Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-17T15:47:34.295Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Computational validation and system identification modeling for stability and control predictions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2022

M. Ghoreyshi Open the ORCID record for M. Ghoreyshi [Opens in a new window] ,
A. Jirasek  and
J. Seidel Open the ORCID record for J. Seidel [Opens in a new window]
M. Ghoreyshi*
Affiliation:
High Performance Computing Research Center, U.S. Air Force Academy Department of Aeronautics USAF Academy Colorado 80840, USA
A. Jirasek
Affiliation:
High Performance Computing Research Center, U.S. Air Force Academy Department of Aeronautics USAF Academy Colorado 80840, USA
J. Seidel
Affiliation:
High Performance Computing Research Center, U.S. Air Force Academy Department of Aeronautics USAF Academy Colorado 80840, USA
*
*Correspondence author. Email: Mehdi.Ghoreyshi@usafa.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents the results of the first AIAA Stability and Control Prediction Workshop obtained at the U.S. Air Force Academy using the kCFD flow solver of the ${\rm{HPCMP}}\;{\rm{CREAT}}{{\rm{E}}^{{\rm{TM}}}}$ -AV Kestrel simulation tools. The test case considered is a large-scale Common Research Model (CRM) tested at the ONERA S1MA wind tunnel at different transonic speeds and fixed lift coefficient values at zero and non-zero side-slip angles. The computational results include a grid sensitivity analysis and validation with available experimental data. In addition, the Mach number and sting effects on the predicted stability and control values of the test case are investigated. Finally, a system identification method using a regression model is developed and used for prediction of stability and control data. The regression coefficients are estimated from an input signal with varying-frequency changes in the angle-of-attack, pitch rate, and side-slip angle. Once the model was created, it was used to predict the static and dynamic aerodynamic data of the test cases. The results show that the model predictions match very well with calculated CFD data at discrete flow conditions.

Keywords

Stability and controlSystem identificationCFD
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 127 , Issue 1311 , May 2023 , pp. 831 - 851
Check for updates
Creative Commons
This is a work of the US Government and is not subject to copyright protection within the United States. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society
Copyright
© United States Government, 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Distribution A. Approved for Public Release. Distribution unlimited.

