https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?

R=19940006761 2019-12-21T12:08:50+00:00Z

/ /J

(_
NASA Technical Memorandum 104264

f_. Go

Ground Vibration and Flight

Flutter Tests of the Single-Seat
F-16XL Aircraft With a Modified
Wing
David F. Voracek

(_ASA-TM-I042_) GROUND VIBRATION N94-I1233

AND CLiC;HT FLUTTER TESTS OF THE
SIC, JGLE-SEAT F-16XL AIRCRAFT WITH A

MC-_:L}IFrE_': X:_G (NASA) 60 p Unclas

G3/05 01766S0

June 1993

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration
NASA Technical Memorandum 104264

Ground Vibration and Flight

Flutter Tests of the Single-Seat
F-16XL Aircraft With a Modified
Wing
David F. Voracek
NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility
Edwards, California

1993

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Dryden Flight Research Facility

Edwards, California 93523-0273
 CONTENTS

ABSTRACT 1

NOMENCLATURE 1

INTRODUCTION 1

DESCRIPTION OF THE TEST AIRCRAFT 2

TEST OBJECTIVES 2

INSTRUMENTATION 2

TEST PROCEDURES AND DATA ANALYSIS 3

Ground Vibration Tests .......................................................... 3
4
Flight Test ....................................................................

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4

5
Ground Vibration Tests ..........................................................
7
Flutter Analysis ................................................................
9
Flight Test ....................................................................

CONCLUDING REMARKS 9

REFERENCES 10

FIGURES 12

APPENDIX 46

PI_(_OtNt6 PAGE r_LANK NOT FILMED

iii
 ABSTRACT

The NASA single-seat F-16XL aircraft was modified by the addition of a glove to the left wing.
Vibration tests were conducted on the ground to assess the changes to the aircraft caused by the glove.
Flight flutter testing was conducted on the aircraft with the glove installed to ensure that the flight envelope
was free of aeroelastic or aeroservoelastic instabilities. The ground vibration tests showed that above
20 Hz, several modes that involved the control surfaces were significantly changed. Flight test data showed
that modal damping levels and trends were satisfactory where obtainable. The data presented in this report
include estimated modal parameters from the ground vibration and flight flutter test.

NOMENCLATURE

GVT ground vibration test

FRF frequency response function

KEAS knots equivalent airspeed

MAC modal assurance criteria

MMIF multivariate mode indicator function

NACA National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Q dynamic pressure, lb/ft 2

INTRODUCTION

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Dryden Flight Research Facility has con-
ducted many aircraft ground and flight test programs to determine the aeroelastic stability of new and mod-
ified research vehicles (refs. 1 and 2). These programs tested new aircraft (ref. 3) and aircraft that have
been structurally modified (refs. 4-8).

The left wing of the single-seat F-16XL aircraft was modified to demonstrate new aerodynamic tech-
nologies on a highly swept wing planform at supersonic speeds. A titanium test glove was faired to the left
wing with graphite and epoxy. Previous experience with similar gloves on aircraft wings showed frequen-
cy shifts in the wing torsion modes that had the potential of lowering the flutter speed (refs. 4 and 5). The
structural dynamic concerns for the F-16XL modification were the effects on the aeroelastic and aeroser-
voelastic characteristics caused by the changes in weight, stiffness, and airfoil shape.

The work discussed in this report assessed the effects of the wing glove on the aeroelastic and aeros-
ervoelastic stability and cleared a flight envelope for the aerodynamic experiments. Previous structural dy-
namic data documented during the design of the F-16XL did not contain any ground or flight tests of the
modified aircraft configuration. So ground vibration and flight tests were required before and after the
modification. One ground vibration test (GVT) was performed before the modification for baseline data;
 anotherGVT was performed after the modification for comparison; then flight flutter was tested. The de-
sired envelope for the aerodynamic experiments was a dynamic pressure of 533 lb/ft 2 up to an altitude of
32,000 ft, then increasing Mach number at 32,000 ft to a dynamic pressure of 1008 lb/ft z up to the temper-
ature limit (160 °F) of the glove design. The flutter clearance was the final proof of the aeroelastic and aero-
servoelastic stability of the aircraft.

This report describes the approach taken to flight-qualify the aircraft modification, which includes the
aircraft configuration, test instrumentation, data analysis techniques, and test procedures used to perform
the baseline and modified aircraft GVTs and fright flutter clearance. The measured differences in modal
frequencies and mode shapes of the aircraft were sufficient to warrant a flight flutter clearance. The report
includes the results of the flight tests, which consist of modal frequency and damping estimated during
flight with the glove mounted on the left wing.

DESCRIPTION OF THE TEST AIRCRAFT

The F-16XL aircraft tested is the single-seat version (fig. 1) powered by a Pratt & Whitney (West Palm
Beach, Florida) F100-PW-200 engine. The inboard wing leading edge is swept 70 ° and the outboard wing
leading-edge is swept 50 °. The aircraft is capable of speeds near Math 2 and altitudes up to 60,000 ft. Inert
missiles are carried on the inboard wing station for center-of-gravity ballast, and the wingtips are config-
ured with launcher rails only (ref. 9).

The basic aircraft was modified by installing a titanium test glove that was faired to the left wing with
graphite and epoxy (fig. 1). The total added weight of the modification was 207 lb. The glove design in-
corporated a modified NACA airfoil. The test glove extended from the forward spar on the lower wing
surface around the leading edge to the 25-40 percent chord line on the upper wing surface. The glove fair-
ing extended to the wailing edge spar on the upper surface (ref. 10).

TEST OBJECTIVES

There were two main objectives for the ground vibration and flight flutter tests of the F-16XL. The first
objective was to assess the effect of the wing glove and its associated hardware on the structural charac-
teristics of the F-16XL. The second objective was to establish a flight envelope free of any flutter or aero-
servoelastic instability.

