Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Chan-gi Pak

Publications and source records attributed to Chan-gi Pak.

9 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2023

Finite Element Model Tuning using Analytical Sensitivity Values

This paper presents an efficient approach for tuning finite element models to match the measured ground vibrationtest and proof test data. Frequencies, mode shapes, total weight, location of the center of gravity, and staticdeformation computed from the finite element model are matched to the measured data. The model tuningprocedure used in this work is based on solving an optimization problem in which the errors for the consideredmetrics, between the finite element prediction and the measured data, are minimized. Analytical sensitivity values ofperformance indices are computed using the NASTRAN-generated sensitivity values together with the in-housecomputer programs, which allow for faster computational time and the use of gradient-based optimizers. The methodis applied to the Aerostructures Test Wing 4 model. The study shows that the military standard and the NASAstandard for comparing analytical and experimental modal data are all satisfied. The final finite element modelcorrelates well with the test data. The flutter speed decreases by 8.91% after model tuning compared with the original Aerostructures Test Wing 4 design.

Chan-gi Pak↗
NASA NTRS2022

Structural Shape Sensing from Strain Data Using the Basis Function Method

An aircraft shape must be measured during flight to implement an active trim shape control, such as an active dihedral control for a highly flexible aircraft with a high-aspect-ratio wing, and an active sonic boom control for a supersonic transport aircraft. A basis function method for linear as well as geometrically nonlinear structural shape sensing is proposed in this study. Basis functions can be mode shapes, linear static deformation shapes, or geometrically nonlinear static deformation shapes. The proposed basis function method is validated using a high-aspect-ratio wing, a swept test plate, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Low Boom Flight Demonstration mission X-59 Quiet Supersonic Technology (QueSST) aircraft (Lockheed Martin, Bethesda, Maryland). A large structural deformation of a high-aspect-ratio wing is successfully captured using the proposed basis function method with less than 0.3-percentprediction error at the wing-tip section. The basis function method gives excellent deformation prediction, even with stress concentration. Performance of the basis functions is compared using the X-59 stabilator sample case. In most of the sample load cases, static deformations give a better correlation with the target deformation than do mode shapes. Wing shape sensing with sparse strain data is also demonstrated in this study using the X-59 QueSST aircraft. Predicted structural deformations match reasonably with the target deformations even without strain gauges on some structural components. The predicted deformations have a good match with the target deformations.

Chan-gi Pak↗
NASA NTRS2020

Structural Model Tuning Tool: User's Reference Manual

This report presents an efficient approach for tuning finite element models to match the measured ground vibration test and static test data. Frequencies, mode shapes, total weight, location of the center of gravity, and static deformation computed from the finite element model are matched to the measured data. The model tuning procedure used in this work is based on solving an optimization problem in which the errors for the considered metrics, between the finite element prediction and the measured data, are minimized. Analytical sensitivity values of performance indices are computed using the NASTRAN-generated sensitivity values together with the in-house computer codes, which allow for faster computational time and the use of gradient-based optimizers. The method is applied to the Aerostructures Test Wing IV model. The study shows that the military standard and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration standard for comparing analytical and experimental modal data are all satisfied. The final finite element model correlates well with the test data. The flutter speed decreases by 8.91 percent after model tuning compared with the original Aerostructures Test Wing IV design.

Chan-gi Pak↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Armstrong State of Discipline

- AFRC’s Overview Statement - AFRC is NASA's primary center for high-risk, atmospheric flight research and ground testing on modified or unique research vehicles and test articles - AFRC’s L&D Facility - Flight Loads Lab (FLL): High-bay test area with flight line access for large-scale structural & thermal testing of aerospace structures for component and airframe qualification/airworthiness & research - AFRC’s L&D Expertise - Mainly supports projects in the Aeronautics Research Mission - Aeroelasticity, Model Tuning, FEM & Flutter Analysis Airworthiness Clearance support - Modal Testing, Mass Property Testing & Flight Testing

Natalie Spivey↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Classical Flutter Analysis of X-57 Aircraft Mod II, III, and IV Configurations

To support airworthiness assessment of the X-57 electric propulsion demonstrator aircraft, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) completed classical flutter analysis of the Mod II, Mod III, and Mod IV aircraft configurations. Aeroelastic analysis was primarily performed using the ZAERO analysis code developed by Zona Technology. Supplemental computational fluid dynamics (CFD) flutter analysis for the Mod III and Mod IV configurations was performed using NASA’s FUN3D software to verify the aeroelastic behavior at deployed flaps conditions. The NASTRAN finite element models (FEMs) used for aeroelastic analysis were developed by NASA. The final Mod II FEM utilized shell elements for the wing and fuselage, and beam elements for the tail and wing control surfaces. For Mod III and Mod IV aircraft models, shell element wing FEMs developed throughout the Mod III/IV wing design cycle were utilized. The fuselage and empennage FEM components were shared between the Mod II, III, and IV aircraft models. ZAERO analyses predicted flutter boundaries were >60% beyond the X-57 flight-test envelope never exceed airspeed (V NE ) for all configurations. Aeroelastic Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) CFD simulations using FUN3D of the Mod III/IV configurations predicted flap mode instability did not occur until at least speeds of 60% higher than the Mod III/IV maximum flap deployment airspeed (V FE ).

Keerti K. Bhamidipati↗