Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T13:03:19.378Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An efficient reduced-order framework for active/passive hybrid flutter suppression

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 May 2022

D. F. Li Open the ORCID record for D. F. Li [Opens in a new window] ,
Z. Z. Wang ,
A. Da Ronch  and
G. Chen
D. F. Li*
Affiliation:
College of Water Resources and Architectural Engineering, Cold and Arid Regions Water Engineering Safety Research Center, Northwest A & F University, Yangling, Shaanxi, PR China
Z. Z. Wang
Affiliation:
College of Water Resources and Architectural Engineering, Cold and Arid Regions Water Engineering Safety Research Center, Northwest A & F University, Yangling, Shaanxi, PR China
A. Da Ronch
Affiliation:
Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
G. Chen
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory for Strength and Vibration of Mechanical Structures, School of Aerospace, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, Shaanxi, PR China
*
*Corresponding author email: lidongfeng@nwafu.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Flutter suppression is an important measure to improve fatigue life and enhance the performance of aircraft in modern aircraft design. In order to design more effective controllers for flutter suppression with high efficiency, an efficient reduced-order framework for active/passive hybrid flutter suppression is proposed. The traditional CFD-based ROMs have been successfully applied to active flutter suppression with high accuracy and efficiency. But, when a structure modification is made such as in aeroelastic tailoring and aeroelastic structural optimisation, the structural model should be updated, and the expensive, time-consuming CFD-based ROMs have to be reconstructed; such a process is impractical for passive flutter suppression. To overcome the realistic challenge, an efficient reduced-order framework for active/passive hybrid flutter suppression is proposed by extending an efficient aeroelastic CFD-based POD/ROM which we have developed. The proposed framework is demonstrated and evaluated using an improved AGARD 445.6 wing model. The results show that the proposed framework can accurately predict the aeroelastic response for active/passive hybrid flutter suppression with high efficiency. It provides a powerful tool for active/passive hybrid flutter suppression, and therefore, is ideally suited to design more effective controllers, and may have the potential to reduce the overall cost of aircraft design.

Keywords

Efficient reduced-order frameworkActive/passive hybrid flutter suppressionMore effective controllersEfficient aeroelastic CFD-based POD/ROM
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 127 , Issue 1307 , January 2023 , pp. 24 - 40
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Kuzmina, S., Amiryants, G., Schweiger, J., Cooper, J., Amprikidis, M. and Sensberg, O. Review and outlook on active and passive aeroelastic design concepts for future aircraft. ICAS 2002 Congress, 2002, pp 8–13.Google Scholar
Silva, G.C., Silvestre, F.V.J., Donadon, M.C.V., Santos, O.S., Guimar, ES, Neto, A.N.B., da Silva, R.G.A., Versiani, T.D.S.S., Gonzalez, P.J. and Bertolin, R.M. Active and passive control for acceleration reduction of an aeroelastic typical wing section. J. Vib. Control., 2018, 24, pp 2673–2687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Y. Comparison of the passive and active control gust alleviation of a flying-wing aircraft. J. Eng., 2019, 2019, pp 421–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reich, G.W. Design and modeling of an active aeroelastic wing, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1994, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Gregory, R.H., Mart, L.C. and Crawley, E. An active aeroelastic wing model for vibration and flutter suppression. 36th Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference 1995.Google Scholar
Le, O.L., de Lima, A., Donadon, M. and Cunha-Filho, A. Dynamic and aeroelastic behavior of composite plates with multimode resonant shunted piezoceramics in series. Compos. Struct., 2016, 153, pp 815–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barzegari, M.M., Dardel, M. and Fathi, A. Control of aeroelastic characteristics of cantilever wing with smart materials using state-dependent Riccati equation method. J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct., 2015, 26, pp 988–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Breuker, R., Binder, S. and Wildschek, A. Combined Active and Passive Loads Alleviation through Aeroelastic Tailoring and Control Surface/Control System Optimization. 2018 AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting 2018, 0764.Google Scholar
