AIAA SciTech Forum AIAA 2017-1123

9 - 13 January 2017, Grapevine, Texas doi: 10.2514/6.2017-1123

58th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference

Experimental Characterization of Nonlinear Dynamics for

F-16 Substructures ∗
Anthony P. Ricciardi†, Charles M. Denegri, Jr.‡ , and Dustin G. Coleman§
U.S. Air Force SEEK EAGLE Office, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida 32542-6865

Ground experiments are executed and the results are used to characterize the nonlin-
ear structural dynamics of store-loaded F-16 pylons. Results from a modal-space imple-
mentation of the restoring-force-surface method and results from homogeneity tests are
consistent with linear modal stiffness and nonlinear structural damping. Different theories
exist regarding what nonlinear mechanisms bound F-16 aeroelastic limit-cycle oscillations;
the results in this paper help legitimize nonlinear structural damping as a bounding mech-
anism.

Nomenclature

m = modal mass matrix

c = modal damping matrix
k = modal stiffness matrix
fr = internal modal restoring force vector
fa = applied modal force vector
pa = applied force vector
u = displacement vector
η = modal coordinate vector
ωn = natural frequency
Φ = measured mode shape matrix

Superscript
( ˙ ) = derivative with respect to time
+ = matrix pseudoinverse
> = matrix transpose

∗
This material is declared a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States.
†
Carriage Mechanics Engineer, SURVICE Engineering Co., 205 West D Avenue, Suite 348.; pasquale@vt.edu, AIAA
Member.
‡
Principal Technical Advisor, Carriage Mechanics Division, 205 West D Avenue, Suite 348.; AIAA Associate Fellow.
§
Carriage Mechanics Engineer, SURVICE Engineering Co., 205 West D Avenue, Suite 348.; dustin.coleman@survice.com,
AIAA Member.

1 of 13

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. 96TW-2016-0216

 Introduction

Background
F-16 limit cycle oscillations & nonlinear aeroelasticity
Flutter-induced limit cycle oscillations (LCO) are encountered regularly on F-16 aircraft.1 Constraints
on allowable LCO amplitude result in reduced airspeed envelopes for many external store configurations.
The nondivergent behavior of LCO is a result of intrinsically nonlinear physics, so classical linear flutter
analysis is unable to predict LCO amplitude. This shortfall of classical flutter analysis has historically
resulted in a heavy reliance on flight test for certification of new F-16 store configurations. Recent work
by Denegri et. al 2 includes a detailed review of historic and current nonlinear analysis efforts attempting
to increase predictive capabilities and reduce flight test requirements. It is understood that classical
flutter initiates F-16 LCO,3 but the nonlinear mechanisms that bound the oscillations are uncertain. This
uncertainty has resulted in only limited success in F-16 LCO prediction, and a continued reliance on flight
test for certification.
Foundational work in nonlinear aeroelasticity is documented by Woodcock4 with continued early de-
velopments documented by Haidl5 and Breitbach.6 The works include identification of significant aircraft
structural nonlinearities with detailed experimental results and comparisons to classical nonlinear analysis
techniques. Breitbach6 categorizes aircraft structural nonlinearities as concentrated or distributed. Con-
centrated nonlinearities are common in mechanical control-system devices and structural interfaces; these
nonlinearities can manifest as Coulomb friction, free play, hysteresis, and piecewise-linear stiffness. Similar
nonlinear dynamics can occur at riveted, screwed, and bolted connections, which are commonly distributed
throughout aircraft structures. The resulting damping and stiffness nonlinearities are effectively charac-
terized as distributed. Breitbach6 shows distributed nonlinear damping results for an F-104G aircraft and
a composite wing spar.
Meijer and Cunningham7 argue that nonlinear aerodynamics, specifically shock-induced trailing-edge
separation, is plausibly bounding F-16 LCO. The authors use a semi-empirical approach with nonlinear
aerodynamics to attain results that are well-correlated with flight test data. Cunningham and Holman8
modified the semi-empirical approach to include Coulomb friction, a nonlinear structural dynamic effect,
at the wing-tip launcher attachment. The computational results were sensitive to Coulomb friction. Re-
cent work by Denegri et. al 2 and Gabbard et. al 9 demonstrates computational aeroelastic analysis using
nonlinear Euler aerodynamics coupled with nonlinear structural dynamics. Structural nonlinearities are
based on assumed nonlinear modal damping functions. Results in Refs. [2, 9] resemble F-16 LCO observed
in flight tests.
This paper presents results from ground experiments that characterize the nonlinear structural dynam-
ics of F-16 pylons. The results help legitimize nonlinear structural damping as a bounding mechanism for
F-16 LCO.