INSTRUMENTATION

Different instrumentation was used to perform these tests, depending on the purpose of the test. For
vibration testing on the ground, piezoelectric accelerometers were attached to the aircraft to measure the
response of the structure. Each of the 180 accelerometers had a nominal sensitivity of 1000 mV/g and
weighed 3 _ The mounting block for each accelerometer weighed approximately 10 gm and was at-
tached to the aircraft by hot glue. The accelerometer locations are listed at the end of this paper in an ap-
pendix (table A-1 and figs. A-1 through A-4). An HIX)O00/380 workstation and HP3565 data-acquisition
and analysis system (figs. 2(a) and 2(b)) acquired, filtered, displayed, and recorded 183 channels of data
(3 force inputs and 180 accelerometer responses).

2
 Three electrodynamic shakers capable of generating a maximum force of 150 lb were used to excite
the aircraft. One shaker was placed aft on the right wing launcher rail (fig. 3); a second shaker was placed
forward on the left wing launcher rail; and a third shaker was suspended from an overhead crane and at-
tached to the vertical stabilizer (fig. 4). The vertical stabilizer shaker suspension cables were long enough
to ensure that the pendulum frequency of the shaker was well below the resonant frequencies of the air-
craft. The shakers were attached to the aircraft with a telescoping thrust rod, a stinger, and a force link. The
force link was attached to a locking ball nut joint that was mounted to the aircraft (fig. 5).

For flight testing, the aircraft was instrumented with seven acceleromcters. Figure 6 shows the loca-
tions of these accelerometers. All acceleromcters were sampled at 200 samples/see and had a range of
+10 g, except the vertical tail which had a range of +75 g.

The accelerometer responses were telemetered from the aircraft to the NASA Dryden Spectral Analy-
sis Facility for near-real-time stability monitoring. Selected accelerometers were routed to a spectrum an-
alyzer for real-time frequency domain information during the test points. A Fourier analyzer provided
near-real-time frequency and damping information for critical accelerometer responses (rcf. 2). Other rel-
evant flight information such as Mach number, altitude, and airspeed were displayed on video monitors.

TEST PROCEDURES AND DATA ANALYSIS

The procedures for conducting each test and methods of analyzing data also differed depending on the
purpose of the test. The following sections describe these procedures and methods.

Ground Vibration Tests

The GVTs were conducted on an essentially flight-ready aircraft. Some equipment that was not yet in-
stalled was simulated by ballast weights placed as close to the proper locations as possible. All structural
panels were fastened and the canopy closed and locked. The aircraft was on its landing gear during the test
and the struts were collapsed to eliminate potential nonlinearities. The tires were deflated to one-half the
normal pressure to provide a softer support. Fuel loading for both tests consisted of full fuselage tanks and
empty wing tanks. The control surfaces were in the trim position for each test and potential nonlinearities
caused by excessive actuator freeplay in the elevons and ailerons was minimized by suspending approxi-
mately 50 lb of lead shot from the surfaces with an elastic bungee cord. The bungee cord was used to de-
couple the dynamics of the lead shot from the aircraft.

Two GVTs were performed on the aircraft---one before the glove installation (baseline GVT) and a
second after (modified GVT). The general procedure for each GVT was to install accelerometers on the
aircraft and then connect them to a digital data-acquisition system with some signal conditioning. The air-
craft was excited by three electrodynamic shakers using uncorrelated random signals with a frequency
content of 1 to 50 Hz. Frequency response functions (FRFs) were estimated and subsequently used to de-
tern'fine the structural frequencies and mode shapes below 30 Hz.

The data were analyzed by estimating the aircraft's modal parameters of frequency, damping, and mode
shape, and then by comparing the baseline and modified GVT results for significant modal changes. The
identification of the modal frequencies was simplified by using all 540 FRFs (3 inputs and 180 responses)
in the calculation of the multivariate mode indicator functions (MMIFs) for each configuration.
 The MMIF is essentially a multi-input-multi-output formulation of the classical method of tuning nor-
real modes. A normal mode response phase lags the sinusoidal excitation by 90 ° (ref. 11) at resonance, and
the MMIF identifies this resonance frequency. It also identifies repeated roots. The MMIF consists of one
function for each reference or excitation input to the structure. Three inputs were used to excite the F- 16XL
during the GVTs. The primary MMIF has minimum values at the modal frequencies. If the secondary func-
tion has significant minima corresponding to the same frequencies of the primary MMIF, this suggests the
presence of repeated roots. The number of minima at a particular frequency corresponds to the multiplicity
of the roots (refs. 11 and 12). The MMIF reduces the analysis time to identify the structural modes by using
all 540 FRFs simultaneously rather than each individually.

The MMIFs were correlated with the individual FRFs to identify and tabulate all the modes of the air-
craft. The modal parameters were estimated by a single-degree-of-freedom technique that fits a second-
order polynomial to the FRFs in a selected frequency range. Then the modal parameters and mode shapes
from the baseline and the modified GVTs were compared using the modal assurance criteria (MAC), which
is an orthogonality check of the structural modes (ref. 12). A MAC value close to unity suggests that the
modes have the same shape, and a value near zero implies that the mode shapes are independent. The GVT
results also were compared with a previously existing baseline database from the aircraft manufacturer and
were assessed for any unusual vibratory motion of the airplane or potential aeroelastic concerns.

Hight Test

The flight-flutter clearance was accomplished by obtaining test data at 14 test points (fig. 7) flown in
order of increasing dynamic pressure over a series of three flights. At each test point, data were obtained
during 60 sec of stabilized flight. Atmospheric turbulence provided structural excitation. Because of the
lack of turbulence at some test points, a series of pilot-induced control surface pulses supplemented the
turbulence excitation. The accelerometer responses were monitored in real time for any aircraft instabili-
ties and were used for near-real-time modal frequency and damping calculations. These results were then
evaluated before clearing the aircraft to the next test point.

