Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “truss-braced transonic wing”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

79 records · Page 5

Analysis of Limit Cycle Oscillation Data from the Aeroelastic Test of the SUGAR Truss-Braced Wing Model

Research focus in recent years has been given to the design of aircraft that provide significant reductions in emissions, noise and fuel usage. Increases in fuel efficiency have also generally been attended by overall increased wing flexibility. The truss-braced wing (TBW) configuration has been forwarded as one that increases fuel efficiency. The Boeing company recently tested the Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research (SUGAR) Truss-Braced Wing (TBW) wind-tunnel model in the NASA Langley Research Center Transonic Dynamics Tunnel (TDT). This test resulted in a wealth of accelerometer data. Other publications have presented details of the construction of that model, the test itself, and a few of the results of the test. This paper aims to provide a much more detailed look at what the accelerometer data says about the onset of aeroelastic instability, usually known as flutter onset. Every flight vehicle has a location in the flight envelope of flutter onset, and the TBW vehicle is not different. For the TBW model test, the flutter onset generally occurred at the conditions that the Boeing company analysis said it should. What was not known until the test is that, over a large area of the Mach number dynamic pressure map, the model displayed wing/engine nacelle aeroelastic limit cycle oscillation (LCO). This paper dissects that LCO data in order to provide additional insights into the aeroelastic behavior of the model.

Bartels, Robert E.↗

Aeroservoelastic Wind-Tunnel Test of the SUGAR Truss Braced Wing Wind-Tunnel Model

The Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research (SUGAR) Truss-Braced Wing (TBW) aeroservoelastic (ASE) wind-tunnel test was conducted in the NASA Langley Transonic Dynamics Tunnel (TDT) and was completed in April, 2014. The primary goals of the test were to identify the open-loop flutter boundary and then demonstrate flutter suppression. A secondary goal was to demonstrate gust load alleviation (GLA). Open-loop flutter and limit cycle oscillation onset boundaries were identified for a range of Mach numbers and various angles of attack. Two sets of control laws were designed for the model and both sets of control laws were successful in suppressing flutter. Control laws optimized for GLA were not designed; however, the flutter suppression control laws were assessed using the TDT Airstream Oscillation System. This paper describes the experimental apparatus, procedures, and results of the TBW wind-tunnel test. Acquired system ID data used to generate ASE models is also discussed.2 study.

Scott, Robert C.↗

Aeroelastic Trim Drag Optimization of Mach 0.8 TransonicTruss-Braced Wing Aircraft with Variable Camber ContinuousTrailing Edge Flap

This paper presents an aeroelastic trim drag optimization study of the Mach 0.8 Tran-sonic Truss-Braced Wing (TTBW) aircraft with the Variable Camber Continuous TrailingEdge Flap (VCCTEF). An aero-structural analysis solver VSPAERO with transonic small dis-turbance, integral boundary-layer, and wing-strut interference corrections coupled to modeshapes computed by NASTRAN using the Galerkin method is developed to provide a rapidaircraft aeroelastic performance evaluation. Aeroelastic trim drag optimization studies areconducted for a VCCTEF configuration with 6-spanwise sections. Three different flight condi-tions corresponding to Mach 0.8 are selected for the aeroelastic trim drag optimization at thedesign and off-design cruise lift coefficients. The preliminary optimization results show thatthe TTBW aircraft with the optimized VCCTEF deflection achieves a drag reduction of about 9.2 counts, 9.6 counts, and 12.3 counts corresponding to the lift coefficients 0.661, 0.695, and0.729, respectively. When accounting for the actuator weight penalty, the corresponding dragreductions are 1.77%, 1.82%, 2.41%. A high-fidelity CFD solver FUN3D is used to validatethe aeroelastic trim drag optimization.

Aeroelastic trim drag↗

Computed and Experimental Flutter/LCO Onset for the Boeing Truss-Braced Wing Wind-Tunnel Model

