Unsteady Aerodynamic Forces: Experiments, Simulations, and Models Steve Brunton & Clancy Rowley FAA/JUP Quarterly Meeting April 6, 2011 Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Unsteady Aerodynamic Forces: Experiments, Simulations, and Models
Steve Brunton & Clancy RowleyFAA/JUP Quarterly Meeting
April 6, 2011Wednesday, March 28, 2012
FLYIT Simulators, Inc.
Motivation
Predator (General Atomics)
Applications of Unsteady Models
Conventional UAVs (performance/robustness)
Micro air vehicles (MAVs)
Flow control, flight dynamic control
Autopilots / Flight simulators
Gust disturbance mitigation
Need for State-Space Models
Need models suitable for control
Combining with flight models
Daedalus Dakota
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Flight Dynamic Control
flight dynamics
aerodynamics
coupled model
estimatorcontroller
reference trajectory,wind disturbances
deviation from desired path, or state
position,aerodynamic state
thrust, elevator, aileron, blowing/suction
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Stall velocity and size
RQ-1 Predator (27 m/s stall)
Daedalus Dakota (18m/s stall)
Puma AE(10 m/s stall)
Smaller, lower stall velocity
Vstall =�
2ρ
(CLmaxS)−1 W
S
W
L
CL
V
Wing surface area
Aircraft weight
Lift force
Lift coefficient
Velocity of aircraft
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Lift vs. Angle of Attack
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 900.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Angle of Attack, (deg)
Lift
Coe
ffici
ent,
C L
Average Lift pre SheddingAverage Lift post SheddingMin/Max of Limit Cycle
Need model that captures lift due to moving airfoil!
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Lift vs. Angle of Attack
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 900.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Angle of Attack, (deg)
Lift
Coe
ffici
ent,
C L
Average Lift pre SheddingAverage Lift post SheddingMin/Max of Limit CycleSinusoidal (f=.1,A=3)
Need model that captures lift due to moving airfoil!
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Lift vs. Angle of Attack
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 900.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Angle of Attack, (deg)
Lift
Coe
ffici
ent,
C L
Average Lift pre SheddingAverage Lift post SheddingMin/Max of Limit CycleSinusoidal (f=.1,A=3)Canonical (a=11,A=10)
Need model that captures lift due to moving airfoil!
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Lift
Drag
Re = 300
2D Model Problem
α = 32◦
Added-Mass
Periodic Vortex SheddingTransient
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Lift
Drag
Re = 300
2D Model Problem
α = 32◦
Added-Mass
Periodic Vortex SheddingTransient
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Reduced Order Indicial Response
+ CL
G(s)
!"#$%&$'(#)*+,+#))()+-#$$
.#$'+)*/#-%0$
CL!̈
CL!̇
s
CL!
s2
!̈
Brunton and Rowley, in preparation.
Model Summary
ODE model ideal for control design
Based on experiment, simulation or theory
Linearized about α = 0
Recovers stability derivatives associated with quasi-steady and added-mass
CLα , CLα̇ , CLα̈
quasi-steady and added-mass
Reduced-order model
input
fast dynamics
d
dt
xαα̇
=
Ar 0 00 0 10 0 0
xαα̇
+
Br
01
α̈
CL =�Cr CLα CLα̇
�
xαα̇
+ CLα̈ α̈
CL(t) = CSL(t)α(0) +
� t
0CS
L(t− τ)α̇(τ)dτ
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Lift vs. Angle of Attack
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 900.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Angle of Attack, (deg)
Lift
Coe
ffici
ent,
C L
Average Lift pre SheddingAverage Lift post SheddingMin/Max of Limit Cycle
Models linearized at α = 0◦+ CL
G(s)
!"#$%&$'(#)*+,+#))()+-#$$
.#$'+)*/#-%0$
CL!̈
CL!̇
s
CL!
s2
!̈
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
10 2 10 1 100 101 102
40
20
0
20
40
60
Mag
nitu
de (d
B)
10 2 10 1 100 101 102200
150
100
50
0
Frequency (rad U/c)
Phas
e (d
eg)
Indicial ResponseROM, r=3Wagner/TheodorsenDNSROM, r=3 (MIMO)
Bode Plot - Pitch (QC)
Frequency response
Reduced order model with ERA r=3 accurately reproduces Indicial Response
Indicial Response and ROM agree better with DNS than Theodorsen’s model.
output is lift coefficient CL
input is ( is angle of attack)α̈ α
Brunton and Rowley, in preparation.