Related experimental work

Reed et. al 10 review work on underwing decoupler pylons designed for flutter suppression. The de-
coupler pylons are shown to effectively delay flutter speed for the cases considered, including an F-16
aeroelastic wind-tunnel model. Nonlinear analysis and YF-17 wind-tunnel test results show a reduction
in the aeroelastic stability boundary due to nonlinear stiffness effects from a hard stop (piecewise linear
stiffness) in the decoupler pylon pitch mechanism. More recently, Dieckelman et. al 11 report nonlinear
pylon ground vibration test results that include responses at different input force levels; the work aims at
finding a force-converged result for linear model tuning.
Kerschen et. al 12 provide a modern review of techniques for detection, characterization, and parameter
estimation of nonlinear structural dynamics. Topics include the use of homogeneity tests for detection
of nonlinearities, review of time-frequency domain methods, and use of restoring-force-surface method
for characterization and parameter estimation of nonlinearities. The restoring-force-surface method (also

2 of 13

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. 96TW-2016-0216

called force-state mapping) was originally developed by Masri and Caughey13 and extended to modal space
for multidimensional problems by Masri et. al .14
Northington and Pasiliao15 perform static and ground vibration tests on an F-16 wing. The results
are used to gauge the significance of geometric and hysteretic nonlinearities in the wing structure and to
evaluate the U.S. Air Force SEEK EAGLE Office (AFSEO) F-16 aeroelastic model. Geometric nonlinear-
ities are undetectable in the range of applied loads. Some hysteresis effects are shown, but the extent of
hysteretic contributions from the test fixture are unknown. Static deflections of the test article compare
well to a reference test on another F-16 wing. The AFSEO model closely reproduces static results for
two of three static load cases. The results indicate a slight disagreement in outboard torsional stiffness
for one of the three static load cases. The model is subsequently modified to improve agreement with the
static test results. The first three vibration frequencies of original and modified AFSEO F-16 models agree
reasonably well with test results. Predicted flutter speed and frequency of the modified aeroelastic model
shows better agreement with experimental LCO onset speed and frequency than the original aeroelastic
model.
Noël et. al 16 and Dossogne et. al 17 report on results acquired from testing full-scale F-16 aircraft during
2012 and 2014 LMS Ground Vibration Testing Master Classes. The F-16 is a nonflightworthy display air-
frame, and the external-store configurations are arbitrary (not specifically configured for dynamics testing).
Random and swept sine excitations are employed at multiple force levels; the results clearly indicate the
presence of F-16 structural nonlinearities. The results are examined using visual inspection, homogeneity
tests, wavelet transform contours, and restoring-force-surface results for structural interfaces. All of the
reported inspection techniques point to some type of structural nonlinearity. Results indicate the presence
of hysteresis (Ref. [17] exclusively), piecewise stiffness due to opening and closing contacts – resulting in
impact and softening effects, and Coulomb friction in mounting interfaces. Dossogne et. al 17 provide addi-
tional insight and confidence in the restoring-force methodology through dynamic modeling that includes
piecewise stiffness nonlinearity at the wing-launcher interface. Noël et. al 16 explore interface nonlinearities
at the tip launcher-missile interface and the underwing pylon-store interface. Results in Ref. [16] show the
initial onset of amplitude-dependent interface nonlinearities. Tip launcher-missile interface nonlinearities
are further explored well into the nonlinear region in Ref. [17], but the underwing pylon was unloaded.
This paper further explores the underwing pylon nonlinear dynamics using higher force excitation
levels, additional excitation techniques, and different data processing techniques. A fixture-mounted pylon
experiment is executed because it reduces the difficulty of accounting for mounting structure dynamics
when compared to a wing-mounted pylon experiment. Additionally, the fixture-mounted pylon is less
prone to competing nonlinear influences (from other aircraft substructures) in homogeneity tests, which
were reported in Ref. [16]. A modal-space implementation of the restoring-force-surface method quantifies
nonlinearities in the pylon dynamics. Linear modal stiffness and nonlinear modal damping are observed.

Methods

Experimental Program
Four configurations of F-16 underwing weapon pylons carrying inert warheads were mounted on a
fixture and tested. A geometric model of a single test configuration is shown in Fig. 1a. Testing of the
empty fixture was also accomplished. The test articles, shown in Fig. 1b, include:

1. an inert 500 lb warhead on a standard underwing pylon,

2. an inert 2,000 lb warhead on a standard underwing pylon,

3. an inert 500 lb warhead on a countermeasure-dispensing underwing pylon, and

4. an inert 2,000 lb warhead on a countermeasure-dispensing underwing pylon.

