Longitudinal damping derivatives, , of an aerial vehicle is important from an aerodynamic stability point of view. Experimental calculation of longitudinal damping derivatives using wind tunnel is not a cost-effective method; therefore, researchers have developed numerical solutions as an alternative. In this research, the longitudinal damping derivatives of a flying wing micro aerial vehicle (FWMAV) were calculated using numerical simulations by adopting pull-up maneuver and forced harmonic motion in pitch axis. Pull-up maneuver with four steady rotational rates was simulated to obtain pitch rate derivative, Cmq. Combined derivative, , was obtained by simulating forced harmonic motion of FWMAV around a mean angle of attack of 0° with amplitude of oscillation of ± 3° using four reduced frequencies (0.02, 0.03, 0.04, and 0.05). Unstructured surface and volume mesh was used in a spherical domain engulfed inside a large cuboid domain for moving reference frame strategy. Reynolds number taking mean aerodynamic chord as a reference length was 2.33 × 105. Spalart–Allmaras turbulence model was used. Pitch rate derivative, combined derivative, and acceleration derivative were found as − 0.03/rad, − 7.39/rad, and − 7.36/rad, respectively, by the use of a phase method at a reduced frequency of 0.03. During flight dynamic analysis, it was found that has a significant contribution on damping in short period mode with no effect on Phugoid mode. The research concluded that for tailless configurations, acceleration derivative can exist and can provide necessary damping in the longitudinal flight mode.
BryanGH. Stability in aviation: an introduction to dynamical stability as applied to the motions of aeroplanes. London, UK: Macmillan and Company, limited, 1911.
2.
StevensBLLewisFLJohnsonEN. Aircraft control and simulation: dynamics, controls design, and autonomous systems. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 2015.
3.
GursulI. Unsteady flow phenomena over delta wings at high angle of attack. AIAA Journal1994; 32(2): 225–231.
4.
LuchtenburgDMRowleyCWLohryMW, et al. Unsteady high-angle-of-attack aerodynamic models of a generic jet transport. J Aircraft2015; 52(3): 890–895.
5.
MarcosABalasGJ. Development of linear-parameter-varying models for aircraft. J Guidance, Control Dynamics2004; 27(2): 218–228.
6.
Orlik-RückemannK.Dynamic stability testing of aircraft-needs versus capabilities. Progress Aerospace Sci1975; 16(4): 431–447.
7.
GomanMKhrabrovA. State-space representation of aerodynamic characteristics of an aircraft at high angles of attack. J Aircraft1994; 31(5): 1109–1115.
GreenwellDI.Frequency effects on dynamic stability derivatives obtained from small-amplitudeoscillatory testing. J Aircraft1998; 35(5): 776–783.
10.
WagnerH. Über die entstehung des dynamischen auftriebes von tragflügeln. Berlin: VDI Rep., 1924.
11.
TheodorsenTMutchlerW. General theory of aerodynamic instability and the mechanism of flutter. Washington, D.C: NASA, 1935.
12.
KussnerHG. Stresses produced in airplane wings by gusts. Washington, D.C: NASA, 1932.
13.
TobakMSchiffLB. On the formulation of the aerodynamic characteristics in aircraft dynamics. Washington, D.C: NASA, 1976.
14.
TobakM. On the use of indicial function concept in the analysis of unsteady motions of wings and wing-tail combinations. Washington, D.C: NASA, 1954. NACA Report R-1188.
15.
OcokoljićGRašuoBKozićM. Supporting system interference on aerodynamic characteristics of an aircraft model in a low-speed wind tunnel. Aerospace Sci Technology2017; 64: 133–146.
16.
BarlowJBRaeWHPopeA. Low-speed wind tunnel testing. New York, NY: John wiley & sons, 1999.
17.
MenterFR. Best practice: scale-resolving simulations in ansys cfd, 1. Germany: ANSYS GmbH, 2012.
18.
MiyajiKYoshidaY. Prediction of aircraft dynamic stability derivatives using time-spectral computational fluid dynamics. Trans Japan Soc. Aero. S Sci2019; 62(6): 291–298.
19.
