Validation of a Robust Flutter Prediction by Optimization

Title & Authors
Validation of a Robust Flutter Prediction by Optimization
Chung, Chan-Hoon; Shin, Sang-Joon;

Abstract
In a modern aircraft, there are many variations in its mass, stiffness, and aerodynamic characteristics. Recently, an analytical approach was proposed, and this approach uses the idea of uncertainty to find out the most critical flight flutter boundary due to the variations in such aerodynamic characteristics. An analytical method that has been suggested to predict robust stability is the mu method. We previously analyzed the robust flutter boundary by using the mu method, and in that study, aerodynamic variations in the Mach number, atmospheric density, and flight speed were taken into consideration. The authors' previous attempt and the results are currently quoted as varying Mach number mu analysis. In the author's previous method, when the initial flight conditions were located far from the nominal flutter boundary, conservative predictions were obtained. However, relationships among those aerodynamic parameters were not applied. Thus, the varying Mach number mu analysis results required validation. Using an optimization approach, the varying Mach number mu analysis was found out to be capable of capturing a reasonable robust flutter boundary, i.e., with a low percentage difference from boundaries that were obtained by optimization. Regarding the optimization approach, a discrete nominal flutter boundary is to be obtained in advance, and based on that boundary, an interpolated function was established. Thus, the optimization approach required more computational effort for a larger number of uncertainty variables. And, this produced results similar to those from the mu method which had lower computational complexity. Thus, during the estimation of robust aeroelastic stability, the mu method was regarded as more efficient than the optimization method was. The mu method predicts reasonable results when an initial condition is located near the nominal flutter boundary, but it does not consider the relationships that are among the aerodynamic parameters, and its predictions are not very accurate when the initial condition is located far from the nominal flutter boundary. In order to provide predictions that are more accurate, the relationships among the uncertainties should also be included in the mu method.
Keywords
Robust aeroelasticity;Worst case flutter boundary;Uncertainty;Unsteady aerodynamics;Optimization;
Language
English
Cited by
References
1.
Lind, R., "Match-Point Solutions for Robust Flutter Analysis", Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2002, pp. 91-99.

2.
Lind, R. and Brenner, M., Robust Aeroservoelastic Stability Analysis: Flight Test Applications, Springer, London, Great Britain, 1999.

3.
Borglund, D., "The $\mu$-k Method for Robust Flutter Solutions", Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 41, No. 5, 2004, pp.1209- 1216.

4.
Borglund, D., "Efficient Computation of Robust Flutter Boundaries Using the $\mu$-k Method", Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 43, No. 6, 2006, pp. 1763-1767.

5.
Kurdi, M, "Uncertainty Quantification of the Goland+ Wing's Flutter Boundary", AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference and Exhibit, Hilton Head, South Carolina, USA, August 2007.

6.
Dai, Z Y., Wu, Z., and Hou, C. Y., "Unsteady Aerodynamic Uncertainty Estimation and Robust Flutter Analysis", 29th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, June 2011.

7.
Chung. C. H., Shin. S. J., and Kim. T., "Development of an Aircraft Worst Case Flutter Prediction with Mach Variation Using Robust Stability Analysis", Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, Vol. 23, No. 8, 2009, pp. 2059-2071.

8.
Goland, M., "The Flutter of a Uniform Cantilever Wing", Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 12, No. 4, 1945, pp. A197-A208.

9.
Brown, E. L., "Integrated Strain Actuation in Aircraft with Highly Flexible Composite Wings", Sc. D. Thesis, Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge MA, June 2003.

10.
Hodges, D. H., and Pierce, G. A., Introduction to Structural Dynamics and Aeroelasticity, Cambridge University Press, New York, USA, 2002.

11.
Coleman, T., Branch, M. A., and Grace, A., Optimization Toolbox, The Math Works Inc, Natick, MA, USA, 1999.
{"extraction_info": {"found_math": true, "script_math_tex": 0, "script_math_asciimath": 0, "math_annotations": 0, "math_alttext": 0, "mathml": 0, "mathjax_tag": 0, "mathjax_inline_tex": 1, "mathjax_display_tex": 0, "mathjax_asciimath": 0, "img_math": 0, "codecogs_latex": 0, "wp_latex": 0, "mimetex.cgi": 0, "/images/math/codecogs": 0, "mathtex.cgi": 0, "katex": 0, "math-container": 0, "wp-katex-eq": 0, "align": 0, "equation": 0, "x-ck12": 0, "texerror": 0, "math_score": 0.789764940738678, "perplexity": 3057.3373090756704}, "config": {"markdown_headings": true, "markdown_code": true, "boilerplate_config": {"ratio_threshold": 0.18, "absolute_threshold": 10, "end_threshold": 15, "enable": true}, "remove_buttons": true, "remove_image_figures": true, "remove_link_clusters": true, "table_config": {"min_rows": 2, "min_cols": 3, "format": "plain"}, "remove_chinese": true, "remove_edit_buttons": true, "extract_latex": true}, "warc_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2017-30/segments/1500549423269.5/warc/CC-MAIN-20170720161644-20170720181644-00606.warc.gz"}