A comparative assessment of flutter prediction techniques. (27th December 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sudha, U.P.V.; Deodhare, G.S.; Venkatraman, K.
• Is Part Of: Aeronautical journal. Volume 124:Number 1282(2020)
• Page Start: 1945
• Page End: 1978
• Publication Date: 2020-12-27
• Subjects: Flight flutter test prediction technique, -- ARMA, -- Flutter Margin, -- Three-degree-of-freedom model; Aeronautics -- Periodicals; 629.1305
• DOI: 10.1017/aer.2020.84
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0001-9240

Abstract

ABSTRACT: To establish flutter onset boundaries on the flight envelope, it is required to determine the flutter onset dynamic pressure. Proper selection of a flight flutter prediction technique is vital to flutter onset speed prediction. Several methods are available in literature, starting with those based on velocity damping, envelope functions, flutter margin, discrete-time Autoregressive Moving Average (ARMA) modelling, flutterometer and the Houbolt–Rainey algorithm. Each approach has its capabilities and limitations. To choose a robust and efficient flutter prediction technique from among the velocity damping, envelope function, Houbolt–Rainey, flutter margin and auto-regressive techniques, an example problem is chosen for their evaluation. Hence, in this paper, a three-degree-of-freedom model representing the aerodynamics, stiffness and inertia of a typical wing section is used (1 ) . The aerodynamic, stiffness and inertia properties in the example problem are kept the same when each of the above techniques is used to predict the flutter speed of this aeroelastic system. This three-degree-of-freedom model is used to generate data at speeds before initiation of flutter, during flutter and after occurrence of flutter. Using these data, the above-mentioned flutter prediction methods are evaluated and the results are presented.