3 of 13

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. 96TW-2016-0216

 (a) Fixture-mounted test article. (b) Test articles.

Figure 1: Test program.

Instrumentation and Hardware

An assembled test setup is shown in Fig. 2. The fixture and shaker mount are bolted to rails in the
floor. The shaker is The Modal Shop model 2075E and is powered by a model 2050E09 amplifier. The
test article and fixture are instrumented using twenty PCB-333B32 single-axis accelerometers, five PCB-
356A16 tri-axis accelerometers, and up to four PBC-353B34 single-axis accelerometers. The input force
is measured using two PCB-208A02 force transducers. The tri-axis accelerometers are wired using PCB-
034G10 cables and the remaining sensors are wired using PCB-003C10 cables. All primary measurement
cables are routed through two L-Com PR35B32BLK panels. The primary data acquisition system is a
forty-channel Genesis 19I model 986A0176. The input force is monitored and controlled using a Vibration
Research VR9500 Revolution controller. Measurements are sampled at 2048 Hz. An FIR analog anti-alias
filter with a 512 Hz low-pass cutoff frequency is applied by the Genesis 19I before digitizing.

Figure 2: Test article and fixture.

4 of 13

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. 96TW-2016-0216

 Accelerometers are placed on the fixture, pylon, and store; including placement on both sides of all
significant structural interfaces. Figure 3 shows sensor placement on the pylon geometry model. Numbers
with a letter P prefix are geometric point identifiers, which are described in Table 1. Measurement
directions are indicated by X, Y , or Z and data acquisition channel numbers are prefixed by M#.

Figure 3: Sensor placement.

Table 1: Measurement point descriptions.

Point Description
P1 Pylon side of forward pylon-to-fixture attachment point
P2 Pylon side of aft pylon-to-fixture attachment point
P3 Weapon side of forward hook/lug
P4 Pylon/adapter side of forward hook/lug
P5 Fixture side of aft pylon-to-fixture attachment point
P6 Weapon side of forward/left sway brace contact point
P7 Weapon side of aft hook/lug
P8 Pylon/adapter side of aft hook/lug
P9 Pylon side of pylon/adapter aft connection
P10 Side of aft pylon section near countermeasures
P11 Bottom of aft pylon section near countermeasures
P12 Back of pylon
P13 Weapon nose cone
P14 Back of weapon
P15 Fixture side of forward pylon-to-fixture attachment point
P16 Sway brace side of forward/left sway brace contact point

The shaker armature is attached to the store using a modified nose cone. Both vertical and horizontal
force-input directions are used, as shown in Fig. 4. Each pylon-store configuration is tested using: 1)
random excitation at multiple force levels, 2) forward and backward linear swept-sine input at multiple
force levels, and 3) stepped-sine input at multiple force levels around several resonance peaks.

5 of 13

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. 96TW-2016-0216

 (a) Vertical input. (b) Horizontal input.

Figure 4: Shaker input directions.

Linear Parameter Estimation

Curve fitting methods provide measured parameter estimates of modal frequency, mode shapes, modal
damping, and modal mass. The ME’scopeVES Version 16.0.10.6 implementation of

• Alias Free Polynomial (AF Poly),

• Z Polynomial (Z Poly), and

• Complex Exponential

curve fitting methods provide frequency domain, z domain, and time domain pole estimates, respectively.18
Stability diagrams are used for locating stable poles. Frequency domain curve fitting is used for all residue
estimates. Agreement between curve fitting techniques provides confidence in the linear parameter esti-
mates.

Restoring-Force-Surface Method in Modal Space

The equation of motion in modal space is

mη̈ + fr (η, η̇) = fa . (1)

For a linear system fr (η, η̇) = cη̇ + kη, and the modal degrees of freedom are independent (i.e., the system
matrices are diagonal) if damping is proportional . Modal restoring-force surfaces for linear systems can be
interpreted as single degree of freedom restoring-force surfaces. Modal coupling is inevitable for nonlinear
systems, but modal restoring-force surfaces provide valuable insight to the system nonlinear stiffness and
damping properties.
Time histories of physical acceleration and physical applied force are measured using accelerometers
and force transducers. The physical time histories are transformed to modal space using the mode shape
matrix from linear parameter estimation

