Transonic aeroelastic models of highly swept hypersonic lifting surfaces

Pendleton, Edmund; Moster, Greg; Keller, Donald F.

doi:10.2514/3.46860

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A finite element model of a representative HSV elevator has been created for use in this study. The thickness from the top skin layer to the bottom skin layer is 4% chord length [49][50][51]. The top and bottom skin layers are each equipped with two 3.8-mm-thick thermal protection system (TPS) layers; thus, the thickness of the outer mold line is 4% chord length plus the 15.2 mm of TPS material.…”

Section: Control Surface Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reduced-Order Aerothermoelastic Framework for Hypersonic Vehicle Control Simulation

Falkiewicz¹,

Cesnik²,

Crowell³

et al. 2011

AIAA Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hypersonic vehicle control system design and simulation require models that contain a low number of states. Modeling of hypersonic vehicles is complicated due to complex interactions between aerodynamic heating, heat transfer, structural dynamics, and aerodynamics. Although there exist techniques for analyzing the effects of each of the various disciplines, these methods often require solution of large systems of equations, which is infeasible within a control design and evaluation environment. This work presents an aerothermoelastic framework with reducedorder aerothermal, heat transfer, and structural dynamic models for time-domain simulation of hypersonic vehicles. Details of the reduced-order models are given, and a representative hypersonic vehicle control surface used for the study is described. The methodology is applied to a representative structure to provide insight into the importance of aerothermoelastic effects on vehicle performance. The effect of aerothermoelasticity on total lift and drag is found to result in up to an 8% change in lift and a 21% change in drag with respect to a rigid control surface for the four trajectories considered. An iterative routine is used to determine the angle of attack needed to match the lift of the deformed control surface to that of a rigid one at successive time instants. Application of the routine to different cruise trajectories shows a maximum departure from the initial angle of attack of 8%.corresponding to ith column of A C = correlation matrix c = modal coordinate of thermal proper orthogonal decomposition basis vector Cx = correlation model for kriging c p = specific heat at constant pressure d = structural modal coordinates, kriging sample point E = modulus of elasticity F = thermal load vector of full system in physical space f = generalized thermal load vector of reduced system in modal space F s = structural load vector of full system in physical space f s = generalized structural load vector of reduced system in modal space H i = coefficient matrices for integration of equations of motion h i = thickness of ith layer of thermal protection system K = thermal conductivity matrix of full system in physical space k = generalized thermal conductivity matrix of reduced system in modal space K G = geometric stiffness matrix K s = structural stiffness matrix k s = generalized stiffness matrix of reduced system in modal space k T = thermal conductivity of material K s = modified structural stiffness matrix L = aerodynamic lift, length M = thermal capacitance matrix of full system in physical space, Mach number m = generalized thermal capacitance matrix of reduced system in modal space M s = structural mass matrix of full system in physical space m s = generalized mass matrix of reduced system in modal space n = number of proper orthogonal decomposition snapshots n e = number of snapshots for kriging evaluation cases n k = number of kriging snapshots n s = number of structural parameters in reduced-order aerothermodynamic model n t = number of thermal parameters...

show abstract

Section: Control Surface Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reduced-Order Aerothermoelastic Framework for Hypersonic Vehicle Control Simulation

Falkiewicz¹,

Cesnik²,

Crowell³

et al. 2011

AIAA Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The goal of the kriging methodology is to obtain the best linear unbiased predictor, where unbiasedness refers to the fact that the expected value of the predictor must be equal to the expected value of Eq. (22). This is accomplished by solving an optimization problem to minimize the error of the predictor subjected to constraints that ensure unbiasedness.…”

Section: A Overview Of Kriging Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A detailed description of the structure was provided in [13], and thus only a brief overview is given here. The thickness from the top skin layer to the bottom skin layer is 4% chord length [22]. The top and bottom skin layers are each equipped with two 3.8-mm-thick thermal protection system layers; thus, the thickness of the outer mold line is 4% chord length plus the 15.2 mm of thermal protection system material.…”

Section: A Lifting Surface Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhanced Modal Solutions for Structural Dynamics in Aerothermoelastic Analysis

Falkiewicz

Cesnik

2017

Journal of Aircraft

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The thickness from the top skin layer to the bottom skin layer is 4% chord length. 25 The top and bottom skin layers are each equipped with two 3.8 mm thick thermal protection system layers, and thus the thickness of the outer mold line is 4% chord length plus the 15.2 mm of thermal protection system material. …”

Section: Control Surface Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhanced Modal Solutions for Structural Dynamics in Aerothermoelastic Analysis

Falkiewicz

Cesnik

2011

52nd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hypersonic vehicle design and simulation require models that are of low order. Modeling of hypersonic vehicles is complicated due to complex interactions between aerodynamic heating, heat transfer, structural dynamics, and aerodynamics in the hypersonic regime. This work focuses on the development of efficient modal solutions for structural dynamics of hypersonic vehicle structures under transient thermal loads. The problem is outlined and aerothermoelastic coupling mechanisms are described. A previously developed reducedorder, time-domain aerothermoelastic simulation framework is used as the starting point for this study. This paper focuses on three main modeling areas: 1) The effect of aerodynamic heating on the evolution of free vibration modes shapes and frequencies is examined, 2) A surrogate modeling technique is employed for directly updating the generalized stiffness matrix and thermal loads based on the transient temperature distribution and 3) Basis augmentation techniques are employed in order to obtain more accurate solutions for the structural dynamic response. The techniques to be studied are described and applied to a representative hypersonic vehicle elevator structure. Nomenclature= vector of inputs to function C(b, X) = kriging correlation matrix C = correlation matrix c = vector of POD modal coordinates c = vector of POD modal coordinates for transformed system c p = specific heat at constant pressure d = structural modal coordinates, kriging sample point E = modulus of elasticity F T = thermal load vector of full system in physical space F S = structural load vector of full system in physical space Full = solution vector of full-order model f T = generalized thermal load vector of reduced system in modal space f S = generalized structural load vector of reduced system in modal space G(X (i) , X (j) ) = Gaussian correlation function for kriging model H i = coefficient matrices in numerical integration for structural response h = altitude h i = thickness of i-th layer of thermal protection system K T = thermal conductivity matrix of full system in physical space K G = geometric stiffness matrix K S = structural stiffness matrix * Ph.D. Candidate, K * S = modified structural stiffness matrix k * S = generalized stiffness matrix of reduced system in modal space k T = generalized thermal conductivity matrix of reduced system in modal space L = lower triangular factor in decomposition of K * S L ∞ = L ∞ error l = number of augmented mode shapes lb i = lower bound for i-th POD modal coordinate M = Mach number M T = thermal capacitance matrix of full system in physical space M S = structural mass matrix of full system in physical space m T = generalized thermal capacitance matrix of reduced system in modal space m S = generalized mass matrix of reduced system in modal space MAC i,j = modal assurance criterion value corresponding to modes i and j max i = maximum value of i-th POD modal coordinate min i = minimum value of i-th POD modal coordinate MS = margin of safety with respect to POD bounds NRMSE =...

show abstract

Transonic aeroelastic models of highly swept hypersonic lifting surfaces

Cited by 9 publications

References 6 publications

Reduced-Order Aerothermoelastic Framework for Hypersonic Vehicle Control Simulation

Reduced-Order Aerothermoelastic Framework for Hypersonic Vehicle Control Simulation

Enhanced Modal Solutions for Structural Dynamics in Aerothermoelastic Analysis

Enhanced Modal Solutions for Structural Dynamics in Aerothermoelastic Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About