Near-real-time and postflight data analysis consisted of calculating the autopower spectra. Then a fre-
quency range of interest was identified and the rest of the spectrum was set to zero. The inversed Fourier-
transformed was performed on the spectrum and an exponential window was applied. Transformation back
to the frequency domain resulted in a smoothed spectrum from which a half-power method was used to
estimate the structural frequency and damping (ref. 13).

Because the time available for data analysis was restricted during flight, the data were more thoroughly
analyzed between flights using the same reduction techniques. Postflight analysis established confidence
levels in estimated modal frequency and damping values by providing more estimates and using statistical
averages and variances on the results. It also provided the opportunity for further manipulation of the data,
such as addition and subtraction of wingtip sensor data to enhance symmetric and antisymmetric motion,
which also aided in separating closely spaced modes.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The GVT results showed close comparison of the structural frequencies and mode shapes between the
baseline and modified aircraft. Some fuselage modes could not be identified because of the lack of fuselage
excitation. Three significant modal frequency and mode shape changes in the control surface modes

4
causedsome concern because of a possible control surface buzz problem. Results indicated additional flut-
ter analyses were not necessary. The flight test results show adequate damping trends for the modes that
could be identified. Some structural frequency and damping estimates could not be extracted from the re-
sponse spectra because of the lack of random atmospheric turbulence for excitation at these frequencies.
The pilot-induced raps and kicks did not increase excitation to improve the frequency and damping esti-
mates. The detailed results from the ground vibration and flight-flutter tests will be covered in the follow-
ing sections.

Ground Vibration Tests

The MMIFs (figs. 8 and 9) from the baseline and modified aircraft identified 14 to 15 modes between
5 and 30 Hz. Only the primary and secondary MMIFs are shown from each GVT. The baseline MMIF
(fig. 8) shows 11 distinct modes up to 25 Hz. Four modes between 25 and 30 Hz are not as distinct but are
present. The secondary MMIF in the baseline MMIF shows a distinct frequency drop corresponding to the
same frequency of 7.9 Hz as the primary MMIF, which suggests the presence of a repeated root. The
modified aircraft MMIF shows nine modes between 5 and 25 Hz. Again the four modes between 25 and
30 Hz are present but not as distinguishable as the other nine modes. No repeated roots were estimated.
Table 1 summarizes the structural frequencies from the MMIF.

Table 1. Multimode indicator function (MMIF) structural frequencies.

Baseline aircraft GVT Modified

aircraft

Primary Secondary GVT

7.9 7.9 8.0

9.8 9.7

10.7 10.8

12.4 12.5

13.2 13.2

13.6 13.6

16.2 20.5

18.6 21.7

20.2 23.9

21.7 25.3

22.2 26.5

26.4 27.6

27.6 28.5

28.8

5
 The structural frequencies identified from the MMIF were correlated with the FRFs from the baseline
and modified aircraft GVTs. Figures 10-12 show the driving point FRFs from both GVTs. These three
FRFs show little change in frequency between the two GVTs. There are slight frequency shifts below 15
Hz, which is to be expected because of the added mass of the glove. These frequency shifts become greater
above 15 Hz, as is shown in the right-wing FRF (fig. 11).

The individual FRFs do not show all the structural frequencies that can be seen in the MMIF. The base-
line MMIFs show three modes at 9.6, 16.2, and 18.6 Hz that are not present in the FRFs. The double root
calculated in the baseline MMIF and several structural frequencies above 20 I-lz also are not seen in the
FRFs. Using the MMIF, therefore, can greatly simplify the identification of structural frequencies.

Modal parameter estimation identified 12 structural frequencies and mode shapes. A comparison of
frequencies estimated from the baseline and modified aircraft is shown in Table 2. The third column in the
table shows the MAC value between the baseline and modified GVT mode shape results. Figures 13-24
show the mode shapes for the baseline and modified GVTs.

Table 2. Baseline and modified GVT frequency comparison and MAC values.

Baseline GVT Modified GVT MAC mode

Mode name frequency, Hz frequency, Hz comparison

Symmetric wing bending 7.975 8.037 0.990

Symmetric launcher rail bending 13.695 13.885 0.996

Symmetric control surface mode 1 21.738 21.525 0.838

Symmetric control surface mode 2 26.423

Antisymmetric wing bending 10.793 10.895 0.991

Vertical tail bending 12.480 12.555 0.993

Antisymmetric launcher rail bending 13.242 13.233 0.948

Anfisymmetric control surface mode 1 20.359 20.569 0.807

Antisymmetric control surface mode 2 22.194 23.986 0.488

Antisymmetric control surface mode 3 27.049 27.811 0.817

Antisymmetric control surface mode 4 28.776 28.650 0.295

Asymmetric control surface mode 1 27.169 26.616 0.808

The three mode shapes at 9.6, 16.2, and 18.6 Hz and the double root estimated from the MMIF are not
shown in Table 2. These modes where identified as fuselage bending modes from the manufacturer's GVT
data and flight tests (refs. 14-16). Adequate mode shapes could not be estimated for these structural fre-
quencies because of the lack of excitation on the fuselage during the baseline and modified aircraft GVTs.

The frequency and mode shapes that could be identified show very little change between the baseline
and modified GVTs. The fundamental aircraft modes, such as first symmetric and antisymmetric wing
bending, show about a 1-percent change in frequency and the MAC values are 0.99 and above. Although

6
mostof theGVT datashow close agreement between the baseline and modified GVT, three significant dif-
ferences in the control surface modes may be noted.

