Aircraft Aeroservoelastic Modelling of the FLEXOP Unmanned Flying Demonstrator

Meddaikar, Yasser M.; Dillinger, Johannes; Klimmek, Thomas; Krueger, Wolf; Wuestenhagen, Matthias; Kier, Thiemo; Hermanutz, Andreas; Hornung, Mirko; Rozov, Vladyslav; Breitsamter, Christian; Alderman, James; Takarics, Béla; Vanek, Bálint

doi:10.2514/6.2019-1815

Cited by 20 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The linear parameter-varying (LPV) framework, [8,9] can serve as a good approach to model ASE systems for control design since it can capture the parameter varying dynamics of the aircraft. The ASE model is based on the integration of aerodynamics, structural dynamics and flight dynamics subsystems, [10][11][12][13][14][15], (Section II.A). Ground test based model updates of the aircraft are given in Section II.B.…”

Section: Fig 1 Flexop Demonstrator Aircraftmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The nonlinear equations of motions are derived based on a mean axes reference frame, [17]. The details of the ASE model are given in [14,15]. The resulting nonlinear ASE model of the FLEXOP aircraft consists of 12 rigid body states, 100 flexible mode states and 1040 aerodynamic lag states in addition to the actuator dynamics.…”

Section: A High Fidelity Nonlinear Model Of the Flexop Aircraftmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to the ν-gap plots, the pole migration, Bode plots and numerical simulation responses of the LOM and FOM are compared. Further details of the bottom-up modeling of the FLEXOP aircraft can be found in [14,28].…”

Section: Reduction Of the Dlm Aerodynamicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Active Flutter Mitigation Testing on the FLEXOP Demonstrator Aircraft

Takarics

Patartics

Luspay

et al. 2020

AIAA Scitech 2020 Forum

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper details the research and corresponding implementation and testing steps of the FLEXOP demonstrator aircraft. Within the EU funded project an unmanned demonstrator aircraft is built to validate the mathematical modelling, flight control design and implementation side of active flutter mitigation. In order to validate the different methods and tools developed in this project, a flight test campaign is planned, in which the design and manufacturing of stiff wings (-0), are compared with very flexible wings (-1) with active flutter control, to see the overall benefit vs. risk of such technology. The mathematical models of the aircraft are first developed using FEM and CFD tools, what are later reduced by model order reduction techniques. The high-fidelity models are updated using Ground Vibration Test results. Manufacturing tolerances and variations in aircraft parameters are captured by systematic modelling of parametric and dynamic uncertainties. Both the simulation environment and the control design framework use different modelling fidelity, what are described within the paper. Reduced models are developed using two distinctive methods, respecting the control design needs: top-down balanced LPV reduction and bottom-up structure preserving methods. Based on the reduced order models various control design techniques have been elaborated by the consortium partners. In particular DLR developed and implemented a modal control method using H2 optimal blends for inputs and outputs. University of Bristol developed structured H-infinity optimal control methods, while SZTAKI proposed a worst-case gain optimal method structured controller synthesis method handling parametric and complex uncertainties. After the brief introduction of hardware-in-the-loop test setup and the description of mission scenarios the implementation issues of the baseline and flutter controllers are discussed. DLR and SZTAKI flutter controllers are evaluated in a hybrid software-/ hardware-in-the-loop test setup as at this stage of development the latter can not tolerate the estimated delay of the hardware system but their comparison is advantageous before future developments. Recommendations on active flutter mitigation methods are given based on the experience of synthesis and implementation of these controllers. Flight test results will follow these experiments, once the flight testing of the flutter wing commences.

show abstract

Section: Fig 1 Flexop Demonstrator Aircraftmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A High Fidelity Nonlinear Model Of the Flexop Aircraftmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Active Flutter Mitigation Testing on the FLEXOP Demonstrator Aircraft

Takarics

Patartics

Luspay

et al. 2020

AIAA Scitech 2020 Forum

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 Various aspects of the project leading up to the testing of the aircraft have already been presented. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] In order to conduct the flight tests in a safe and efficient manner a number of ground tests were performed. The ground tests performed within FLEXOP can be divided in three categories: structural tests, flight systems tests and the integration tests.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ground Testing of the FLEXOP Demonstrator Aircraft

Sodja

Breuker

Meddaikar

et al. 2020

AIAA Scitech 2020 Forum

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Its aim is to develop multidisciplinary aircraft design capabilities by achieving a closer coupling of wing aeroelasticity and flight control systems in the design process. A flexible-wing remotely piloted demonstrator is designed in the framework of this project [15,16] and will be used to achieve flight-test validation of aeroelastically tailored design [17] and AFS [18,19]. A concept drawing of the demonstrator is presented in Fig.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%