Expediting time-marching supersonic flutter prediction through a combination of CFD and aerodynamic modeling techniques

  • Andrew S. ArenaJr.
  • Kajal K. Gupta
Part of the Lecture Notes in Physics book series (LNP, volume 490)


An enhancement to the STARS integrated analysis tool has been developed in order to improve the practicality of time-marched supersonic aeroelastic solutions in an operational environment. A significant time savings in time-marched flutter prediction has been realized through the combination of a simplified aerodynamic model and an Euler flow solver. The one-dimensional wave equation is applied as a perturbation to a steady Euler solution, such that nonlinearities such as shock interactions are captured in the mean flow, and unsteady effects are treated as local perturbations. Application to configurations of practical interest have demonstrated the suitability of the methodology.


Perturbation Solution Surface Node Shock Interaction Unsteady Effect Aeroelastic Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Local Speed of Sound


Freestream Speed of Sound


Generalized Structural Damping Matrix


Generalized Aerodynamic Force Vector


Generalized Stiffness Matrix


Generalized Mass Matrix


Local Nodal Pressure of Mean Flow


Freestream Pressure


Generalized Displacement Vector


Normalized Nodal Velocity (Δu/V)


Freestream Velocity Magnitude


Specific Heats Ratio


Local Nodal Density of Mean Flow


Freestream Density


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Dowell E.H., Crawley, E.F., Curtiss, Jr., H.C., Peters, D.A., Scanlan, R.H., and Sisto, F., “A Modern Course in Aeroelasticity”, 3rd edition, Klewer Academic Publishers, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gupta, K.K., “STARS-An Integrated General-Purpose Finite Element Structural, Aeroelastic, and Aeroservoelastic Analysis Computer Program,” NASA TM-101709, Jun. 1990, Revised December 1995.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lighthill, M.J., “Oscillating Airfoils at High Mach Number,” Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences, Vol. 20, No. 6, pp. 402–406, June, 1953.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gupta, K.K., Petersen, K., and Lawson, C., “Multidisciplinary Modeling and Simulation of a Generic Hypersonic Vehicle,” AIAA-91-5015, AIAA 3rd International Aerospace Planes Conference, December 3–5, 1991, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gupta, K.K., Petersen, K., and Lawson, C., “On Some Recent Advances in Multidisciplinary Analysis of Hypersonic Vehicles,” AIAA-92-5026, AIAA Fourth International Aerospace Planes Conference, December 1–4, 1992, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Spain, C. V., Soistmann, D. L., and Linville, T. W., “Integration of Thermal Effects into Finite Element Aerothermoelastic Analysis with Illustrative Results,” NASA CR-1059, Aug. 1989.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dixon, Sidney C., “Comparison of Panel Flutter Results from Approximate Aerodynamic Theory with Results from Exact Inviscid Theory and Experiment,” NASA TN D-3649, 1966.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew S. ArenaJr.
    • 1
  • Kajal K. Gupta
    • 2
  1. 1.Oklahoma State UniversityStillwater
  2. 2.NASA Dryden Flight Research CenterEdwards

Personalised recommendations