Correction: Panel Aeroelastic Stability in Irregular Shock Reflection (AIAA Journal Vol. 60, No. 11, 10.2514/1.J061902)

The aeroelastic model of the two-dimensional panel in irregular shock reflection presented in the paper set the impingement location at the midpoint of the panel, which results in the inability to verify the model with existing results from the literature. In recent research [1], we modified the aeroelastic model, where the shock impingement location can now be set at an arbitrary location on the panel. The modified model can then be verified by setting the shock impingement location at the leading/trailing edge of the panel to be compared with the results for subsonic/supersonic flow. We found there exists an issue in the program for the original model, resulting in some mistaken results which need to be corrected. The first correction pertains to the post-divergence flutter phenomenon described in Sec. IV.B. The post-divergence flutter (LCO) will not occur even with a quite large dynamic pressure when the shock impingement location is at mid-chord, ξT = 0.50. However, the post-divergence flutter (LCO) still exists for the panel in the irregular shock reflection (also called Mach reflection) with Mach stem shock impinging at about 2/3 chord of the panel. Figure 1 (corresponding to Fig. 9b in the original paper) illustrates the amplitude of the post-divergence flutter (LCO) at ξ = 0.75 with shock impingement location ξT 0.68. Figures 2 and 3 (corresponding to Fig. 10 in the original paper) shows the panel deflection and phase diagram when the shock impingement location is its 0.68 chord of the panel. It can be seen that the limit-cycle oscillation (LCO) occurs around the static deflection caused by the divergence. With increasing free stream dynamic pressure, the divergence amplitude increases while the flutter amplitude varies non-monotonically, but retains a generally decreasing trend. The second correction pertains to the panel instability intensity in the dual-solution region discussed in Sec. IV.C. Figure 4 (corresponding to Fig. 13 in the original paper) shows the panel deflection amplitude over a range of dynamic pressure for the two shock-reflection type. With the increase of free stream dynamic pressure, the panel in Mach reflection experiences flutter instability, post-divergence flutter (LCO) instability, and divergence instability successively. However, the panel in regular reflection only experiences flutter instability, whose limit-cycle amplitude is larger than that in Mach reflection. (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 Presented) The authors apologize for these mistakes and thus offers these corrections.

Duke Scholars

Author Earl H. Dowell Thomas Lord Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materia ...