Divya Sanghi, Cristina Riso, Carlos Cesnik

DOI Number: N/A

Conference number: IFASD-2024-035

This paper compares aeroelastic models for gust response prediction in very flexible wings. The investigations focus on the Pazy wing benchmark developed at Delft University of
Technology for gust response experiments in low-speed flow. The comparisons consider two geometrically nonlinear aeroelastic models of the wing, which comprise an equivalent beam representation of the structure coupled with unsteady potential flow aerodynamics based on either strip theory with wingtip corrections or the vortex-lattice method. The study examines wing responses to 1-cosine vertical gust inputs for various maximum gust velocities, flow speeds, and root angles of attack, exciting a wide range of deflections. The aeroelastic models based on corrected strip theory and the unsteady vortex-lattice method predict maximum wing tip vertical displacements that differ by less than 3%. The models also agree on the characteristic frequency and phase during the free decay after the gust. However, the model based on strip theory predicts a faster free decay due to higher aerodynamic damping, consistent with findings from previous flutter investigations focused on the Technion Pazy wing. These results provide new insights into the impact of model complexity on aeroelastic prediction accuracy for very flexible wings, expanding the scope of previous studies to encompass gust responses.

Read the full paper here

Email
Print
LinkedIn
The paper above was part of  proceedings of a CEAS event and as such the author has signed a publication agreement to have their paper published in the repository. In the case this paper is found somewhere else CEAS always links to the other source.  CEAS takes great care in making the correct content available to the reader. If any mistakes are found  in the listings please contact us directly at papers@aerospacerepository.org and we will correct the listing promptly.  CEAS cannot be held liable either for mistakes in editorial or technical aspects, nor for omissions, nor for the correctness of the content. In particular, CEAS does not guarantee completeness or correctness of information contained in external websites which can be accessed via links from CEAS’s websites. Despite accurate research on the content of such linked external websites, CEAS cannot be held liable for their content. Only the content providers of such external sites are liable for their content. Should you notice any mistake in technical or editorial aspects of the CEAS site, please do not hesitate to inform us.