Article
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (373) (remove)
Keywords
- avalanche (5)
- snow (3)
- Aeroelasticity (2)
- CFD (2)
- Drinfeld modules (2)
- Karosseriebau (2)
- Kraftfahrzeugbau (2)
- Sportwagen (2)
- Studentenprojekt (2)
- Transcendence (2)
- UAV (2)
- Virtuelle Fahrzeugentwicklung (2)
- car body construction (2)
- t-modules (2)
- 1P hub loads (1)
- Aircraft sizing (1)
- Antarctic Glaciology (1)
- Automotive safety approach (1)
- Autonomy (1)
- Avalanche (1)
Institute
- Fachbereich Luft- und Raumfahrttechnik (373) (remove)
Two- and three-dimensional avalanche dynamics models are being increasingly used in hazard-mitigation studies. These models can provide improved and more accurate results for hazard mapping than the simple one-dimensional models presently used in practice. However, two- and three-dimensional models generate an extensive amount of output data, making the interpretation of simulation results more difficult. To perform a simulation in three-dimensional terrain, numerical models require a digital elevation model, specification of avalanche release areas (spatial extent and volume), selection of solution methods, finding an adequate calculation resolution and, finally, the choice of friction parameters. In this paper, the importance and difficulty of correctly setting up and analysing the results of a numerical avalanche dynamics simulation is discussed. We apply the two-dimensional simulation program RAMMS to the 1968 extreme avalanche event In den Arelen. We show the effect of model input variations on simulation results and the dangers and complexities in their interpretation.
Digital elevation models (DEMs), represent the three-dimensional terrain and are the basic input for numerical snow avalanche dynamics simulations. DEMs can be acquired using topographic maps or remote-sensing technologies, such as photogrammetry or lidar. Depending on the acquisition technique, different spatial resolutions and qualities are achieved. However, there is a lack of studies that investigate the sensitivity of snow avalanche simulation algorithms to the quality and resolution of DEMs. Here, we perform calculations using the numerical avalance dynamics model RAMMS, varying the quality and spatial resolution of the underlying DEMs, while holding the simulation parameters constant. We study both channelized and open-terrain avalanche tracks with variable roughness. To quantify the variance of these simulations, we use well-documented large-scale avalanche events from Davos, Switzerland (winter 2007/08), and from our large-scale avalanche test site, Valĺee de la Sionne (winter 2005/06). We find that the DEM resolution and quality is critical for modeled flow paths, run-out distances, deposits, velocities and impact pressures. Although a spatial resolution of ~25 m is sufficient for large-scale avalanche modeling, the DEM datasets must be checked carefully for anomalies and artifacts before using them for dynamics calculations.
Next-generation aircraft designs often incorporate multiple large propellers attached along the wingspan (distributed electric propulsion), leading to highly flexible dynamic systems that can exhibit aeroelastic instabilities. This paper introduces a validated methodology to investigate the aeroelastic instabilities of wing–propeller systems and to understand the dynamic mechanism leading to wing and whirl flutter and transition from one to the other. Factors such as nacelle positions along the wing span and chord and its propulsion system mounting stiffness are considered. Additionally, preliminary design guidelines are proposed for flutter-free wing–propeller systems applicable to novel aircraft designs. The study demonstrates how the critical speed of the wing–propeller systems is influenced by the mounting stiffness and propeller position. Weak mounting stiffnesses result in whirl flutter, while hard mounting stiffnesses lead to wing flutter. For the latter, the position of the propeller along the wing span may change the wing mode shapes and thus the flutter mechanism. Propeller positions closer to the wing tip enhance stability, but pusher configurations are more critical due to the mass distribution behind the elastic axis.
Next-generation aircraft designs often incorporate multiple large propellers attached along the wingspan. These highly flexible dynamic systems can exhibit uncommon aeroelastic instabilities, which should be carefully investigated to ensure safe operation. The interaction between the propeller and the wing is of particular importance. It is known that whirl flutter is stabilized by wing motion and wing aerodynamics. This paper investigates the effect of a propeller onto wing flutter as a function of span position and mounting stiffness between the propeller and wing. The analysis of a comparison between a tractor and pusher configuration has shown that the coupled system is more stable than the standalone wing for propeller positions near the wing tip for both configurations. The wing fluttermechanism is mostly affected by the mass of the propeller and the resulting change in eigenfrequencies of the wing. For very weak mounting stiffnesses, whirl flutter occurs, which was shown to be stabilized compared to a standalone propeller due to wing motion. On the other hand, the pusher configuration is, as to be expected, the more critical configuration due to the attached mass behind the elastic axis.