Andrew Thelen, Leifur Leifsson, Philip Beran

DOI Number: N/A

Conference number: IFASD-2019-062

This work adopts the manifold mapping multifidelity modeling technique and applies it to frequency-domain flutter prediction. While this type of multifidelity model is usually employed in a trust-region optimization framework, the current approach uses it, in combination with the p-k method, to find a critical point in the high-fidelity Mach-reduced frequency space (namely, the matched flutter point for a given density and sound speed). This is done by first computing a grid of low-fidelity (doublet lattice-based) aerodynamic influence coefficients in modal coordinates. After starting at the low-fidelity match point, the process iteratively approaches the high-fidelity (Euler-based) match point using a single Mach and reduced frequency evaluation per iteration. The locally accurate multifidelity model operates by applying a correction matrix to the low-fidelity response using the changes in highand low-fidelity response vectors between iterations; the correction matrix is computed using the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse operator, making it reminiscent of various doublet lattice correction methods. When applied to a common test case, the process is shown to converge in 4 to 8 high-fidelity evaluations, depending on the fluid density and sound speed. For comparison, standard timeand frequency domain methods are estimated to be 3 to 10 times more costly in terms of time steps or frequency evaluations.

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.