlinearM=0.70, LinearM=0.94, NonlinearM=0.94, LinearM=1.05, NonlinearM=1.05, Linear

Dynamic Pressure (psi)

ε

Control Surface Effectiveness

CM

Kolonay 21

CRD



.3701

.3434

.3167

.2900

.2633

.2366

.2099

.1833

.1566

.1299

.1032

.07646

.04976

.02306

-.003639

-.03034

.3041

.2839

.2638

.2436

.2235

.2033

.1831

.1630

.1428

.1227

.1025

.08235

.06219

.04203

.02187

.001709

Rigid Linear Rigid Nonlinear

∆Cp Distributions

FreestreamM = 0.94

FreestreamM = 0.94

Kolonay 22

CRD



.9257

.8400

.7544

.6687

.5831

.4974

.4117

.3261

.2404

.1547

.06908

-.01658

-.1022

-.1879

-.2736

-.3592

.3582

.3148

.2714

.2280

.1847

.1413

.09795

.05458

.01121

-.03216

-.07552

-.1189

-.1623

-.2056

-.2490

-.2924

∆Cp Distribution

Aeroelastic Nonlinear

Aeroelastic Deformation

FreestreamM = 0.94q = 30 psi Freestream

M = 0.94q = 30 psi

Kolonay 23

CRD



0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.120

30

40

50

60

70

Nonlinear

Linear

Mach Number

q rev

ers

al

Reversal Dynamic Pressure

Kolonay 24

CRD

Concluding Remarks Static Aeroelastic Analysis

• Research Indicates that Flow Nonlinearities Must Be Accounted for toAccurately Predict Steady Aeroelastic Behavior in the TransonicRegime

• Inclusion of Nonlinear Aerodynamics Significantly Affects SteadyAeroelastic Behavior in the Transonic Regime

- Interaction between Shocks and Control Surface Deflection Results in a PressureRise in the Region of the Shocks

- Increased Rigid Rolling Moments- Decreased Control Surface Effectiveness- Lower Reversal Dynamic Pressures


Kolonay 25

CRD

Research Topics for Nonlinear Static Aeroelas-tic Analysis

• Are Modal Coordinates Sufficient in Capturing Aeroelastic Response?

• Is Transonic Small-Disturbance Theory Sufficient?- Flow Rotationality- Viscous Effects

• Continue Development and Validation to Ensure Maturation into aPracticed Preliminary Design Methodology

- Comparisons to Euler/Navier-Stokes, Experimental, and Flight Test Data- Integration into Preliminary Design Tools such as ASTROS- Application to Real Problems such as Active Aeroelastic Wing


26

D

r -R807, October 1995.

n e-Accurate Aeroelasticla Flow Induced Vibration

N

om eroelastic Models Usingu

e 6 Flutter Using Navier-es

lv ulse Responses for Effi-t C nce, The College of Will-an

l nsonic Flows by the Indi-7-124.

lo the Transonic Regime,”na

lo onic Indicial Response F 40. March-April 1998.

lo for Transonic Unsteadye 1, July-August 1998.

hat, C., “Special Course on Parallel Computing in CFD,”AGARD

diksen, O. O., “Fluid-Structure Coupling Requirements for Timtions,” AD-Vol. 53-3, Fluid-Structure Interaction, Aeroelasticity,

oise, Volume III ASME, 1997.

anowski, M.C., “Reduced Order Unsteady Aerodynamic and Anen-Loeve Eigenmodes,” AIAA paper 96-3981-CP.

-Rausch, E.M., Batina, J.T., “Calculation of AGARD Wing 445. Aerodynamics,” AIAA-93-3476-CP.

a, W.A., “Discrete-Time Linear and Nonlinear Aerodynamic ImpFD Analyses,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Applied Scied Mary in Virginia, 1997.

lhaus, W.F., and Goorjian, P.M., “Computation of Unsteady Traethod”, AIAA Journal, Volume 16, No. 2, February 1978, pp. 11

nay, R.M., Yang, H.T.Y., “Unsteady Aeroelastic Optimization inl of Aircraft, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp 60-68, January-February 1998.

nay, R.M., Yang, H.T.Y., “Static Aeroelastic Effects on a Translutter Calculation,”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp 339-3

nay, R.M., Venkayya, V.B., Yang, H.T.Y., “Sensitivity Analysis lastic Constraints,” Journal of Aircraft Vol. 35, No. 4, pp 574-58

References

Kolonay

CR

1. Fa

2. BeSimuand

3. RKarh

4. LeStok

5. Sicieniam

6. Bacial M

7. KoJour

8. KoWing

9. KoAero

27

D

o c Regime”, Ph.D. disser-n

o ynamics For Aeroelasticic

a rithm for Solution of thee aper 3129, Jan. 1992.

u o Satisfy Flutter Require-ts

a Structural Design,” Jour-f

n sal in the Transonicm

lonay, R.M., “Unsteady Aeroelastic Optimization in the TransoniPurdue University December 1996.

rland C. J., “XTRAN3S-Transonic Steady and Unsteady Aerodations,” AFWAL-TR-85-3124 Vol. 1, Jan. 1986.

tina, J. T., “A Finite-Difference Approximate-Factorization Algoady Transonic Small-Disturbance Equation,” NASA Technical P

disill S. C., Bhatia, G.K., “Optimization of Complex Structures t,” AIAA Journal, Aug. 1971, pp. 1487-1491

ftka, R. T. and Jr. Yates, C. E. “Repetitive Flutter Calculations inAircraft, Vol. 13, No. 7, 1976, pp. 454-461.

dersen, G., Kolonay R., and Eastep, F., “Control Surface revere,” AIAA Paper 97-1385.

References

Kolonay

CR

10. Ktatio

11. BAppl

12. BUnst

13. Rmen

14. Hnal o

15. ARegi

CRD Fighter Wing Design Example 2 - METUyyaman/avt086/Kolonay/Ray_Kolonay_6.pdf · CRD Fighter Wing...

Documents

Transcript of CRD Fighter Wing Design Example 2 - METUyyaman/avt086/Kolonay/Ray_Kolonay_6.pdf · CRD Fighter Wing...