Incorporation of Feedback Control into a High-Fidelity Aeroservoelastic Fighter Aircraft Model

Flight testing for aeroservoelastic clearance is an expensive and time consuming process. Large degree-of-freedom high-fidelity nonlinear aircraft models using computational fluid dynamics coupled with finite element models can be used for accurately predicting aeroelastic phenomena in all flight regimes including subsonic, supersonic, and transonic. With the incorporation of an active feedback control system, these high-fidelity models can be used to reduce the flight-test time needed for aeroservoelastic clearance. Accurate computational fluid dynamics/finite element models are computationally complex, rendering their runtime ill suited for adequate flight control system design. In this work, a complex, large-degree-of-freedom, transonic, inviscid computational fluid dynamics/finite element model of a fighter aircraft is fitted with a flight control system for aeroelastic oscillation reduction. A linear reduced-order model of the complete aeroelastic aircraft dynamic system is produced directly from the high-order nonlinear computational fluid dynamics/finite element model. This rapid runtime reduced-order model is used for the design of the flight control system, which includes models of the actuators and common nonlinearities in the form of rate limiting and saturation. The oscillation reduction controller is successfully demonstrated via a simulated flight test using the high-fidelity nonlinear computational fluid dynamics/finite element/flight control system model.

[1]  Gregory W. Brown,et al.  Application of a three-field nonlinear fluid–structure formulation to the prediction of the aeroelastic parameters of an F-16 fighter , 2003 .

[2]  Charbel Farhat,et al.  Aeroelastic Dynamic Analysis of a Full F-16 Configuration for Various Flight Conditions , 2003 .

[3]  Thuan Lieu.  Adaptation of reduced order models for applications in aeroelasticity , 2004 .

[4]  Charbel Farhat,et al.  Aeroservoelastic Predictive Analysis Capability , 2007 .

[5]  R. Britt,et al.  Simulation of Non-Linear Transonic Aeroelastic Behavior on the B-2 , 1999 .

[6]  K. K. Gupta,et al.  Integrated aeroservoelastic analysis capability with X-29A comparisons , 1989 .

[7]  Weiwei Zhang,et al.  Aeroservoelastic Analysis for Transonic Missile Based on Computational Fluid Dynamics , 2009 .

[8]  Charbel Farhat,et al.  A linearized method for the frequency analysis of three-dimensional fluid/structure interaction problems in all flow regimes , 2001 .

[9]  David M. Schuster,et al.  Computational Aeroelasticity: Success, Progress, Challenge , 2003 .

[10]  Martin J. Brenner,et al.  Aeroservoelastic Modeling and Validation of a Thrust-Vectoring F/A-18 Aircraft , 1996 .

[11]  Andrew Arena,et al.  CFD-based aeroservoelastic predictions with comparisons to benchmark experimental data , 1999 .

[12]  Eric Feron,et al.  Methods for in-flight robustness evaluation , 1995 .

[13]  Charbel Farhat,et al.  CFD-Based Aeroelastic Eigensolver for the Subsonic, Transonic, and Supersonic Regimes , 2001 .

[14]  Charbel Farhat,et al.  Reduced-order fluid/structure modeling of a complete aircraft configuration , 2006 .

[15]  Philip S. Beran,et al.  Reduced-order modeling - New approaches for computational physics , 2001 .

[16]  Rudy Yurkovich,et al.  An Analysis of the F/A-18C/D Limit Cycle Oscillation Solution , 2003 .

[17]  Earl H. Dowell,et al.  Three-Dimensional Transonic Aeroelasticity Using Proper Orthogonal Decomposition-Based Reduced-Order Models , 2001 .

[18]  C. Farhat,et al.  Mixed explicit/implicit time integration of coupled aeroelastic problems: Three‐field formulation, geometric conservation and distributed solution , 1995 .

[19]  Michael W. Kehoe.  Aircraft flight flutter testing at the NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility , 1988 .

[20]  Aditi Chattopadhyay,et al.  ASTROS* with smart structures and ASE modules: Application to flutter suppression and gust-load alleviation , 2000 .