Maj. Michael Iovnovich, Lt. Tzlil Nahom, Lt. Michael Presman, Lt. Dorin Avsaid, Maj. Tomer Braier, Daniella E. Raveh

DOI Number: N/A

Conference number: IFASD-2017-097

The paper presents an experimental study, conducted at the Israeli Air Force, aimed at the assessment of several advanced flutter flight test techniques that are designed to improve the efficiency and accuracy of flutter tests. These include the auto-regresive moving-avarage (ARMA) and operational modal analysis (OMA) system identification methods, the use of various system stability parameters, and the use of atmospheric turbulence versus prescribed flaperon motion as the source of structural response excitation. The methods were evaluated based on data from a dedicated transonic flight test of the F-16 platform. All of the tested methods were able to accurately predict the instability onset. The OMA method has the advantage that it does not require a priori knowledge of the instability mechanism (participating modes and approximate flutter frequency). However, it requires delicate identification of the participating modes, thus making it less suitable for real time processing. The ARMA method, on the other hand, is easier to implement, and straight forward to use in real time. Both methods require relatively large data records, of about 60 seconds at each test point. Excitation by atmospheric turbulence was found to be adequate in the current test case, in which the modes are lightly damped, and highly suitable for system identification methods that rely on stochastic inputs. While further assessment is required for cases of highly damped modes and of flight in low turbulence levels, the use of ARMA and OMA methods based on responses to atmospheric turbulence appears to offer an accurate and cost effective flutter testing methodology.

Read the full paper here

In Categories: 1.Events, IFASD 2017, Wind tunnel and flight testing
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.