The first difference is the absence of a 26.4-Hz symmetric control surface mode in the modified aircraft
GVT data. Figure 16 shows the baseline mode shape. The absence of this mode in the modified aircraft
data is likely a result of the changes in the wing mass and stiffness caused by the addition of the glove.
Figure 16 shows that the control surface mode has considerable deflection at the wing leading edge and
inboard wing area. The glove covers this area of the wing and its mass and stiffness substantially reduce
the modal response to the control surface deflections.

The second difference was identified in the second antisymmetfic control surface mode. The data in
Table 2 indicate an 8-percent shift in frequency from 22.2 to 24.0 Hz and a poor mode shape comparison.
Figure 21 shows the mode shape. As was seen in the symmetric 26.4 Hz control surface mode, this mode
has significant inboard wing motion on both the fight and left wings. Again, the addition of the glove is in
an area where the baseline GVT showed significant deflections. The total effect in the modified aircraft is
stiffening, thereby reducing the deflection and increasing the frequency. The differences in the mode
shapes are reflected in the MAC comparison. The change in mode shape was restricted to the glove area,
so the vertical stabilizer and the fuselage motion remained unchanged.

The third and final difference in the modal data was observed in the fourth antisymmetric control sur-
face mode (fig. 23). The mode shape comparison shows a low MAC value of 0.295. The mode shape is
asymmetric now but originally was antisymmetric. One possible explanation is that the 26.4-Hz symmetric
mode (fig. 16) was shifted up to 28 Hz because of the glove and coupled with the 28.8-Hz antisynunetric
mode. The distinct changes in mode shape before and after the modification resulted in the low MAC
value.
A review of the GVT data showed no change in frequency in the range where the structural notch
filters were active in the flight control system. Therefore, there were no aeroservoelastic concerns for this
modification to the aircraft.

Flutter Analysis

The flutter analysis data from the manufacturer of the unmodified F-16XL aircraft (table 3) shows the
antisymmetric flutter frequencies for the different fuel and wingtip store configurations range from 23.5 to
29.2 Hz (ref. 16). For the specific launcher-rails-only configuration, the flutter frequencies range from 23.5
to 25.3 Hz. Figure 25 shows the manufacturer's analysis and flight test points. The flutter speeds for these
configurations were predicted to be outside the structural design limits of the aircraft, so no new flutter
analysis was completed on the modified F-16XL.

The addition of the glove affected the control surface modes above 20 Hz, which were predicted to
have the lowest flutter speeds by the flutter analysis performed during the design of the F-16XL. Changes
in the control surface modes raised concerns about a control surface buzz which occurs in the transonic
flight region for most aircraft. These changes and concerns coupled with the fact that the launcher-rails-
only configuration was never flight-tested for flutter were important in planning the test requirements of
the modified aircraft.

7
 _ ° _ _

._ _

8
 Flight Test

During the original flight flutter clearance of the F-16XL only two wingtip configurations were flown:
clean tip and launcher rail with missiles. These configurations were cleared to a maximum dynamic pres-
sure of 1700 lb/ft 2. The clean tip was also flown to a maximum of 1.6 Mach at 30,000 ft. Figure 25 shows
the maximum speeds flown during the first flutter clearance of the F-16XL at several altitudes. All test
points were flown outside the NASA-desired flight envelope. The glove program consists of a launcher-
rails-only configuration, which was not flight-tested.

Flutter data were acquired at 25,000 and 38,000 ft with Mach numbers ranging from 0.70 to 1.8. Fig-
ures 26-38 show the accelerometer response spectrums for Mach 0.90 at both test altitudes. Figures 39-
49 are plots of the frequency and damping estimates as functions of Mach number. Trends for frequency
and damping were only clear for six structural modes. The missing frequency and damping data could not
be extracted from the response spectra because of the lack of random atmospheric turbulence for excitation
at these frequencies even with the pilot-induced raps and kicks. The accelerometer spectra show some en-
ergy was imparted in the 20-Hz range (figs. 27-31). However, individual modes above 15 Hz were impos-
sible to distinguish because of the noise and a lack of clean excitation in the modal frequency range. This
was a concern, since the original aircraft flutter analysis showed that the antisymmetric modes above 20
Hz exhibited the lowest flutter speeds and the GVT results showed significant change with these structural
frequencies. Although the energy imparted above 15 Hz was small and damping values and trends could
not be established, it was felt that monitoring accelerometer responses on the strip charts would allow flut-

ter testing to proceed safely.

The modal frequency and damping estimates were satisfactory. In figure 41 an adverse trend is evident
at Math 1.1 and above. The real-time monitoring of these modes did not indicate that a structural instabil-
ity was near. The damping values are considered conservative using atmospheric turbulence as the only
excitation. In reference 17, an experiment comparing forced structural excitation with random atmospheric
turbulence showed that random atmospheric turbulence produced damping values that were lower by
about a factor of 2.

The envelope cleared for the experiment was an airspeed of 400 knots up to an altitude of 32,000 ft,
then a maximum speed of 605 knots through 38,000 ft, and finally a maximum speed of 1.75 Mach above
38,000 ft. This slightly smaller envelope from the project envelope was given because it is easier for a pilot
to maintain airspeed than dynamic pressure. Figure 45 shows this envelope.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The F-16XL aircraft was modified by mounting a titanium glove on the left wing. As a result of the
modification, the possibility of an aeroelastic or aeroservoelastic instability existed. To alleviate the con-
cern, several tests were performed to study the effects of the glove on the aircraft's structural dynamics.

A ground vibration test was performed on the aircraft before and after the glove installation on the left
wing to determine the effects of the stiffness and mass change on the modal characteristics. The results
showed that the modal frequencies and mode shapes below 20 Hz did not significantly change. Above 20
Hz, several modes that involved the wing control surface motion were significantly changed.