References

Levy, D.W., Zickuhr, T., Vassberg, J., Agrawal, S., Wahls, R.A., Pirzadeh, S. and Hemsch, M.J. Data summary from the first AIAA computational fluid dynamics drag prediction workshop, J. Aircr., 2003, 40, (5), pp 875–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rumsey, C., Slotnick, J., Long, M., Stuever, R. and Wayman, T. Summary of the first AIAA CFD high-lift prediction workshop, J. Aircr., 2011, 48, (6), pp 2068–2079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lcey, D. and Sclafani, A. Development of the high lift common research model (HL-CRM): A representative high lift configuration for transonic transports, AIAA Paper 2016–0308, January 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghoreyshi, M., Badcock, K., Da Ronch, A., Marques, S., Swift, A. and Ames, N. Framework for establishing limits of tabular aerodynamic models for flight dynamics analysis, J. Aircr., 2011, 48, (1), pp 42–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steger, J. and Bailey, H. Calculation of transonic aileron buzz, AIAA J., 1980, 18, (3), pp 249–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chyu, W. and Schiff, L. Nonlinear aerodynamic modeling of flap oscillations in transonic flow-A numerical validation, AIAA J., 1983, 21, (1), pp 106–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schütte, A., Einarsson, G., Raichle, A., Schöning, B., Mönnich, W., Orlt, M., Neumann, J., Arnold, J. and Forkert, T. Numerical simulation of maneuvering aircraft by aerodynamic, flight mechanics and structural mechanics coupling, J. Aircr., 2009, 46, (1), pp 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghoreyshi, M., Vallespin, D., Da Ronch, A., Badcock, K., Vos, J. and Hitzel, S. Simulation of aircraft manoeuvres based on computational fluid dynamics, AIAA Paper 2010–8239, August 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vassberg, J., DeHaan, M., Rivers, S. and Wahls, R. Development of a common research model for applied CFD validation studies, AIAA Paper 2008–6919, August 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartieri, A., Hue, D., Chanzy, Q. and Atinault, O. Experimental investigations on the Common Research Model at ONERA-S1MA – Comparison with DPW Numerical Results, AIAA Paper 2017–0964, January 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartieri, A. Experimental investigations on the Common Research Model at ONERA-S2MA, AIAA Paper 2020–0799, January 2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghoreyshi, M., Jirasek, A. and Cummings, R.M. Reduced order unsteady aerodynamic modeling for stability and control analysis using computational fluid dynamics, Prog. Aerosp. Sci., 2014, 71, pp 167–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaz, B., Liu, L. and Friedmann, P.P. Reduced-order nonlinear unsteady aerodynamic modeling using a surrogate-based recurrence framework, AIAA J., 2010, 48, (10), pp 2418–2429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucia, D.J., Beran, P.S. and Silva, W.A. Reduced-order modeling: new approaches for computational physics, Prog. Aerosp. Sci., 2004, 40, (1-2), pp 51–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwell, D.I. Frequency effects on dynamic stability derivatives obtained from small-Amplitude oscillatory testing, J. Aircr., 1998, 35, (5), pp 776–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghoreyshi, M., Jirásek, A. and Cummings, R.M., Computational investigation into the use of response functions for aerodynamic-load modeling, AIAA J., 2012, 50, (6), pp 1314–1327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghoreyshi, M., Lofthouse, A.J., Findlay, D.B. and Lee, J. Indicial methods for the numerical calculation of dynamic derivatives, AIAA J., 2017, 55, (7), pp 2279–2294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, V. and Morelli, E.A. Aircraft System Identification - Theory and Practice, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, J. and Ghoreyshi, M. Forced motions design for aerodynamic identification and modeling of a generic missile configuration, Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 2018, 77, pp 742–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivers, M. and Dittberner, A. Experimental investigations of the NASA common research model in the NASA Langley National Transonic Facility and NASA Ames 11-Ft Transonic Wind Tunnel (Invited), AIAA Paper 2011–1126, January 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartieri, A. Large Reference Model (CRM based) wind tunnel tests at ONERA-S1MA (Modane), 1st Stability and Control Prediction Workshop, January 26 2021.Google Scholar
Hue, D. Fifth drag prediction workshop: Computational fluid dynamics studies carried out at ONERA, J. Aircr., 2014, 51, (4), pp 1295–1310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hue, D., Péron, S., Wiart, L., Atinault, O., Gournay, E., Raud, P., Benoit, C. and Mayeur, J. Validation of a near-body and off-body grid partitioning methodology for aircraft aerodynamic performance prediction, Comput. Fluids, 2015, 117, pp 196–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karman-Shoemake, K. ONERA CRM Unstructured Mesh Family Generation, 1st Stability and Control Prediction Workshop, January 26 2021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, S.A. and McDaniel, D.R.A fixed-wing aircraft simulation tool for improving DoD acquisition efficiency, Comput. Sci. Eng., 2015, 18, (1), pp 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, D.R., Nichols, R.H., Eymann, T.A., Starr, R.E. and Morton, S.A. Accuracy and Performance Improvements to Kestrel’s Near-Body Flow Solver, AIAA Paper 2016–1051, January 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glasby, R.S. and Erwin, J.T. Introduction to COFFE: The Next-Generation HPCMP CREATETM-AV CFD Solver, AIAA Paper 2016–0567, January 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eymann, T.A., Nichols, R.H., Tuckey, T. and McDaniel, D.R. Cartesian adaptive mesh refinement with the HPCMP CREATETM-AV Kestrel Solver, AIAA Paper 2015–0040, January 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glasby, R., Erwin, J., Eymann, T., Nichols, R., McDaniel, D., Karman, S., Stefanski, D. and Holst, K. Results from DoD HPCMP CREATETM-AV Kestrel for the 3rd AIAA high lift prediction workshop, AIAA Paper 2018–1256, January 2018.Google Scholar
Morton, S.A., Tillman, B., McDaniel, D.R. Sears, D.R. and Tuckey, T.R. Kestrel–A fixed wing virtual aircraft product of the CREATE program, AIAA Paper 2009–0338, January 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godnov, S. A difference scheme for numerical computation of discontinuous solution of hydrodynamic equations, Math Sbornik, 47, pp 271–306 (in Russian) translated US Joint Publ, Res. Service, JPRS, 7226, 1969.Google Scholar
Tramel, R., Nichols, R. and Buning, P. Addition of improved shock-capturing schemes to OVERFLOW 2.1, AIAA Paper 2009–3988, June 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spalart, P. and Allmaras, S. A one-equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows, AIAA Paper 1992–0439, January 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spalart, P. and Shur, M. On the sensitization of turbulence models to rotation and curvature, Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 1997, 1, (5), pp 297–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menter, F.R. Eddy viscosity transport equations and their relation to the k- $\varepsilon $ model, ASME J. Fluids Eng., 1997, 119, (4), pp 876–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spalart, P.R. Comments on the feasibility of LES for wings, and on a hybrid RANS/LES approach, Proceedings of First AFOSR International Conference on DNS/LES, Greyden Press, 1997.Google Scholar
Hiller, B.R. and Bozeman, M.D. NASA Langley FUN3D analyses in support of the 1st AIAA stability and control prediction workshop, AIAA Paper 2020–1681, January 2020.Google Scholar