Schweiger, J., Krammer, J. and Coetzee, E. MDO application for active flexible aircraft design. 7th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization 1998, 4835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisshaar, T.A. and Duke, D.K. Induced drag reduction using aeroelastic tailoring with adaptive control surfaces. J. Aircr., 2006, 43, pp 157–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handojo, V., Lancelot, P. and de Breuker, R. Implementation of Active and Passive Load Alleviation Methods on a Generic mid-Range Aircraft Configuration. 2018 Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference 2018, 3573.Google Scholar
Chen, Z., Zhao, Y. and Huang, R. Parametric reduced-order modeling of unsteady aerodynamics for hypersonic vehicles. Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 2019, 87, pp 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kou, J. and Zhang, W. A hybrid reduced-order framework for complex aeroelastic simulations. Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 2019, 84, pp 880–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, W., Lv, Z., Diwu, Q. and Zhong, H. A flutter prediction method with low cost and low risk from test data. Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 2019, 86, pp 542–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, K., Jin, Y., Chen, Y., Yang, Y., Hou, L., Zhang, Z., Li, Z. and Fu, C. Review for order reduction based on proper orthogonal decomposition and outlooks of applications in mechanical systems. Mech. Syst. Signal Process., 2019, 123, pp 264–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, Q., Chen, G. and Li, Y. A reduced order model based on block Arnoldi method for aeroelastic system. Int. J. Appl. Mech., 2014, 6, pp 1450069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cao, C., Nie, C., Pan, S., Cai, J. and Qu, K. A constrained reduced-order method for fast prediction of steady hypersonic flows. Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 2019, 91, pp 679–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowell, E.H., Thomas, J.P. and Hall, K.C. Transonic limit cycle oscillation analysis using reduced order aerodynamic models. J. Fluids Struct., 2004, 19, pp 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, Q., Chen, G., da Ronch, A. and Li, Y. Reduced order unsteady aerodynamic model of a rigid aerofoil in gust encounters. Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 2017, 63, pp 203–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, X., Zhang, W., Peng, X. and Wang, Z. Benchmark aerodynamic shape optimization with the POD-based CST airfoil parametric method. Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 2019, 84, pp 632–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, L.Z., Li, J.J., Zhang, J., Lu, K. and Yuan, M.N. Aerodynamic shape optimization by continually moving ROM. Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 2020, 99, p 105729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou Li, L., Yang, M., Luo, X., Zhang, J. and Ni Yuan, M. A spline ROM of blade aerodynamic force to upstream wake. Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 2019, 84, pp 650–660.Google Scholar
Sajadmanesh, S.M., Mojaddam, M., Mohseni, A. and Nikparto, A. Numerical identification of separation bubble in an ultra-high-lift turbine cascade using URANS simulation and proper orthogonal decomposition. Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 2019, 93, p 105329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gang, C., Jian, S. and Yueming, L. Active flutter suppression control law design method based on balanced proper orthogonal decomposition reduced order model. Nonlinear Dyn., 2012, 70, pp 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, H., Qian, J., Wang, Y., Pant, K., Chin, A.W., Brenner, M.J. Development of Aeroelastic and Aeroservoelastic Reduced Order Models for Active Structural Control. 56th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference 2015, 2055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nie, X., Yang, G. and Zhang, M. Investigation on transonic flutter active suppression with CFD-Based ROMs. Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron., 2015, 58, pp 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, H., Huang, R., Zhao, Y. and Hu, H. Reduced-order modeling of unsteady aerodynamics for an elastic wing with control surfaces. J. Aerosp. Eng., 2017, 30, p 04016083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoseini, H. and Hodges, D.H. Flutter suppression for finite element modeling of damaged hale aircraft wings. 2018 AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference 2018, 1205.Google Scholar