9
 The flight flutter test showed that the aircraft was free from any aeroelastic and aeroservoelastic insta-
bilities within the flight envelope. Insufficient in-flight structural excitation prevented the identification
and tracking of fuselage modes and several critical structural modes above 15 Hz. The stability of the
structural modes for which frequency and damping could not be determined was maintained through real-
time monitoring of the accelerometer responses. In spite of this lack of excitation, a safe and efficient flight
flutter clearance program was accomplished.

Dryden Flight Research Facility

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Edwards, California, April 12, 1993

REFERENCES

1. Kehoe, Michael W., Aircraft Ground Vibration Testing at NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Fa-
cility, NASA TM-88272, July 1987.

2. Kehoe, Michael W., Aircraft Flutter Testing at the NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility,
NASA TM-100417, May 1988.

3. Keho¢, Michael W., Flutter and Aeroservoelastic Clearance of the X-29A Forward-Swept Wing Air-
plane, NASA TM-100447, Sept. 1989.

4. Kehoe, Michael W., Flutter Clearance of the F-14 Variable-Sweep Transition Flight Experiment Air-
plane - Phase 1, NASA TM-88287, Sept. 1987.

5. Freudinger, Lawrence C. and Michael W. Kehoe, Flutter Clearance of the F-14A Variable-Sweep
Transition Flight Experiment Airplane - Phase 2, NASA TM-101717, July 1990.

6. Cazier, F.W. Jr. and M.W. Kehoe, Ground Vibration Test of an F-16 Airplane With Modified Decou-
pier Pylons, NASA TM-87634, Apr. 1986.

7. Freudinger_ Lawrence C._Flutter Clearance _f the F-_ 8 High-Angle-_f-Attack Research Vehic_e With
Experimental Wingtip Instrumentation Pods, NASA TM-4148, Oct. 1989.

8. Kehoe, Michael W. and Joseph F. Ellison, Flutter Clearance of the Schweizer 1-36 Deep-Stall Sail-
plane, NASA TM-85917, Aug. 1985.

9. Bensinger, C.T., "F-16XL Flight Flutter Tests," General Dynamics 400PR100, July 20, 1983.

10. Anderson, Bianca T. and Marta Bohn-Meyer, Overview of Supersonic Laminar Flow Control Re-
search on the F-16XL Ships I and2, NASA TM-104257, Oct. 1992.

11. Williams, R., J. Crowley, and H. Vold, "The Multivariate Mode Indicator Function in Modal Analy-
sis," Third International Modal Analysis Conference, Jan. 1985.

10
12. I-DEAS Test User's Guide, Structural Dynamics Research Corporation, 1990.

13. Craig, Roy R., "Structural Dynamics: An Introduction To Computer Methods," John Wiley & Sons
Inc., New York, 1981.

14. Adams, R.S. and J.C. Elrod, "F-16XL Ground Vibration Test No. 2 (Air-To-Ground)," General Dy-
namics 400PR083, December 20, 1982.

15. Adams, R.S. and J.C. Elrod, "F-16XL Ground Vibration Test No. 1 (Air-To-Air)," General Dynamics
400PR066, July 9, 1982.

16. Ellis, J.A., "Flutter Analysis of F-16XL Air-To-Air Configurations," General Dynamics 400PR062,
June 28, 1982.

17. Vernon, Lura, In-flight Investigation of a Rotating Cylinder-Based Structural Excitation System for
Flutter Testing, NASA TM-4512, June 1993.

11
 ORfGtNAL PAGE
RL,a.CK AND WHITE PHOTOGRAPh,

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

ii!iiiiiil

2ii_!ili!i_ii!ii!!_!iiiililil}_i_
_

iii?iiill

iiii iiiii

Figure I. NASA F-16XL single-seat aircraft with the test glove installed on the left wing.

EC91-391-5 EC91-341-11
(a) The HP9000/380 workstation. (b) The HP3565 data-acquisition and analysis
system.

Figure 2. Structural analysis test system.

12
 ORIGI;',_AL P?,SE
BLACK AND Wt--{ITE PHOTOGRAPH

EC89-0069-005

Figure 3. GVT right-wing setup.

EC89-0069-003

Figure 4. GVT vertical-tail setup.

13
 Figure5. GVT excitationshaker setup.

14
 Left wing aft Left wing
forward

Left
allen:

Vertical tall

Right

aileron beam-_

Right wing Right wing forward

g_0761

Figure 6. Flight test acceleromoter locations.

60,000 Desired flight envelope 160 *F

• Flutter test points

50,000

40,000 • O• O• • •

/'_Q = 1008 Ib/ft 2

Altitude, 30,000
ft

20,000

10,000
Q = 533 Ib/ft 2
1
L_.L l J- 2.0
0 .5 1.0 1.5
Mach number 930147

Figure 7. Flight flutter test points and desired flight envelope.

15
 MMIF
m +m Primary
_' '1/ • m Secondary
L.

.6
ill fP'

ljlll
Magnitude

.4

.2

0
5 10
lrl 15
! I I I

20
J
/ i I I 1111

25 30
Linear frequency, Hz g30148

Figure 8. Baseline _'craft MMIF.

1.0 I I I I
MMIF
+_ Primary

.8 • ! m_ Secondary

.6

Magnitude v! I

.4

.2
II" I
BI
0 t I I Ill I I I I I
I | i I I I I I

5 10 15 20 25 30
Linear frequency, Hz 930149

Figure 9. Modified aircraft MMIF.

16
 0 iiii iiii

.... ,z, --

Phase -180
-360
50.00
llWl i|lw_

10.00

Log (g/Ibf)

1.00
A

.10
// ....
--]1_--
Baseline aircraft
Modified aircraft

.05 i i i I I I I i ! I I I I I I I I ! I !

