TY - JOUR
T1 - Dynamics of vibration mode competition between flutter and forced vibration in thin-walled scramjet isolators under fluctuating backpressure
AU - Zhao, Ruoshuai
AU - Meng, Xianzong
AU - Zhang, Zebin
AU - Ye, Zhengyin
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2026 Elsevier Masson SAS.
PY - 2026/6
Y1 - 2026/6
N2 - Backpressure fluctuations in thin-walled scramjet isolators can induce vibration mode competition between the intrinsic flutter of elastic panels and forced vibration, yet the underlying dynamics of this interaction remain insufficiently understood. This study employed a two-way coupled CFD/CSD framework to investigate the interplay and competition between the panel’s intrinsic flutter and the forced vibration induced by periodic backpressure fluctuations over a broad range of fluctuation frequencies (fb) and amplitudes (Ab). Under steady backpressure, the elastic panel exhibits flutter-dominated limit cycle oscillations. When fluctuating backpressure is introduced, periodic excitation superimposes on the intrinsic flutter, giving rise to four distinct dynamic regimes: (i) flutter-dominated regime at low fb; (ii) forced-vibration regime at mid fb with resonance near panel’s natural frequency; (iii) a transitional regime with a coupled frequency; and (iv) flutter re-emergence at high fb. At higher Ab, only the flutter-dominated and forced-vibration regimes occur, separated by clear fb boundaries. With increasing fb, the panel starts in flutter dominance with near constant oscillation amplitudes, transitions to forced vibration near resonance with rapid amplitude growth, and returns to flutter dominance beyond resonance. Reducing Ab lowers the direct energy input from backpressure fluctuations and promotes the emergence of the transitional regime, which occurs more frequently and persist longer, blurring the regime boundaries between flutter and forced vibration. As a result, vibration mode competition fundamentally governs the structural response, which in turn controls shock-train motion, separation behavior, and overall isolator performance. Regime transitions cause abrupt changes in mean values and oscillation amplitudes of these flow features, with resonance exerting the strongest influence by driving extrema in both metrics. Away from resonance, flutter- or transitional-dominated regimes exhibit weaker sensitivity to fb, although large Ab can still generate significant unsteadiness.
AB - Backpressure fluctuations in thin-walled scramjet isolators can induce vibration mode competition between the intrinsic flutter of elastic panels and forced vibration, yet the underlying dynamics of this interaction remain insufficiently understood. This study employed a two-way coupled CFD/CSD framework to investigate the interplay and competition between the panel’s intrinsic flutter and the forced vibration induced by periodic backpressure fluctuations over a broad range of fluctuation frequencies (fb) and amplitudes (Ab). Under steady backpressure, the elastic panel exhibits flutter-dominated limit cycle oscillations. When fluctuating backpressure is introduced, periodic excitation superimposes on the intrinsic flutter, giving rise to four distinct dynamic regimes: (i) flutter-dominated regime at low fb; (ii) forced-vibration regime at mid fb with resonance near panel’s natural frequency; (iii) a transitional regime with a coupled frequency; and (iv) flutter re-emergence at high fb. At higher Ab, only the flutter-dominated and forced-vibration regimes occur, separated by clear fb boundaries. With increasing fb, the panel starts in flutter dominance with near constant oscillation amplitudes, transitions to forced vibration near resonance with rapid amplitude growth, and returns to flutter dominance beyond resonance. Reducing Ab lowers the direct energy input from backpressure fluctuations and promotes the emergence of the transitional regime, which occurs more frequently and persist longer, blurring the regime boundaries between flutter and forced vibration. As a result, vibration mode competition fundamentally governs the structural response, which in turn controls shock-train motion, separation behavior, and overall isolator performance. Regime transitions cause abrupt changes in mean values and oscillation amplitudes of these flow features, with resonance exerting the strongest influence by driving extrema in both metrics. Away from resonance, flutter- or transitional-dominated regimes exhibit weaker sensitivity to fb, although large Ab can still generate significant unsteadiness.
KW - Aeroelasticity
KW - Flutter
KW - Isolator
KW - Mode competition
KW - Panel
KW - Resonance
KW - Shock train
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105028889700
U2 - 10.1016/j.ast.2026.111747
DO - 10.1016/j.ast.2026.111747
M3 - 文章
AN - SCOPUS:105028889700
SN - 1270-9638
VL - 173
JO - Aerospace Science and Technology
JF - Aerospace Science and Technology
M1 - 111747
ER -