This paper presents high fidelity Navier-Stokes simulations of the Boeing Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research truss-braced wing wind-tunnel model and compares the results to linear MSC. Nastran flutter analysis and preliminary data from a recent wind-tunnel test of that model at the NASA Langley Research Center Transonic Dynamics Tunnel. The simulated conditions under consideration are zero angle of attack, so that structural nonlinearity can be neglected. It is found that, for Mach number greater than 0.78, the linear flutter analysis predicts flutter onset dynamic pressure below the wind-tunnel test and that predicted by the Navier-Stokes analysis. Furthermore, the wind-tunnel test revealed that the majority of the high structural dynamics cases were wing limit cycle oscillation (LCO) rather than flutter. Most Navier-Stokes simulated cases were also LCO rather than hard flutter. There is dip in the wind-tunnel test flutter/LCO onset in the Mach 0.76-0.80 range. Conditions tested above that Mach number exhibited no aeroelastic instability at the dynamic pressures reached in the tunnel. The linear flutter analyses do not show a flutter/LCO dip. The Navier-Stokes simulations also do not reveal a dip; however, the flutter/LCO onset is at a significantly higher dynamic pressure at Mach 0.90 than at lower Mach numbers. The Navier-Stokes simulations indicate a mild LCO onset at Mach 0.82, then a more rapidly growing instability at Mach 0.86 and 0.90. Finally, the modeling issues and their solution related to the use of a beam and pod finite element model to generate the Navier-Stokes structure mode shapes are discussed.

Bartels, Robert E.↗

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↗

Multidisciplinary Design Investigation of Truss-Braced Wing Aircraft

The subject grant was in effect from 7/l/99 to 10/31/99. The objective of this grant was to complete a strut-braced wing study which began, which was in effect from 6/27/96 until 9/15/99. While the initial grant was on-going, we were also under subcontract to Lockheed-Martin, Aerospace Systems Division, Marietta, GA to do additional studies related to the strut-braced wing grant "A Structural and Aerodynamic Investigation of a Strut-Braced Wing Transonic Aircraft Concept", 4/l/98-11/15/98. Lockheed-Martin was under contract to NASA Langley. Finally the research under this grant has led to a joint proposal from NASA Langley, Locheed-Martin, Virginia Tech and NASA Dryden to develop a transonic strut-braced wing demonstration aircraft in response to Flight Research for Revolutionary Aeronautical Concepts (REVCON). This final report summarizes the research done, augmented by the additional concommitant research projects mentioned above.

Grossman, B.↗

Multidisciplinary Design Optimization and Cruise Mach Number Study of Truss-Braced Wing Aircraft

The Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research (SUGAR) Phase III was led by Dr. Rakesh K. Kapania and Dr. Joseph A. Schetz at the Multidisciplinary Analysis and Design Center for Advanced Vehicles, Department of Aerospace and Ocean Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg VA. The research was performed from December 2014 to December 2015. Three major areas were investigated: Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (MDO) studies of truss braced wing (TBW) and strut braced wing (SBW) vehicles at cruise Mach numbers of 0.7 and 0.8 for a flight mission similar to current market single aisle configurations. The performance and the characteristics of the optimized vehicles were compared to the SUGAR Phase II TBW vehicle. These results were obtained without applying any of the extended transonic aerodynamic and aeroelastic tools that will be discussed later. It was found that the cruise Mach number has a large effect on the best “truss” configuration. At Mach 0.7, an SBW has a better fuel consumption and better take-off gross weight (TOGW). However, at Mach 0.8, the TBW is superior because the jury strut aids in satisfying the flutter constraint; Two-dimensional, steady, transonic aerodynamic analysis of the Boeing Airfoil J (BACJ) airfoil was performed for a range of thickness ratios, Mach numbers and lift coefficients. Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations were solved to obtain the lift-curve slope, wave drag coefficient, the location of the center of pressure and to predict the separation at the trailing edge, which may lead to buffeting. One of the goals was to develop a database of lift-curve slope and the location of center of pressure, which could be used in a transonic aeroelastic analysis. Another goal was to compare the wave drag coefficients to those predicted by Lock’s fourth-power law and also to compare the transonic effects obtained from RANS simulations to those predicted by the Korn equations. A third goal was to develop a buffet boundary, which can be integrated into the MDO framework to prevent the optimized designs from probable buffeting; A state-space transonic aeroelastic analysis tool was developed, which can incorporate the nonlinear transonic effects in the unsteady aerodynamics but is yet computationally cheap when used within the VT MDO framework. The aeroelastic analysis uses Leishman- Beddoes (LB) indicial functions, which generated a state-space representation of the aeroelastic system. The indicial functions allow the incorporation of data for steady lift-curve slope and location of the center of pressure. Thus, the steady transonic effects are included, and the unsteady aerodynamic responses are a linearization about the steady results. The aeroelastic approach discretizes the wing into numerous strips, which results in a large eigenvalue problem as each strip has eight augmented aerodynamic states as per the LB theory. Thus, to reduce the computation expense, a reduced order model (ROM) was developed. The approach was validated using a few examples.

Kapania, Rakesh K.↗