5 10 15 20 25 30
Liner frequency, Hz

Figure 10. Left-wing driving point accelerometer FRF.

0
Phase -180
-360 I l I 1 I i i I I I I i I I I 1

50.00 Illi I I I I I I I I I I ! I ! I I I

it
10.00

Log (g/Ibf)

1.00
/
---F--- Baseline aircraft
--]_-_ Modified aircraft
.10 i

.05 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I

5 10 5 iO 25 30
Linear frequency, Hz 930151

Figure 11. Right-wing driving point accelerometer FRF.

17
 IIII

IIII

Phase -180 X

-360 i | i a IlIJ 1111 lUll

20.00 I I I I IIII Ulll iiii

10.00

Log (g/Ibf) 1.00 ,y

._0 J _-

---_.-- Baseline aircraft

p ---_-- Modified aircraft
.O2 I I I I I I | i

S 10 15 20 25 3O
Linearfrequency,Hz 93O152

Figure 12. Vertical-tail driving point accelerometer FRF.

18
 (a) Baseline, 7.98 Hz.

wol_

(b) Modified, 8.04 Hz.

Figure 13. Aircraft mode shapes, symmetric wing bending.

19
 (a) Baseline, 13.69 Hz.

(b) Modified, 13.88 Hz.

Figure 14. Aircraft mode shapes, symmetric launcher rail bending.

20
 (a) Baseline,21.74Hz.

(b) Modified, 21.53Hz.

Figure 15. Aircraft modeshapes,symmetriccontrolsurfacemode1.

21
 (a) Baseline,26.42Hz.

Mode shapecouldnot beestimated.

(b) Modified.
Figure 16. Aircraft modeshapes,symmetric control surface mode 2.

22
 I

{ _I t

/ Iii I

•' /I I

/I I

II I

II II

@ "
"" "]7

(a) Baseline, 10.79 I--Iz.

/ 1II/ 11 11

,,' f ,"
X

g301_

(b) Modified, 10.90 Hz.

Figure 17. Aircraft mode shapes, antisymmetric wing bending.

23
 / fl t

s js ii

w I

(a) Baseline, 12.48 Hz.

/ tl ¢
/ Jl #

/ II I

i I I /iI"

N - ,l II I

-- _" 9,_016&

(b) Modified, 12.56 Hz.

Figure 18. Aircraft mode shapes, vertical tail bending.

24
 ii t

it S

(a) Baseline, 13.24 Hz.

ii II

i¢ I

(b) Modified, 13.23 Hz.

Figure 19. Aircraft mode shapes, antisymmetric launcher rail bending.

25
 (a) Baseline, 20.36 Hz.

/" tJ

0301U

(b) Modified, 20.57 Hz.

Figure 20. Aircraft mode shapes, antisymmetric control surface mode 1.

26
 _ *, ,. _t__1__[ t_l

(a) Baseline, 22.19 Hz.

170

(b) Modified, 23.99 Hz.

Figure 21. Aircraft mode shapes, antisymmetric control surface mode 2.

27
 I III

I I#

I III

/
1

71

(a) Baseline, 27.05 Hz.

_ -,,-, S U
K
//

I
I
t

g_glT"_

(b) Modified, 27.81 Hz.

Figure 22. Aircraft mode shapes, antisymmetric control surface mode 3.

28
 I ¢ t

i _ x _/lill//

(b) Modified, 28.65 Hz.

Figure 23. Aircraft mode shapes, antisymmetric control surface mode 4.

29
 9ao176

(a) Baseline,27.17Hz.

I lllJ tl

(b) Modified, 26.62 Hz.

Figure 24. Aircraft mode shapes, asymmetric control surface mode 1.

30
31
 ReStive ReStive
ampl_ude amplHude

,Ji
- +%(t"'i _'- I I I ,I I , I I

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Frequency, Hz 9301M
Frequency, Hz 93O19O

(a) 25,000 ft. (b) 38,000 ft.

Figure 26 Left.wing forward accelerometer spectrum.

Relative Relative
ampmude amplnude

|
t
...j 'Jill il,_l , i i , _ .... ___. I

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Frequency, Hz i_101
Frequency, Hz 93O192

(a) 25,000 ft. (b) 38,000 ft.

Figure 27. Right-wing forward accelerometer spectrum.

32
 Relative
Relative
amplitude
amplitude

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Frequency, Hz Frequency, Hz _oI_
93O193

(a) 25,000 ft. (b) 38,000 ft.

Figure 28. Left-wing aft accelerometer spectrum.

Relative
Relative
amplitude
amplitude

I i
i

.
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Frequency, Hz _olz Frequency, Hz _oo1_

(a) 25,000 ft. (b) 38,000 ft.

Figure 29. Right.-wing aft accelerometer spectrum.

33
 Relative Relative
amplitude amplitude

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Frequency, Hz 93O1O7 Frequency, Hz _o_u

(a) 25,000 ft. (b) 38,000 ft.

Figure 30. Left-aileron beam accelerometer spectrum.

RelaUve Relative
amplitude amplitude - I,

i,
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Frequency, Hz .o_ Frequency, Hz .o_oo
(a) 25,000 ft. (b) 38,000 ft.

Figure 31. Right-aileron beam accelerometer spectrum.

34
Relative Relative
amplitude
amplitude

_' ___, , ., , _._',___

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Frequency, Hz _ol Frequency, Hz 930202

(a) 25,000 ft. (b) 38,000 ft.

Figure 32. Vertical-tail tip accelerometer spectrum.

Relative Relative
amplitude
h amplitude

j . _ ,_J_,_ .,.._L_

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Frequency, Hz Frequency, Hz

(a) 25,000 ft. (b) 38,000 ft.

Figure 33. Accelerometer spectrum for left- plus right-wing forward.

