S. Orlando, M. Brughmans, T. Karaağaçlı, Ü. Ceyhan, Ö. Sümer, M.E. Cerit, B. Durak

DOI Number: N/A

Conference number: IFASD-2015-175

Modal dampings and frequencies obtained from flight tests of F-16 aircraft with external stores are compared to damping and frequency estimates of computational aeroelastic analyses based on Euler flow. Experimental modal parameters have been determined by performing operational modal analysis (OMA) to wing tip acceleration data with flutter module of LMS Test Lab© [1]. In order to adequately excite the wing and store modes of interest, two annular wing exciters (rotating vanes) located at the wing tips have been used. Aeroelastic analyses have been performed by using MLOADS module of ZEUS© [2]. In this module, a static aeroelastic analysis is carried out first to obtain mean flow solution from which the transient response analysis starts, using the time domain unsteady Euler computation. Given the time history of the control surface deflections as input, MLOADS computes the transient acceleration response of the structural grid points located at the wing tips. Damping and frequency estimates of the aeroelastic simulations have been obtained by the post-processing of the numerical results with OMA as in the case of flight test. The comparison of modal frequencies of the most dominant mode between numerical predictions and flutter tests has shown a good agreement. On the other hand, modal dampings estimated from test have shown some underestimation and discrepancy compared to simulation results. Although modal dampings obtained from test and analysis do not agree in a quantitative sense, the evolution of the damping curves of the most dominant mode with respect to the speed of the aircraft exhibits a very similar trend. This proves that damping estimates of both test and simulation for the most dominant mode are added values to the safety of the flutter testing.

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.