η̈ = Φ+ ü (2)
>
fa = Φ pa . (3)

Trapezoidal rule is used to integrate η̈ and produce time histories for η̇ and η; high-pass filters are used
to remove integration error. The scattered time-history points that make up the modal restoring-force

6 of 13

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. 96TW-2016-0216

surfaces are calculated using a straightforward manipulation of Eq. (1) and modal mass estimates from
linear parameter estimation
fr (η, η̇) = fa − mη̈. (4)
The restoring forces are assumed to be pure stiffness forces or pure damping forces at points with zero
displacement or zero velocity, respectively. The scattered time-history points at the zero displacement or
zero velocity planes correspond to the nonlinear stiffness and damping functions in those planes

k(η)η = fr (η), at η̇ = 0 (5)

c(η̇)η̇ = fr (η̇), at η = 0. (6)

Unbolded variables correspond to a single vector or matrix component.

Results

Results are presented for a single configuration with a inert 2,000 lb warhead mounted on a countermeasure-
dispensing pylon.

Linear Parameter Estimation

Linear parameter estimates based on low-level random vertical input are shown in Fig. 5. Figure 5a
compares frequency, damping, and mode shapes from AF Poly and Complex Exponential curve-fitting
techniques. A modal assurance criteria (MAC) calculation shows the mode shapes are close to orthogonal,
though modes 5 and 6 have noticeable projection onto other modes. Frequency and damping agreement is
acceptable. Though omitted, comparisons with Z Poly estimates also have acceptable agreement. Agree-
ment between curve fitting techniques provides confidence in the linear parameter estimates.
Mode 1 is primarily a test-fixture mode, and is insignificant to the pylon dynamics. Mode 2 (Fig. 5b)
is a pylon lateral mode, mode 3 (Fig. 5c) is a pylon pitch mode, and mode 4 (Fig. 5d) is pylon yaw
mode. Modes 5 and 6 are pylon modes, but they are expected to participate little in the LCO-relevant
low-frequency structural dynamics.

7 of 13

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. 96TW-2016-0216

 Run 37 - Complex Exponential
Mode # 1 2 3 4 5 6
Damping (%) 1.4 0.537 0.891 0.653 0.652 0.507
Freq. 7.53 8.87 13.1 13.7 18.6 25
Run 37 - AF Poly

1 1.04 7.53 0.99 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00

2 0.512 8.87 0.00 0.96 0.00 0.01 0.28 0.08
3 0.992 13.1 0.05 0.03 1.00 0.06 0.02 0.07

MAC
4 0.612 13.7 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.94 0.00 0.01
5 0.737 18.5 0.01 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.36
6 0.694 25 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.39 0.90
% Diff. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0%
% Diff. 25.7% 4.7% 11.3% 6.3% 13.0% 36.9%

(a) Linear parameter estimates comparison. (b) Pylon lateral mode – 8.9 Hz.

(c) Pylon pitch mode – 13.1 Hz. (d) Pylon yaw mode – 13.7 Hz.

Figure 5: Linear parameter estimation results.

Differences in mode shape and frequency estimates from runs with different force-input directions are
negligible; however, there are substantive differences in modal mass and damping estimates based on runs
with different force-input directions. For restoring-force-surface method inputs, linear parameters for pylon
pitch were estimated from vertical input runs and linear parameters for pylon lateral and pylon yaw modes
are estimated from horizontal input runs. Low-level random excitation was used for both cases.

Time History Inspection

A pure sinusoid input to a linear system will result in a pure sinusoid output at the same frequency. The
system can only amplify and phase shift the sinusoid. Harmonic distortions in output measurements are
sufficient to identify nonlinear behavior in a system subjected to a pure sinusoid input. Visual inspection
of the output from swept sine and stepped sine input cases identifies system nonlinearity. Figure 6a shows

8 of 13

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. 96TW-2016-0216

a snapshot of accelerometer time history corresponding to low-amplitude stepped sign input. The low-
amplitude output closely resembles a pure sinusoid. Figure 6b shows a snapshot of accelerometer time
history corresponding to high-amplitude stepped-sign input. The signal is distorted; a clear indication of
system nonlinearity.

(a) Stationary response at 15 lb input. (b) Stationary response at 60 lb input.

Figure 6: Time history inspection.

Homogeneity Test
A homogeneity test is implemented by superimposing frequency response functions (FRFs) from dif-
ferent input amplitudes. Figure 7 shows FRFs for two measurements and from 10 lb RMS and 22 lb RMS
random input. The peaks of modes 2, 3, and 4 show reductions in amplitude and frequency as the input
level is increased. These results are consistent with an increase in damping at higher input levels.