Pitching at quarter chord
Asymptotes are correct for Indicial Response because it is based on experiment
Model for pitch/plunge dynamics [ERA, r=3 (MIMO)] works as well, for the same order model
Quarter-Chord Pitching
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Lift vs. Angle of Attack
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 900.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Angle of Attack, (deg)
Lift
Coe
ffici
ent,
C L
Average Lift pre SheddingAverage Lift post SheddingMin/Max of Limit Cycle
Models linearized at α = 0◦+ CL
G(s)
!"#$%&$'(#)*+,+#))()+-#$$
.#$'+)*/#-%0$
CL!̈
CL!̇
s
CL!
s2
!̈
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
10−2 10−1 100 101 102−40
−20
0
20
40
60Frequency Response Linearized at various !
Mag
nitu
de (d
B)
ERA, !=0DNS, !=0ERA, !=10DNS, !=10ERA, !=20DNS, !=20
10−2 10−1 100 101 102−200
−150
−100
−50
0
Frequency
Phas
e
Bode Plot of Model (-) vs Data (x)
Direct numerical simulation confirms that local linearized models are accurate for small amplitude sinusoidal maneuvers
Brunton and Rowley, AIAA ASM 2011Wednesday, March 28, 2012
PLANTuk u(t) yky(t)
u
u̇
�u
Time
A
T
0
0
(Indicial) Step Response
Previously, models are based on aerodynamic step response
Idea: Have pilot fly aircraft around for 5-10 minutes, back out the Markov parameters, and construct ERA model.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
CL(t)
!̈
!̇
!
Random Input Maneuver
Idea: Have pilot fly aircraft around for 5-10 minutes, back out the Markov parameters, and construct ERA model.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Wind Tunnel Setup
NACA 0006 Airfoil (24.6 cm chord)
Push rods and sting
Test section
Servo tubes
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Experimental Information
Free Stream Velocity: 4.00 m/s
Chord Length: 0.246 m
Reynolds Number: 65,000
1.0 Convection time = .06 seconds
Force measurement: ATI Nano25 force transducer
Velocity measurement: Pitot tube, Validyne DP-103 pressure transducer
NACA 0006 Airfoil
Pitch point x/c = .11 (11% chord)
Pushrod position measurement: linear potentiometer
Pushrod actuation: Copley servo tubes
Andrew Fejer Unsteady Flow Wind Tunnel(.6m x .6m x 3.5m test section)
Acknowledgments: Professor David Williams
Seth Buntain and Vien Quatch
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 40002
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Convective Time
Phase Averaged Data
940 950 960 970 980 990
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
!0.4
!0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Convective Time
Norm
al F
orc
e (
N)
Step!Up, Step!Down, 5 degrees
Phase averaged over 200 cycles
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90!10
!8
!6
!4
!2
0
2
4
6
8
10
Convective Times (s=tU/c)
Angle
(degre
es)
Commanded Angle
Measured Angle
Wing Maneuver
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
What are we modeling?
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100!10
0
10
Ang
le (
degre
es)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
!2
!1
0
1
2
3
Convective time
Norm
al F
orc
e (
N)
Measured Force
ROM, r=3
Model using command acceleration
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100!10
0
10
Ang
le (
degre
es)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
!2
!1
0
1
2
3
Convective time
Norm
al F
orc
e (
N)
Measured Force
ROM, r=3
Model using measured acceleration
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
What are we modeling?