35
 Relative Relative
amplitude amplitude

l
Jt___ ..... , i , , _;,,_- , ,-,_J _ i_ . _. .._

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Frequency, Hz .o_o_ Frequency, Hz .o_o6
(a) 25,000 ft. (b) 38,000 ft.

Figure 34. Accelerometer spectrum for left- plus right-wing aft.

Relative Relative
amplitude amplitude

L_i _'_L. I i i l l ,,I ,, I

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Frequency, Hz 93O2O7 Frequency, Hz
(a) 25,000 ft. (b) 38,000 ft.

Figure 35. Accelerometer spectrum for left- minus right-wing forward.

36
 Relative
Relative
amplitude
amplitude

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Frequency, Hz _o21o
Frequency, Hz

(a) 25,000 ft. (b) 38,000 ft.

Figure 36. Accelerometer spectrum for left- minus right-wing aft.

Relative
Relative
amplitude
amplitude

I!

._IL, _ _ i_,_._- . , , .I I I

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Frequency, Hz .o_. Frequency, Hz r_m

(a) 25,000 ft. (b) 38,000 ft.

Figure 37. Accelerometer spectrum for left- plus right-aileron beam.

37
 Relative Relative
amplitude amplitude

___ L, _.,_....__, , ,, i i
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Frequency, Hz 930_13 Frequency, Hz 930214

(a) 25,000 ft. (b) 38,000 ft.

Figure 38. Accelerometer spectrum for left- plus fight-aileron beam.

38
 .07- 25,000 tt
38,000 ft

.06

°05 --

°04 --
Damping,
g
.03-

,02

.01 --

I I I I I I I
0
15-

14-

13-

12-

Frequency, 11 -
Hz

10-

9-
A A

v w
W
8-
I I
I I I I I
7 1.8 2.0
.6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Mach number 93O215

Figure 39. Symmetric wing bending flight test data.

39
 .07-
---0"-- 25,000 ft
alh
.. 38,000 ft
°06

°05

°04
Damping,
g
°03

°02

.01 -

0 I I I I I I I
15-

14-

13-

12-

Frequency,
Hz 11 -

10-

9-
_¢,¢ "
A -'-'--e

8-

7 I I I I I I I
.6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Mach number
930216

Figure 40. Fuselage bending flight test data.

4O
 .07- 25,000 tt
---'e---- 38,0O0 ft
.06 --

°05

°04
Damping,
g
.03

.02 --

.01 -

I I I I I I
0
15-

14-

13-

12-
A - ...--.--e
Frequency, W w
Hz 11 -

10-

9-

8-

I I I I I I I
7 _ 1.6 1.8 2.0
.6 .8 1.0 1_ 1.4
Mach number 93O217

Figure 41. Antisymmetlic wing bending flight test data.

41
 .07-
25,000 ft
38,000 ft
°06

°05

°04
Damping,
g
°03

°02

.01 -

0 I I I I I I I

15-

14

13

12

Frequency,
Hz 11

10

8-

7 I I I I I I I
.6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Mach number
930218

Figure 42. Vertical-tail bending flight test data.

42
 .07 - 25,000 ft
38,OOOft
.06

.05

.04

Damping,
g
.03

.02

.01 -

I I I I I I I
0
15-

14-

13-

12-

Frequency, 11 -
Hz

10-

9-

8-

I I I I I I I
7
.6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Mach number 930219

Figure 43. Antisymmetric launcher bending flight test data.

43
 .07-
25,000 ft
"-'e--- 38,000 ft

o05 --

°04 m
Damping,
g
.03

,02 --

.01 -

0 I I I I I I

15-

14-

13-

12-

Frequency,
Hz 11 -

10-

9-

8-

7 I I I t I I I
.6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Mach number
93O22O

Figure 44. Symmetric launcher bending flight test data.

44
 0

oi!
I_.'_ _ • _ %_.._. II

0 _ M

_ _ _
r._M

u •
L

I I I I I I
0

,p,

45
 APPENDIX

Table A-1. F-16XL accelerometer locations for GVT.