Figure 7: Homogeneity test.

9 of 13

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. 96TW-2016-0216

Time-Frequency Analysis
Spectrograms from two force input levels are shown in Fig. 8. Spectrogram contours show the frequency
content for a single measurement over the test run. The linear sweep input frequency is apparent for both
runs. Harmonics, which are an indication of nonlinearity, are present for both runs, but much more
prevalent in the higher-amplitude run. Around 13 Hz, near the pylon pitch and yaw modal frequencies,
there is a clear second harmonic in Fig. 8a. Many harmonics are strongly active in Fig. 8b; including odd
harmonics, which are an indication of asymmetry in the response.

(a) Forward sweep at 5 lb. (b) Forward sweep at 30 lb.

Figure 8: Time-frequency spectrograms for different force levels.

Restoring-Force-Surface Method (RFSM) in Modal Space

Modal restoring-force surfaces are calculated for the pylon lateral mode, pylon pitch mode, and pylon
yaw mode. Results in the zero-velocity and zero-displacement planes are shown in Fig. 9. Modal stiffness
forces are linear with respect to displacement, and restoring-force-surface results agree well with linear AF
Poly estimates based on low-amplitude random input runs. These results indicate that the pylon global
stiffness could be reasonably modeled as linear. Modal damping forces agree well with linear AF Poly
estimates at low velocities, but exhibit cubic-like divergence at high velocities. Hysteresis in the damping-
force path is apparent in Fig. 9d and Fig. 9f. In flight, this type of damping behavior can contribute to
bounding F-16 LCO.

10 of 13

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. 96TW-2016-0216

(a) Pylon lateral mode stiffness force vs. displacement. (b) Pylon lateral mode damping force vs. velocity.

(c) Pylon pitch mode stiffness force vs. displacement. (d) Pylon pitch mode damping force vs. velocity.

(e) Pylon yaw mode stiffness force vs. displacement. (f) Pylon yaw mode damping force vs. velocity.

Figure 9: Restoring-force-surface results compared to linear parameter estimates.

11 of 13

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. 96TW-2016-0216

 Conclusions

Ground experiments were executed and the results were used to characterize the nonlinear structural
dynamics of store-loaded F-16 pylons. Time history results and time-frequency results clearly indicated
the presence of structural nonlinearity. Results from a modal-space implementation of the restoring-force-
surface method and results from homogeneity tests are consistent with linear modal stiffness and nonlinear
structural damping. Cubic-like modal damping was observed for the three most relevant pylon modes.
Different theories exist regarding what nonlinear mechanisms bound F-16 aeroelastic limit-cycle oscilla-
tions, but the results in this paper help legitimize nonlinear structural damping as a bounding mechanism.
Assumed nonlinear damping profiles used in Ref. [2] approximated similar nonlinear damping behavior for
a full aircraft, and computational results in Ref. [2] resembled LCO observed in F-16 fight tests. Future
ground experiments on additional substructures or a full F-16 aircraft could result in better understanding
of the aircraft dynamics and could supply data for measured estimates of nonlinear sturctural damping.
A least-squares polynomial fit of the restoring force surface in modal space could supply modal damping
models for aeroelastic analysis.

Acknowledgments

This material is based on research sponsored by the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) with
funding provided by the U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) under agreement number
16RWCOR359.
The authors would like to thank our collaborators at AFSEO, AFRL, and the 780th Test Squadron.
We would especially like to thank Crystal Pasiliao and Daniel Reasor for leading the AFRL program;
Michael Kendra for leading the AFOSR program; Vin Sharma and Lynn Neergaard for for helping with
the test planning and execution; Mike Prestarri for helping with test-fixture modeling; Gaëtan Kerschen,
Thibaut Detroux, Jean-Philippe Noël, Jay Northington, and James Dubben for sharing their insights on
F-16 testing; Phillip Douglas for helping with geometric modeling, Glen Beck and Mike Symons for test
management; Ed Santiago for designing the test fixture modifications; and Jim LaBerge, Adam Sanders,
and Warren Gould for assembling, instrumenting, and executing the tests.