GhoreyshiMLofthouseAJFindlayDB, et al. Indicial methods for the numerical calculation ofdynamic derivatives. AIAA J2017; 55(7): 2279–2294.
20.
EtkinB. Dynamics of atmospheric flight. Chelmsford, MA: Courier Corporation, 2012.
21.
CookMV. Flight dynamics principles: a linear systems approach to aircraft stability and control. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2012.
22.
DurhamW. Aircraft flight dynamics and control. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
23.
StengelRF.Flight dynamics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2015.
24.
BykerkTVerstraeteDSteelantJ. Low speed lateral-directional aerodynamic and static stability analysis of a hypersonic waverider. Aerospace Sci Technology2020; 98: 105709.
25.
MiBZhanH. Review of numerical simulations on aircraft dynamic stability derivatives. Archives Computational Methods Eng2019; 27: 1–30.
26.
EtkinBReidLD. Dynamics of flight, volume 2. New York, NY: Wiley, 1959.
27.
MiBgZhanHChenBb. New systematic cfd methods to calculate static and single dynamic stability derivatives of aircraft. Mathematical Problems in Engineering2017; 2017: 1–11.
28.
DadrasSDadrasSMalekHet al.A note on the eynolds stability of fractional-order nonlinear systems. In International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Cleveland, Ohio, 6–9, 2017, volume 58233. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, p. V009T07A033.
29.
BaigangMHaoZHuayuF. Calculating combined and single dynamic derivatives of flight vehicle. J Northwestern Polytechnical Univ2015; 33(4): 540–545.
30.
WuZCaoYYangY. Direct cfd prediction of dynamic derivatives for a complete transport aircraft in the dry and heavy rain environment. Aeronaut J2018; 122(1247): 1–20.
31.
GuglieriG.QuagliottiF. B.. Dynamic stability derivatives evaluation in a low-speed wind tunnel. J Aircraft1993; 30(3): 421–423.
ZhangWGongYLiuY. Abnormal changes of dynamic derivatives at low reduced frequencies. Chinese J Aeronautics2018; 31(7): 1428–1436.
34.
MialonBKhrabovADa RonchA, et al.Benchmarking the prediction of dynamic derivatives: Wind tunnel tests, validation, acceleration methods. In: AIAA atmospheric flight mechanics conference, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 02 August–05 August 2010, p. 8244.
35.
Da RonchAGhoreyshiMBadcockK, et al.Computation and evaluation of dynamic derivatives using cfd. In: 28th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Chicago, Illinois, 28 June–01 July 2010, p. 4817.
36.
BartowitzME. Determination of static and dynamic stability derivatives using beggar. Wright-Patterson AFB, OH: Air Force Institute of Technology, 2008. Technical report.
37.
MoelyadiMRohmahwatiYNugrahaA, et al.Cfd based determination of longitudinal static and dynamic stability derivatives of twin boom uav. J Applied Sci Eng2019; 22(2): 259–266.
38.
ChenXXingYWangG, et al.Prediction of aerodynamic derivatives based on time accurate cfd simulation. 13th International Bhurban Conference on Applied Sciences and Technology (IBCAST), Islamabad, Pakistan, 12–16 Jan. 2016, IEEE, 2016, pp. 433–439.
39.
LiuXLiuWZhaoY. Unsteady vibration aerodynamic eynolds and evaluation of dynamic derivatives using computational fluid dynamics. Mathematical Problems Eng2015; 2015.
40.
NelsonRC. Flight stability and automatic control, volume 2. New York, NY: WCB/McGraw Hill, 1998.
41.
ShamsTAShahSIAJavedA, et al.Airfoil selection procedure, wind tunnel experimentation and implementation of 6dof eynolds on a flying wing micro aerial vehicle. Micromachines2020; 11(6): 553.
42.
ShamsTAShahSIAShahzadA, et al.Experimental investigation of propeller induced flow on flying wing micro aerial vehicle for improved 6dof eynolds. IEEE Access2020; 8: 179626–179647.
43.
AllmarasSRJohnsonFT. Modifications and clarifications for the implementation of the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model. In: Seventh international conference on computational fluid dynamics (ICCFD7), HI, Big Island, July 9-13, 2012, pp. 1–11.
44.
RahmanMAgarwalRKLampinenM, et al.Wall-distance-free version of spalart-allmaras turbulence model. AIAA J2015; 53(10): 3016–3027.
45.
RumseyCLSpalartPR. Turbulence model behavior in low eynolds number regions of aerodynamic flowfields. AIAA Journal2009; 47(4): 982–993.
46.
PiotrowskiMGZinggDW. Smooth local correlation-based transition model for the spalart-allmaras turbulence model. AIAA J2021; 59(2): 474–492.
47.
AssamANarayan KalkoteNSharmaV, et al.An automatic wall treatment for spalart-allmaras turbulence model. J Fluids Eng2018; 140(6).
48.
MatssonJ. An Introduction to ANSYS Fluent 2020. Kansas, US: SDC Publications, 2020.
49.
SteijlRBarakosG. Sliding mesh algorithm for cfd analysis of helicopter rotor-fuselage aerodynamics. Int J Numer Meth Fluids2008; 58(5): 527–549.
50.
AndersonJDJr. Fundamentals of aerodynamics. New York, NY: Tata McGraw-Hill Education, 2010.
51.
Gutierrez-CastilloPAguilar-CabelloJAlcalde-MoralesS, et al.On the lift curve slope for rectangular flat plate wings at moderate eynolds number. J Wind Eng Industrial Aerodynamics2021; 208: 104459.
52.
LandonR. Naca 0012 oscillatory and transient pitching. Bedford, England: Aircraft Research Association Ltd Bedford (United Kingdom), 2000. Technical report.
53.
ANSYSC. Release 15.0-user manual. Canonsburg, PA, USA, 2010.
54.
StokkermansTCVeldhuisLL. Propeller performance at large angle of attack applicable to compound helicopters. AIAA J2021; 59(6): 2183–2199.
55.
AbalakinIBobkovVKozubskayaT, et al.Numerical simulation of flow around rigid rotor in forward flight. Fluid Dyn2020; 55(4): 534–544.
56.
ManivelRVijayanandhRBabinT, et al.Pneumafil casing blower through moving reference frame (mrf)-a cfd simulation. AIP Conference Proceedings2018; 1953: 140063. AIP Publishing LLC.
57.
DogruozMBShankaranG. Computations with the multiple reference frame technique: flow and temperature fields downstream of an axial fan. Numerical Heat Transfer, Part A: Applications2017; 71(5): 488–510.
58.
OthmanN. Prediction of aerodynamic derivatives using computational fluid dynamics (cfd) at transonic speed. J Transport System Eng2017; 4(1): 8–16.
59.
KhanSAAabidASaleelCA. Cfd simulation with analytical and theoretical validation ofdifferent flow parameters for the wedge at supersonic mach number. Int J Mech Mechatronics Eng 2019; 19: 170–177.
60.
DeperroisA. About xflr5 calculations and experimental measurements. Presentation document. San Francisco, CA: Scribd Inc., 2009.
61.
DeperroisA. Theoretical limitations and shortcomings of xlfr5. Technical Report June. San Francisco, CA: Scribd Inc., 2019.
62.
RitchieR.Comparative evaluation of computational techniques for estimating uav aerodynamic, stability and control derivatives. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Regents of the University of Minnesota, 2013.
63.
YariE. Time domain analysis of the ventilation around the partial immersed propeller using sliding mesh method. Ijmt2017; 7: 19–27.
64.
LinYHLiXC. The investigation of a sliding mesh model for hydrodynamic analysis of a suboff model in turbulent flow fields. Jmse2020; 8(10): 744.
65.
AriffMSalimSMCheahSC. Wall y+ approach for dealing with turbulent flow over a surface mounted cube: part 1-low eynolds number. In: Seventh international conference on CFD in the minerals and process industries, Melbourne, Australia, 9–11 December 2009, CSIRO Australia, pp. 1–6.
66.
WangFChenL. Numerical prediction of stability derivatives for complex configurations. Procedia Eng2015; 99: 1561–1575.
