TY - GEN
T1 - Aeroelastic wind tunnel test for aerodynamic uncertainty model validation
AU - Dai, Yuting
AU - Wu, Zhigang
AU - Yang, Chao
AU - Chen, Lei
PY - 2012
Y1 - 2012
N2 - A half model of a scaled aircraft is designed and tested in the wind tunnel to validate the uncertainty model for unsteady pressure coefficient in the frequency domain. In the wind tunnel test, a step-swept test was conducted to obtain the model's frequency response function. Then a time-domain response test was performed with turbulence excitation to identify the aircraft's on-line poles. Based on the tested frequency response function or the on-line poles, the structured singular value (μ) method was applied to determine the aerodynamic uncertainty level under the model validation framework. Finally, the widely used μ analysis was again employed to analyze the worst-case flutter boundary, compared with the experimental flutter velocity. The experimental flutter velocity (30.5m/s) is in the range of the predicted robust flutter boundary (28.5m/s), in which parameters' uncertainties were taken into account in the numerical model. Experimental results validate that the uncertainty quantification theoretical frameworks incorporating experimental data can estimate the proper aerodynamic uncertainty level and predict a safe flutter boundary. The present results suggest that the time-response validation theoretical framework is more advantageous in robust stability analysis than the one upon the frequency response function validation.
AB - A half model of a scaled aircraft is designed and tested in the wind tunnel to validate the uncertainty model for unsteady pressure coefficient in the frequency domain. In the wind tunnel test, a step-swept test was conducted to obtain the model's frequency response function. Then a time-domain response test was performed with turbulence excitation to identify the aircraft's on-line poles. Based on the tested frequency response function or the on-line poles, the structured singular value (μ) method was applied to determine the aerodynamic uncertainty level under the model validation framework. Finally, the widely used μ analysis was again employed to analyze the worst-case flutter boundary, compared with the experimental flutter velocity. The experimental flutter velocity (30.5m/s) is in the range of the predicted robust flutter boundary (28.5m/s), in which parameters' uncertainties were taken into account in the numerical model. Experimental results validate that the uncertainty quantification theoretical frameworks incorporating experimental data can estimate the proper aerodynamic uncertainty level and predict a safe flutter boundary. The present results suggest that the time-response validation theoretical framework is more advantageous in robust stability analysis than the one upon the frequency response function validation.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84881406462
M3 - 会议稿件
AN - SCOPUS:84881406462
SN - 9781600869372
T3 - Collection of Technical Papers - AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference
BT - 53rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference
T2 - 53rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference
Y2 - 23 April 2012 through 26 April 2012
ER -