Search NASASearch

Engineering topics

Josiah M Waite

Publications and source records attributed to Josiah M Waite.

Reduced-Order Aerodynamic Modeling Based on CFD Frequency Responses from Multisine Inputs

A system identification analysis was performed to determine reduced-order models of a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) solver for linear aeroelastic analysis and control design. The application was to the FUN3D code and the flexible half-span wind tunnel test article, in transonic flow conditions, used in the NASA-Boeing collaboration called the Integrated Adaptive Wing Technology Maturation (IAWTM) project. Multiple inputs (structural mode displacements and control surface deflections) were simultaneously excited with orthogonal phase-optimized multisines and multiple outputs (generalized aerodynamic forces) were recorded, from which the matrix of frequency responses were computed using a single CFD run. A state-space model was then fit to the frequency response data using a maximum-likelihood estimator.

System identification

Aeroservoelastic Control Law Development for the Integrated Adaptive Wing Technology Maturation Wind-Tunnel Test

The NASA Advanced Air Transport Technology (AATT) Project seeks to “explore and develop technologies and concepts for improved energy efficiency and environmental compatibility for fixed wing subsonic transports” [1]. The IAWTM project is a subproject within AATT and is a joint Boeing/NASA effort to, in part, demonstrate the active control systems necessary to employ high-aspect ratio wings for improved aerodynamic efficiency. The aircraft configuration under study for the IAWTM project is a generic jet transport based on the NASA Common Research Model (CRM) whose wing aspect ratio has been increased to 13.5 (as opposed to nominal CRM aspect ratio of 9) and whose development is given in Ref. [2]. A semi-span model of the high-aspect-ratio CRM with 10 trailing edge control surfaces is currently being fabricated and will be delivered to the NASA Langley Transonic Dynamics Tunnel (TDT). There, several tests will be conducted to demonstrate maneuver load alleviation (MLA), gust load alleviation (GLA), active flutter suppression (AFS), and drag reduction, all at transonic conditions. A layout of the wind tunnel model is shown in Fig. 1. The wind-tunnel model is a spar/pod wing design with a relatively rigid fuselage attached to a mounting structure (seen in Fig. 1), which in turn is attached to a load balance behind the tunnel wall. Shims exist that can be attached to force the load to go through the fuselage rather than through the balance so as not to damage the balance in the event of flutter. The spar/pod design is similar to that used in the Boeing truss-braced wing aeroelastic model tested in the TDT in 2013 [3]. There is a central spar running the span of the wing to which the pods are attached that form the aerodynamic shape of the wing. The pods are constructed of ribs for attachment to the spar and skins to create the outer mold line. There are ten active control surfaces that will be used for the test objectives discussed above. Three of these (two outboard ailerons and one inboard aileron) are high-speed electrohydraulic actuators, and the remaining seven are low-speed mini-plane flaps, which have slower servo motors that will be used primarily for drag and maneuver load reductions. Control laws must be developed for each test (MLA, GLA, AFS, and drag reduction) and must be able to work in tandem when two or more control strategies are being tested simultaneously (e.g., when control laws to mitigate maneuver loads and gust loads operate simultaneously). The development of these control laws requires accurate mathematical representations of the aerodynamics, structural dynamics, and control surface dynamics of the system. Taken together, this mathematical representation—which is often in state-space form— is the ASE model. Three low-order ASE models of differing fidelities were developed for the IAWTM test and will be presented here. The differences in fidelity appeared in the aerodynamic modeling—one model assumed purely linear aerodynamics, while the other two models used different techniques to linearize the aerodynamics about a nonlinear mean. Furthermore, simple observer-based full-state feedback controllers for each test (MLA, GLA, AFS, and drag reduction) were designed from these low-order ASE models and implemented in a higher-order, nonlinear computational ASE simulation to assess the effectiveness of each controller. Observers were designed from each of the three lower-order ASE models, and each (linear) observer was then used as an estimate of the nonlinear dynamics of the system. Using the estimated states and the full-state feedback controller, control surface commands were fed back to the higher-order, nonlinear ASE system. The insight gained during this development will be applied to control law development for the physical IAWTM wind-tunnel test.

Josiah M Waite

Reduced-Order Aerodynamic Modeling Based on CFD Frequency Responses from Multisine Inputs

A system identification analysis was performed to determine a reduced-order model (ROM) of a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) solver in support of linear aeroservoelastic model development and feedback control design. The approach was applied to the FUN3D code for the half-span wind tunnel test article used in the NASA-Boeing collaboration called the Integrated Adaptive Wing Technology Maturation (IAWTM) project. In a transonic flow condition, multiple inputs (11 structural mode displacements and 3 control surface deflections) were simultaneously excited with orthogonal phase-optimized multisines while multiple outputs (the corresponding 14 generalized aerodynamic forces) were recorded. From these recorded times series, the matrix of frequency responses was computed and subsequently fit using rational function approximations (RFAs). It was found that the entire (14 x 14) matrix of frequency responses could be determined from a single CFD run and that results generally followed trends predicted using other methods. Differences were attributed to the modeling fidelity and nonlinearities from structural mode and control surface interactions at higher reduced frequencies. More accurate fits of the RFAs to the frequency response data were obtained by making two CFD runs, one with only structural mode excitations and one with only control surface excitations, which reduced the degree of nonlinearity in the modeling data.

Aeroservoelasticity