References
1
Denegri Jr., C. M., “Limit Cycle Oscillation Flight Test Results of a Fighter with External Stores,” Journal of Aircraft,
Vol. 37, No. 5, September 2000, pp. 761–769, doi: 10.2514/6.2000-1394.
2
Denegri Jr, C. M., Sharma, V. K., and Northington, J. S., “F-16 Limit-Cycle Oscillation Analysis Using Nonlinear
Damping,” Journal of Aircraft, 2015, pp. 1–8, doi: 10.2514/1.C033315.
3
Denegri, C. M., Dubben, J. A., and Maxwell, D. L., “In-Flight Wing Deformation Characteristics During Limit Cycle
Oscillations,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 42, No. 2, 2005, pp. 500–508, doi: 10.2514/1.1345.
4
Woodcock, D. L., “Structural Non-Linearities,” North Atlantic Treaty Organization Advisory Group for Aerospace
Research and Development (AGARD) Manual on Aeroelasticity Part 1. Chapter 6 , 1960, pp. 1–55.
5
Haidl, G., “Non-Linear Effects in Aircraft Ground and Flight Vibration Tests,” Tech. Rep. AGARD-R-652, North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development, 7 Rue Ancelle 92200 Neuilly Sur
Seine, France, 1976.
6
Breitbach, E., “Effects of Structural Non-Linearities on Aircraft Vibration and Flutter,” Tech. Rep. AGARD-R-665,
North Atlantic Treaty Organization Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development, 7 Rue Ancelle 92200 Neuilly
Sur Seine, France, 1978.
7
Meijer, J. and Cunningham Jr., A. M., “A Semi-Empirical Unsteady Nonlinear Aerodynamic Model to Predict Tran-
sonic LCO Characteristics of Fighter Aircraft,” 36th Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, Structures,
Structural Dynamics, and Materials and Co-located Conferences, 1995, doi: 10.2514/6.1995-1340.
8
Cunningham Jr., A. M. and Holman, R. J., “Time Domain Aeroelastic Solutions: A Critical Need for Future Analytical
Methods Developments,” NATO Rept. RTA-MP-AVT-154, Brussels, 2008.
9
Gabbard, M. D., Lindsley, N. J., and Kunz, D. L., “Modeling the Effects of Underwing Missile Canards on F-16 Limit
Cycle Oscillations,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 53, No. 1, 2015, pp. 202–216, doi: 10.2514/1.C033301.

12 of 13

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. 96TW-2016-0216

 10
Reed III, W. H., Cazier Jr, F. W., and Foughner Jr, J. T., “Passive Control of Wing/Store Flutter,” Tech. rep., NASA,
1980.
11
Dieckelman, R., Hauenstein, A. J., Hayes, W. B., and Ritzel, R. P., “High Force Experimental Modal Analysis,” 21st
International Modal Analysis Conference, Kissimmee, FL, 2003.
12
Kerschen, G., Worden, K., Vakakis, A. F., and Golinval, J.-C., “Past, Present and Future of Nonlinear System Iden-
tification in Structural Dynamics,” Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, Vol. 20, No. 3, 2006, pp. 505 – 592, doi:
10.1016/j.ymssp.2005.04.008.
13
Masri, S. F. and Caughey, T. K., “A Nonparametric Identification Technique for Nonlinear Dynamic Problems,” Journal
of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 46, No. 2, 1979, pp. 433–447, doi: 10.1115/1.3424568.
14
Masri, S. F., Sassi, H., and Caughey, T. K., “Nonparametric Identification of Nearly Arbitrary Nonlinear Systems,”
Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 49, No. 3, 1982, pp. 619–628, doi: 10.1115/1.3162537.
15
Northington, J. S. and Pasiliao, C. L., “F-16 Wing Structural Deflection Testing Phase I,” U.S. Air Force T and E
Days, No. AIAA 2007-1674, 2007, doi: 10.2514/6.2007-1674.
16
Noël, J.-P., Renson, L., Kerschen, G., Peeters, B., Manzato, S., and Debille, J., “Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of an
F-16 Aircraft Using GVT Data,” Proceedings of the International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics, 2013.
17
Dossogne, T., Noël, J.-P., Grappasonni, C., Kerschen, G., Peeters, B., Debille, J., Vaes, M., and Schoukens, J., “Nonlin-
ear Ground Vibration Identification of an F-16 Aircraft-Part 2: Understanding Nonlinear Behaviour in Aerospace Structures
Using Sine-sweep Testing,” Proceedings of the International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics, 2015.
18
Vold, H., Napolitano, K., Hensley, D., and Richardson, M., “Aliasing in Modal Parameter Estimation,” Sound and
Vibration, Vol. 42, No. 1, 01 2008, pp. 12–17, ISSN: 1541-0161.

13 of 13

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. 96TW-2016-0216