Point number Fuselage station Span location Waterline

101 475 -194 91

102 480 -194 91

103 493 -194 91

104 461 -193 91

105 497 -192 91

106 509 -192 91

107 522 -192 91

108 465 -191 91

109 454 -168 91

110 430 -165 91

111 442 -164 91

112 486 -161 91

113 515 -161 91

114 480 -160 91

115 400 -137 91

116 420 -137 91

117 430 -136 91

118 456 -136 91

119 471 -136 91

120 491 -129 91

121 508 -129 91

122 474 -129 91

123 386 -123 91

46
 Table A-1. Continued.

Point number Fuselage station Span location Waterline

124 423 -121 91

125 458 -121 91

126 465 -121 91

127 542 -121 91

128 471 -114 91

129 489 -114 91

130 506 -114 91

131 349 -112 91

132 305 -99 91

133 344 -98 91

134 376 -98 91

135 414 -98 91

136 449 -98 91

137 465 -98 91

138 471 -78 91

139 511 -78 91

140 243 -76 91

141 305 -76 91

142 335 -76 91

143 367 -76 91

144 405 -76 91

145 439 -76 91

146 465 -76 91

147 243 -54 91

148 305 -54 91

149 326 -54 91

150 359 -54 91

151 396 -54 91

47
 Table A-1. Continued.

Point number Fuselage station Span location Waterline

152 430 -54 91

153 465 -54 91

154 471 --43 91

155 493 --43 91

156 515 ---43 91

157 425 -196 91

158 440 -196 91

159 452 -196 91

160 465 -196 91

161 482 -196 91

162 496 -196 91

201 475 194 91

202 480 194 91

203 493 194 91

204 461 193 91

205 497 192 91

206 509 192 91

207 522 192 91

208 465 191 91

209 454 168 91

210 430 165 91

211 442 164 91

212 486 161 91

213 515 161 91

214 480 160 91

215 400 137 91

216 420 137 91

217 430 136 91

48
 Table A-1. Continued.

Point number Fuselage station Span location Waterline

218 456 136 91

219 471 136 91

220 491 129 91

221 508 129 91

222 474 129 91

223 386 123 91

224 423 121 91

225 458 121 91

226 565 121 91

227 542 121 91

228 471 114 91

229 489 114 91

230 506 114 91

231 349 112 91

232 305 99 91

233 344 98 91

234 376 98 91

235 414 98 91

236 449 98 91

237 465 98 91

238 471 78 91

239 511 78 91

240 243 76 91

241 305 76 91

242 334 76 91

243 367 76 91

244 405 76 91

245 439 76 91

49
 Table A-1. Continued.

Point number Fuselage station Span location Waterline

246 465 76 91

247 243 54 91

248 305 54 91

249 326 54 91

250 358 54 91

251 396 54 91

252 430 54 91

253 465 54 91

254 471 43 91

255 493 43 91

256 515 43 91

257 425 196 91

258 440 196 91

259 452 196 91

260 465 196 91

261 482 196 91

262 496 196 91

301 548 0 225

302 584 0 227

303 540 0 217

304 560 0 217

305 568 0 223

306 583 0 223

307 513 0 188

308 536 0 174

309 551 0 194

310 565 0 185

311 470 0 141

50
 Table A-1. Continued.

Point number Fuselage station Span location Waterline

312 518 0 144

313 521 0 144

314 546 0 145

315 567 0 127

316 567 0 145

401 10 -10 91

402 10 -10 91

403 10 10 91

404 10 10 91

405 70 -25 91

406 70 -25 91

407 70 25 91

408 70 25 91

409 130 -30 91

410 130 -30 91

411 130 30 91

412 130 30 91

413 182 --40 91

414 182 -40 91

415 182 40 91

416 182 40 91

417 243 -40 91

418 243 --40 91

419 243 40 91

420 243 40 91

421 310 --40 91

422 310 --40 91

423 310 40 91

51
 Table A-1. Concluded.

Point number Fuselage station Span location Waterline

424 310 40 91

425 385 --40 91

426 385 -40 91

427 385 40 91

428 385 40 91

429 465 -40 91

430 465 -40 91

431 465 40 91

432 465 40 91

433 524 -40 91

434 524 --40 91

435 524 40 91

436 524 40 91

437 558 --40 91

438 558 -40 91

439 558 40 91

440 558 40 91

Shaker/force transducer locations

Driving point Fuselage

Shaker no. accelerometer station Span location Waterline

1 157 425 -196 91

2 262 482 196 91

3 303 540 0 217

52
°_,,,,q

53
 C_l C_I
LD

aO

_r
c_
C_I

_f
C_I

t
C_l

_m

_o
C_l

c_

t
C_l

C_l

_D

C_l

54
 I

<
I

o_

55
 _r

I Ii

'o
_ T__
O ,q,
q/n q_B

N'

@d
I 0
b_

OD

qlm

cD
I/
0

56
 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Fn .d
OMB No. 07O4O188

umm eqlm_ maw _o4, N_pOn. VA 22202.4302, and tome Olem _ _ md _.._,., Pmemmrk _0_----_- -, _'_.._._ m'ma_ll_ ....... _,_-_--_'

1" -anE_J_f t-e_E ONLY (L:':;'-'_ L'_'-'IQ I z DATEJune

fiF'f'Cm--f
1993 • covea_Tcchnical
_:,frr TYro*NODATES
Memorandum
4._,, usANnBUOy,,
US • eUNDmm
.UMBEnS
Ground Vibration and Fl_iglu Fluter Tests of the Single-Seat F- 16XL Aircraft
With a Modified Wing

,. AUTHO_ij WU 533-02-35

David E Voracek

7. PERFC_'_-'-_-?30P._____u.__.AIION
.uAUS(B)ANDADGRF.,_(EII) li. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility
P.O. Box 273
H-19(_
Edwards, California 93523-0273

s.sr,-_-.__-_-_-_ c,,_;_..-:::._ A_'-Y .u_,) ANDA_ffie; 1• SPONSO_ONNO

AOF.NCYREPORTNUMNR
NationalAeronauticsand Space Adminiswdfion
Washington.DC 20546-0(}01 NASA TM- 104264

11. t_--_-__: ;u__qTARY rii,Pl r.II

1_. Dm;_,_T_N/AVAJn_ _n!-rTy STATEMENT

lab. DBrrlUBUT1_ COOE

Unclassified---Unlimited
Subject Category 05

The NASA single-seat F-16XI., aircraR was modified by the addition of a glove to the leR wing. Vibration
tests were conducted on the ground to assess the changes to the _ caused by the glove. Flight fluter test-
ing was conducted on the aimraR with the glove installed to ensure that the flight envelope was free of aeroelas-
tic or aemservoelastic instabilities. The ground vibration tests showed that above 20 Hz, several modes that
involved the control surfaces were significantly changed. Flight test data showed that modal damping levels
and trends were satisfactory where obtainable. The data presented in this report include estimated modal
parameters from the ground vibration and flight fluter test.

14. BU _lUg_
_tYr-IEmo-""
l& NUMBER OF PAGES
6!
Aeroelasticity, Flight flutter testing, Ground vibration testing
16. PRICE COOE
AO4
17. _u__r4_J._,T_CL%_._T_.ATION 11. _r, jK_ C_L_t-,.,-:,_,ATIO N 111.SECUS_'T_ CLASSlFICA_j_It 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
oF Mpo_r oF _4m PtCm OFAes'r_cT
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Uplimited

Standard
Form29e(Rev.24m)
Primm/Imd by AN_i _, _-111