Patterson, R.P. and Friedmann, P.P. Application of a CFD-Based Surrogate Approach for Active Flow Control Modeling. AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum 2019, 1706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenwick, C., Jones, D. and Gaitonde, A. Consideration of ROM interpolation for aeroelastic design using structural modification. 18th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, Miami, FL 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, W., Chen, K. and Ye, Z. Unsteady aerodynamic reduced-order modeling of an aeroelastic wing using arbitrary mode shapes. J. Fluids Struct., 2015, 58, pp 254–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, M., Heckmeier, F.M. and Breitsamter, C. CFD-based aeroelastic reduced-order modeling robust to structural parameter variations. Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 2017, 67, pp 13–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, K., Kou, J. and Zhang, W. Deep neural network for unsteady aerodynamic and aeroelastic modeling across multiple Mach numbers. Nonlinear Dyn., 2019, 96, pp 2157–2177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, G., Li, D., Zhou, Q., da Ronch, A. and Li, Y. Efficient aeroelastic reduced order model with global structural modifications. Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 2018, 76, pp 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, D., Gong, C., da Ronch, A., Chen, G. and Li, Y. An efficient implementation of aeroelastic tailoring based on efficient computational fluid dynamics-based reduced order model. J. Fluids Struct., 2019, 84, pp 182–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, D., da Ronch, A., Chen, G. and Li, Y. Aeroelastic global structural optimization using an efficient CFD-based reduced order model. Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 2019, 94, p 105354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, K.C., Thomas, J.P. and Dowell, E.H. Proper orthogonal decomposition technique for transonic unsteady aerodynamic flows. AIAA J., 2000, 38, pp 1853–1862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieu, T., Farhat, C., Lesoinne, M. POD-based aeroelastic analysis of a complete F-16 configuration: ROM adaptation and demonstration. 46th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics and materials conference 2005, 2295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieu, T. Adaptation of reduced order models for applications in aeroelasticity, University of Colorado at Boulder, 2004, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
Song, Q., Chen, P. and Sun, S. An exact reanalysis algorithm for local non-topological high-rank structural modifications in finite element analysis. Comput. Struct., 2014, 143, pp 60–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akgün, M.A., Garcelon, J.H. and Haftka, R.T. Fast exact linear and non-linear structural reanalysis and the Sherman–Morrison–Woodbury formulas. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 2001, 50, pp 1587–1606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, G., Wang, H. and Li, G. An exact reanalysis method for structures with local modifications. Struct. Multidiscipl. Optim., 2016, 54, pp 499–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beliveau, J.-G., Cogan, S., Lallement, G. and Ayer, F. Iterative least-squares calculation for modal eigenvector sensitivity. AIAA J., 1996, 34, pp 385–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, S.H. and Yang, X.W. Extended Kirsch combined method for eigenvalue reanalysis. AIAA J., 2000, 38, pp 927–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirsch, U., Bogomolni, M. and Sheinman, I. Efficient dynamic reanalysis of structures. J. Struct. Eng., 2007, 133, pp 440–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, S., Yang, X. and Lian, H. Comparison of several eigenvalue reanalysis methods for modified structures. Struct. Multidiscipl. Optim., 2000, 20, pp 253–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, S.H., Wu, X.M. and Yang, Z.J. Eigensolution reanalysis of modified structures using epsilon©\algorithm. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 2006, 66, pp 2115–2130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, E.C. Jr AGARD standard aeroelastic configurations for dynamic response. Candidate configuration I.-wing 445.6. 1987.Google Scholar
Silva, W.A., Chwalowski, P. and Perry, B. III Evaluation of linear, inviscid, viscous, and reduced-order modelling aeroelastic solutions of the AGARD 445.6 wing using root locus analysis. Int. J. Comput. Fluid Dyn., 2014, 28, pp 122–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhong, J. and Xu, Z. Coupled fluid structure analysis for wing 445.6 flutter using a fast dynamic mesh technology. Int. J. Comput. Fluid Dyn., 2016, 30, pp 531–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qiang, Z., Chen, G., Li, Y. and da Ronch, A. Aeroelastic moving gust responses and alleviation based on CFD. AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference 2016, 3837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, Q., Li, D.-F., da Ronch, A., Chen, G. and Li, Y.-M. Computational fluid dynamics-based transonic flutter suppression with control delay. J. Fluids Struct., 2016, 66, pp 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, G., Sun, J. and Li, Y.-M. Adaptive reduced-order-model-based control-law design for active flutter suppression. J. Aircr., 2012, 49, pp 973–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar