流固耦合翼型跨声速抖振载荷控制与机理分析

  • 孟祥一 ,
  • 戴玉婷 ,
  • 张育鸣 ,
  • 黄广靖
展开
  • 北京航空航天大学

收稿日期: 2025-08-15

  修回日期: 2025-12-19

  网络出版日期: 2025-12-23

Transonic Buffet Control and Mechanism Analysis of an Airfoil under Fluid-Structure Interaction

  • MENG Xiang-Yi ,
  • DAI Yu-Ting ,
  • ZHANG Yu-Ming ,
  • HUANG Guang-Jing
Expand

Received date: 2025-08-15

  Revised date: 2025-12-19

  Online published: 2025-12-23

摘要

跨声速抖振中由于激波振荡和流动分离,造成了升力脉动和结构动态响应增加,需要进行载荷减缓和响应控制。本文基于蒙皮微幅振动,设计具有时间延迟的闭环主动控制律,用于减小流固耦合下的沉浮-俯仰自由度的翼型升力脉动和结构响应。对比分析了不同控制参数的影响规律,从蒙皮运动与激波/分离区运动之间相位关系的角度分析了控制机理,并讨论了分别基于流固耦合模式和受迫振动响应模式下跨声速抖振响应及其控制效果的区别。结果表明:受迫振动模式下最佳控制效果为:控制律延迟时间0.25个周期、蒙皮振动中心位置位于0.55倍弦长处,此时,对于流动分离的抑制效果最好,有效减缓了激波运动,抖振载荷减缓率为94.5%。流固耦合下跨声速抖振载荷减缓率为91.8%,相比于受迫振动模式,控制前抖振载荷变大、抖振响应频率发生改变,流动分离更加明显。

本文引用格式

孟祥一 , 戴玉婷 , 张育鸣 , 黄广靖 . 流固耦合翼型跨声速抖振载荷控制与机理分析[J]. 航空学报, 0 : 1 -0 . DOI: 10.7527/S1000-6893.2025.32682

Abstract

Transonic buffet can induce shock wave oscillations and flow separation, leading to lift fluctuations and increased structural dynamic responses, which necessitates load alleviation and response control. Based on small-amplitude skin vibration, this paper designs closed-loop active control laws with time delays to reduce lift fluctuations and structural responses in the plunge and pitch degrees of freedom of an airfoil under fluid-structure interaction. The influence of different control parameters is analyzed from the perspective of flow field evolution, with a focus on comparing the transonic buffet responses and control effectiveness between the fluid-structure interaction mode and the forced vibra-tion response mode. The results indicate that under the forced vibration mode, the optimal control performance is achieved with a control law delay time of 0.25 cycles and the skin vibration center located at 0.55 chord length. In this configuration, the suppression of flow separation is most effective, thereby mitigating shock wave motion and achiev-ing a buffet load reduction rate of 94.5%. Under fluid-structure interaction, the transonic buffet load reduction rate is 91.8%. Compared to the forced vibration mode, the buffet load before control is larger, the buffet response frequency changes, and flow separation becomes more pronounced.
文章导航

/