Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop: High-Speed Working Group Details

3rdAeroElastic Prediction Workshop High-Speed Working Group August 18, 2022 Organizer: Eric L. Blades, ATA Engineering RC-19 Experiment: Kirk R. Brouwer, AFRL SSC HyMAX Experiment: Krishna M. Talluru / Andrew J. Neely, UNSW-Canberra

Open Agenda Administrative Announcements and questions Questions regarding workshop cases Intended to be a working meeting

Administrative Confirm workshop participants and tools plan to use Please provide codes plan to use RC-19 HyMAX 0 Wedge 0 Wedge 4 Wedge 2 Wedge 10 Wedge Shock Impingement Transitional Flow (Optional) X X Oscillating Wedge (2 - 10 ) Shock Impingement Transitional Flow (Optional) X X No Shock Impingement Periodic Response (Baseline) X X X X X No Shock Impingement Chaotic Response (Optional) X X X X Shock Impingement Periodic Response (Baseline) X X X X X Shock Impingement Laminar Flow (Baseline) X X X X X Organization ATA Engineering HPCMP CREATE Duke University Technion NASA LaRC POC Eric Blades Steven Lamberson Kestrel + SierraSD Earl Dowell Lior Poplingher Robert Bartels Code / Toolset Code / Toolset Loci/CHEM + Abaqus Loci/CHEM + linearFSI Kestrel + SierraSD X X X HYPATE Cradle CFD/scFLOW+MSC.Nastran Daning Huang Yuya Ando HYPATE Cradle CFD/scFLOW+MSC.Nastran Penn State X X X X X Seeking volunteers to provide progress updates for future meetings

Workshop Programmatics Details for both experiments available at AePW3 website https://nescacademy.nasa.gov/workshops/AePW3/public/wg/highspeed Monthly telecon slides posted as well Post-processing scripts also provided for to aid comparisons and ensure consistency of results Scheduled weekend before SciTech (Jan 21-22) SciTech is Jan 23-27 at National Harbor, MD No plans to provide virtual access to the workshop since hybrid approach hasn t been very effective in the past Plan is to present all 4 working groups in serial Allow participants to see results from other WGs Presentations Current plan is 10-15 minutes for each participant (may vary depending on number of participants) Organizing committee will provide overview of cases for each WG so individual participants can just focus on presenting their results

Progress Updates RC-19 Open to WG HyMAX Open to WG Bob Bartels/NASA LaRC presented Encountered any issues to share with WG?

RC-19 Questions for Thin Panel in Heated Flow Data package provides a Brouwer et al. 2021 AIAA J provides a scalar value for frame and panel temperatures Data from thermocouple measurements at single location Is it OK to assume uniform in-plane temperature for panel? The T (T_panel T_frame) and cavity pressure were varied during the test Does the T and cavity pressure (pc) in data package correspond to the flutter response, i.e. the current case ? During test Was T continually decreasing? Was cavity pressure continually increasing?

RC-19 BCs Used for Modal Comparison From data package A free boundary condition was used on all panel edges when preforming pre-test measurements of the thin panel mode shapes, frequencies, and damping (contained in the variable Panel_Geom.Measured_Modes) Mode 1 below corresponds to a fixed-edge panel mode (1, 1) What is meant by free boundary condition ?

RC-19 Questions Any information available to characterize the in-plane boundary condition? Technion: 4 wedge, predicted shock location further away from LE than AFRL/SSC 2021 simulations What is the location of the shock impingement?

Question Regarding HyMAX Geometry and Configuration Currao et al. 2019 AIAA J describes the first iteration of the experiment that impinges a shock on a compliant trailing cantilever plate but the model and shock generator geometries in that paper are slightly different from the current HyMAX case Currao et al. 2021 AIAA J describes a later iteration of the experiment that incorporates the new oscillating shock generator geometry used in the current HyMAX case, but only reports SBLI measurements on a thick rigid plate rather than a thin compliant cantilevered plate Currao et al. 2020 AIAA J describes a more detailed study of the SBLI on a thick rigid plate BUT it only uses the original shock generator Details in the Data Pack and the CAD are correct for the workshop HyMAX case

HyMAX Questions / Discussion Figure 11 For the natural frequency estimates in AIAA J, were those based on the 30 ms of data shown in the figure or the entire 200 ms time history? Only 30ms of data at the start was used in these calculations In figure 6 of the AIAA J, there seems to be a shift in the mean value in the pressure transducer response starting at about 120 ms. The fluctuations in the freestream pressure (see figure 1a in the 2019 Currao et al paper) The gradual collapse of the core flow beyond 120 ms How quickly does the flow return to quiescent conditions after the 200 ms test? At the end of 200ms, the test article experiences some pressure waves bouncing back and forth between the test section and the dump tank test article is not in quiescent conditions at the end Test section returns to quiescent conditions within 0.5 seconds after the 200ms test time Figure 6

HyMAX Questions Definition of oscillating wedge available? During test, wedge is free to oscillate Not included in data package Send request to Krishna and Eric for information about this case Use same wedge geometry and rotates about known pivot location Initial wedge angle is zero degrees Wedge oscillation time history is known and can be used to prescribe the wedge motion Comment: Shock impingement location for 10 case should be on the compliant panel and close to the LE

Next Steps Collective AePW group meetings 1st Thursday of each month (currently on bi-monthly schedule) Next meeting is October 6th, 2022 @ 10:00 AM CT Please share with colleagues to increase participation

Questions and Comments