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100!10
0
10
Ang
le (
degre
es)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
!2
!1
0
1
2
3
Convective time
Norm
al F
orc
e (
N)
Measured Force
ROM, r=3
Model using command acceleration
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100!10
0
10
Ang
le (
degre
es)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
!2
!1
0
1
2
3
Convective time
Norm
al F
orc
e (
N)
Measured Force
ROM, r=3
Model using measured acceleration
!cmnd !pot CLAerodynamicsActuator
our model
Simulink!pos
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100!10
0
10
Ang
le (
degre
es)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
!2
!1
0
1
2
3
Convective time
Norm
al F
orc
e (
N)
Measured ForceROM, r=3
Four Test Maneuvers
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100!10
0
10
Angle
(degre
es)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
!2
!1
0
1
2
3
Convective time
Norm
al F
orc
e (
N)
Measured ForceROM, r=3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100!10
0
10
Ang
le (
degre
es)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
!2
!1
0
1
2
3
Convective time
Norm
al F
orc
e (
N)
Measured Force
ROM, r=3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100!10
0
10
Angle
(degre
es)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
!2
!1
0
1
2
3
Convective time
Norm
al F
orc
e (
N)
Measured ForceROM, r=3
Maneuver 1 Maneuver 2
Maneuver 3 Maneuver 4
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
10!2
10!1
100
101
102
103
!60
!40
!20
0
20
40
60M
agnitu
de (
dB
)
10!2
10!1
100
101
102
103
!150
!100
!50
0
Frequency (rad/s ! c/U)
Phase
(degre
es)
maneuver 1
maneuver 2
maneuver 3
maneuver 4
Bode Plots for AoA=0
Model using measured acceleration
Idea: lets combine all maneuvers into one large system ID maneuver!
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
−40−20
020406080
Mag
nitu
de (d
B)
10−2 10−1 100 101 102−180−135−90−45
045
Phas
e (d
eg)
Bode Diagram
Frequency (rad/sec)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450−10
0
10An
gle
(deg
rees
)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
−2
−1
0
1
2
3
Convective time
Nor
mal
For
ce (N
)
Measured ForceROM, r=3
Bode Plot for AoA=0
Resonant peak
Added-mass “bump”
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
CL!
CL!̇
CL!̈{{
Hi from OKIDHi ! !CL!
Hi ! !CL! ! CL!̇
Impulse response in α̈
0 5 10 15
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Mar
kov
para
met
er
Convective time
Model using ALL data
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450−10
0
10An
gle
(deg
rees
)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
−2
−1
0
1
2
3
Convective time
Nor
mal
For
ce (N
)
Measured ForceROM, r=3
Theory Experimental
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
!0.4
!0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Convective Time
Norm
al F
orc
e (
N)
Step!Up, Step!Down, 5 degrees
30Hz Mechanical Oscillation
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100!10
0
10
Angle
(degre
es)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
!2
!1
0
1
2
3
Convective time
Norm
al F
orc
e (
N)
Experiment 4
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100!10
0
10
Angle
(degre
es)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
!2
!1
0
1
2
3
Convective time
Norm
al F
orc
e (
N)
Experiment 3
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100!10
0
10
Ang
le (
degre
es)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
!2
!1
0
1
2
3
Convective time
Norm
al F
orc
e (
N)
Experiment 2
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100!10
0
10
Ang
le (
degre
es)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
!2
!1
0
1
2
3
Convective time
Norm
al F
orc
e (
N)
Experiment 1
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Models agree with data
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
−2
0
2
Verti
cal P
ositi
on (i
nche
s)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
−2
−1
0
1
2
3
Convective time
Nor
mal
For
ce (N
)
Measured ForceROM, r=3
Model for Plunging
−20
0
20
40
60
Mag
nitu
de (d
B)
10−2 10−1 100 101 1020
45
90
135
180
Phas
e (d
eg)
Bode Diagram
Frequency (rad/sec)
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Conclusions
Reduced order model based on indicial response at non-zero angle of attack
- Based on eigensystem realization algorithm (ERA)- Models appear to capture dynamics up to Hopf bifurcation
Observer/Kalman Filter Identification with more realistic input/output data
- Efficient computation of reduced-order models- Ideal for simulation or experimental data
Brunton and Rowley, AIAA ASM 2009-2011
OL, Altman, Eldredge, Garmann, and Lian, 2010
Leishman, 2006.
Wagner, 1925.
Theodorsen, 1935.
Confirmation with experimental data- Tested modeling procedure in Dave Williams’ wind tunnel experiment- Flexible procedure works with various geometry, Reynolds number
Juang, Phan, Horta, Longman, 1991.
Juang and Pappa, 1985.
Ma, Ahuja, Rowley, 2010.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012