Coupling techniques for computational non-linear transient aeroelasticity

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering

Volumn 222, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 435-447

  Unger, R ^a   Haupt, M C ^a   Horst, P ^a  

^a TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF BRAUNSCHWEIG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Aeroelasticity; Fluid structure interaction; Lagrange multiplier; Limit cycle oscillation; Panal flutter

Indexed keywords

DATA TRANSFER; EIGENVALUES AND EIGENFUNCTIONS; NUMERICAL METHODS; THREE DIMENSIONAL;

AEROELASTIC SYSTEMS; BENCH-MARK PROBLEMS; COUPLED SYSTEMS; COUPLING PROCESSES; COUPLING TECHNIQUES; GALERKIN; LAG RANGE; NON-LINEAR; NUMERICA L RESULTS; NUMERICAL ASPECTS; ONE-DIMENSIONAL; THREE DIMENSIONAL (3D); TIME INTEGRATIONS; TRANSFER METHODS; TRANSFER SCHEME;

BIOCONVERSION;

EID: 46849103396     PISSN: 09544100     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1243/09544100JAERO283     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Bendiksen, O. O. Modern developments in computational aeroelasticity. Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs, Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering, 2004, 218, 157-177.
2. Friedmann, R R Renaissance of aeroelasticity and its future. J. Aircr., 1999, 36(1), 105-121.
3. Farhat, C. and Lesoinne, M. Two efficient staggered algorithms for the serial and parallel solution of three-dimensional nonlinear transient aeroelastic problems. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 2000. 182, 499-515.
4. Farhat, C., van der Zee, K. G., and Geuzaine, P. Provably second-order time-accurate loosely-coupled solution algorithms for transient nonlinear computational aeroelasticity. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 2006, 195, 1973-2001.
5. Unger, R., Haupt, M. C., and Horst, P. Application of Lagrange multipliers for coupled problems in fluid and structural interactions. Comput. Struct., 2007, 85, 796-809.
6. Massjung, R. Numerical schemes and well-posedness in nonlinear aeroelasticity. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Mathematics, Computer Science and Natural Sciences, RWTH Aachen, 2000.
7. Gordnier, R. E., and Melville, R. B. Transonic flutter simulations using an implicit aeroelastic solver. J. Aircr., 2000, 37(5), 872-879.
8. Piperno, S. Explicit/implicit fluid/structure staggered procedures with a structural predictor and fluid subcycling for 2D inviscid aeroelastic simulations. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids, 1997, 25(10), 1207-1226.
9. Bathe, K. J. Finite element procedures, 1996 (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
10. Hughes, T. J. R. The finite element method: linear static and dynamic finite element analysis, 1987 (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
11. Blazek, J. Computational fluid dynamics: principles and applications, 2007 (Elsevier, Amsterdam).
12. Ferziger, H. J. and Perić, M. Computational methods for fluid dynamics, 2002 (Springer, Berlin).
13. Jameson, A. Time dependent calculations using multi-grid with application to unsteady flows past airfoils and wings. AIAA-paper 91-0596, 1991.
14. Park, K. C. and Felippa, C. A. A variational principle for the formulation of partitioned structural systems. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 2000, 47, 395-418.
15. Cebral, J. R. and Löhner, R. Conservative load projection and tracking for fluid-structure problems. AIAA J., 1997, 35(4), 687-692.
16. Jiao, X. M. and Heath, M. T. Common-refinement-based data transfer between non-matching meshes in multi-physics simulations. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 2004, 61(14), 2402-2427.
17. Flemisch, B., Puso, M. A., and Wohlmuth, B. I. A new dual mortar method for curved interfaces: 2D elasticity. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 2005,63(6), 813-832.
18. El-Abbasi, N. and Bathe, K. J. Stability and patch test performance of contact discretizations and a new solution algorithm. Comput. Struct., 2001, 79(16), 1473-1486.
19. Puso, M. A. A 3D mortar method for solid mechanics. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 2004, 59(3), 315-336.
20. Yates, E. C., Land, N. S., and Foughner, J. T. Measured and calculated subsonic and transonic flutter characteristics of a 45° sweptback wing platform in air and freon-12 in the Langley transonic dynamics tunnel. Technical report, NASA, 1963, D-1616.
21. Lee-Rausch, E. M. and Batina, J. T. Calculation of AGARD wing 445.6 flutter using Navier-Stokes aerodynamics. AIAA-paper 93-3476, 1993.
22. Gupta, K. K. Development of a finite element aeroelastic analysis capability. J. Aircr., 1996, 33(5), 995-1002.
23. Irons, B. M. and Tuck, R. C. A version of the Aitken accelarator for computer implementation. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 1969, 1, 275-277.
24. Unger, R., Haupt, M. C., and Horst, P. Comparison of iterative solution procedures for fluid and structural interaction problems using two- and three-field approaches. In Computational methods for coupled problems in science and engineering II - coupled problems (Eds M. Papadrakakis, E. Oñate, and B. Schrefler), 2007 (International Center for Numerical Methods in Engineering (CIMNE), Barcelona).
25. Gerold, T. Galle, M., Friedrich, O., and Evans, J. Calculation of complex three-dimensional configurations employing the DLR-TAU code. AIAA-paper 97-0167, 1997.
26. Yates, E. C. AGARD standard aeroelastic configuration for dynamic response, candidate configuration I - wing 445.6. Technical report, NASA TM-100492, 1987.
27. Chen, X., Zha, G., and Yang M. Numerical simulation of 3-d wing flutter with fully coupled fluid-structure interaction approach. AIAA-paper 2006-0697, 2006.
28. Woodgate, M. A. and Badcock, K. J. Fast prediction of transonic aeroelastic stability and limit cycles. AIAA J., 2007, 45(6), 1370-1381.