About

Oddvar Bendiksen is a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at UCLA Samueli School of Engineering. His research interests include classical and computational aeroelasticity, structural dynamics, and unsteady aerodynamics. His work focuses on understanding and modeling the dynamic behavior of aerospace structures and the interactions between aerodynamic forces and structural responses, contributing to advancements in aerospace engineering and related fields.

Research topics

• Computer science
• Physics
• Mechanics
• Aerospace engineering
• Structural engineering

Selected publications

• Interferometric correlator for acoustic radiation and underlying structural vibration

  Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2016-12-14

  articleSenior author

  In this paper we discuss the background and principles of an optical non-contact sensor fusion concept, the Interferometric Correlator for Acoustic Radiation and Underlying Structural Vibration (ICARUSV) and give practical example of its capabilities, focusing on its ability to simultaneously capture, visualize and quantitatively characterize full-field non-stationary structural dynamics and unsteady radiated sound fields or transient flow fields around the structure of interest. The ICARUSV’s multi-sensor design is based on a parallel architecture and therefore the data capture is fast and inherently support a wide variety of spatio-temporal or spatio-spectral analysis methods which characterize the structural or acoustic/flow field dynamics as it occurs in real time, including short-lived transient events. No other technology available today offers this level of multi-parameter multi-dimensional data¹.

  PublisherDOI

• Transonic Flutter Characteristics of Advanced Fighter Wings

  56th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference · 2015-01-02 · 5 citations

  article1st authorCorresponding

  A study of the flutter characteristics of three different wing planforms representative of present and future generations of fighters is presented. The main objective is to obtain a better understanding of complex transonic flutter behaviors involving LCOs triggered by natural mode instabilities at low dynamic pressures, followed by transitions to strong bending-torsion or multi-mode flutter at higher dynamic pressures. Two of the wings have flutter boundaries with deep in the vicinity of Mach 1. Inside the chimneys, the LCO amplitudes are insensitive to dynamic pressure or density and persist down to very low densities representative of altitudes in the high stratosphere. The Mach number freeze or transonic stabilization phenomenon plays an important role in determining the shape of the SDOF and chimney regions. Near the freeze Mach number, the unsteady aerodynamic forces show rapid reversals in amplitude and phase, which have a profound influence on the flutter boundary and the observed flutter characteristics. The transonic stabilization mechanism appears responsible for the rapid quenching of natural mode LCOs and the creation of deep chimneys in the flutter boundary near Mach 1, as observed in several wind tunnel tests.

  PublisherDOI

• Analysis of the Transonic Flutter of Supersonic Transport Wings

  56th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference · 2015-01-02

  articleSenior author
  PublisherDOI

• Computational Transonic Flutter Solutions for Cranked Wing Planforms

  55th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference · 2014-01-10

  articleSenior author
  PublisherDOI

• Efficient Prediction of Transonic Flutter Boundaries with Linearized Aeroservoelastic Reduced-Order Models

  54th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference · 2013-04-05

  articleSenior author
  PublisherDOI

• Transonic Single-Degree-of-Freedom Flutter and Natural Mode Instabilities

  54th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference · 2013-04-05 · 2 citations

  article1st authorCorresponding

  At transonic Mach numbers, single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) torsional flutter instabilities are possible for 2D typical section models, and similar natural mode instabilities can occur for swept 3D wings. In 2D attached flows, a pure plunge mode is always stable and some pitching motion is necessary for flutter. In the case of a 3D swept wing, the required pitching motion is provided through the structural washout mechanism, and natural mode instabilities are possible over a range of transonic Mach numbers, even in the absence of shock-induced separation. The Mach number freeze phenomenon or transonic stabilization is shown to play a fundamental role in determining the shape of the SDOF region, and the eventual quenching of these instabilities as the Mach number is increased. The practical implications of transonic SDOF torsional flutter and natural mode instabilities are explored through several examples.

  PublisherDOI

• Transonic Stabilization Laws for Unsteady Aerodynamics and Flutter

  2012-04-23 · 8 citations

  article1st authorCorresponding

  In this paper we show that near Mach 1, the lift and moment amplitudes of a 2D airfoil section become “frozen” and essentially independent of the freestream Mach number. This phenomenon is similar to the well-known stabilization law for steady transonic flow, except that the freeze here involves the unsteady aerodynamic forces rather than the local Mach number. In some cases, the aerodynamic forces also become nearly independent of reduced frequency, for the low reduced frequencies typical of transonic flutter. These findings cannot be understood within the framework of linear subsonic or supersonic aerodynamics, because the Mach number freeze is brought about by the global behavior of the mixed subsonicsupersonic flow-field at Mach numbers close to one. The practical implications of the freeze phenomenon in aeroelastic stability calculations are analyzed and discussed through several examples.

  PublisherDOI

• Turbomachinery Aeroelasticity

  Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering · 2010-12-15 · 8 citations

  other1st authorCorresponding

  Abstract In this chapter, we describe the range of aeroelastic problems found in modern turbomachinery, and briefly describe the nondimensional parameters that govern these phenomena and the analytical methods used to model them. We classify types of flutter and forced respsone in compressors and fans by location on the compressor map and on the so‐called Campbell diagram. We also present the fundamental equations of motion that govern the aeromechanical behavior of turbomachinery, describe the effect of mistuning on forced response, and give an overview of the computational methods currently used to compute the unsteady aerodynamics associated with the aeroelasticity of turbomachinery.

  PublisherDOI

• Review of unsteady transonic aerodynamics: Theory and applications

  Progress in Aerospace Sciences · 2010-12-16 · 144 citations

  article1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• Panel Flutter

  Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering · 2010-12-15 · 8 citations

  otherSenior author

  Abstract Panel flutter or the flutter of plates and shells differs in some important respects from the classical flutter of airfoils and wings. These include (i) streamwise bending deformations which are more important than spanwise deformations, (ii) the effects of nonlinear structural forces which typically become significant when the plate deformations are on the order of the plate thickness, and (iii) the impact of viscous boundary layer effects in the transonic flow regime. It is also sometimes said that panel flutter only occurs at supersonic Mach numbers. And that is true if the leading and trailing edges of the panel are fixed, but not if the trailing edge is free. In the latter case the phenomenon is more analogous to the flutter of a flag and can occur in all speed regimes including subsonic flow. This recent work on transonic and subsonic panel flutter is considered here as well. In the present chapter, the essential elements of panel flutter are described, the essence of the extant mathematical models reviewed and representative comparisons between theory and experiment cited.

  PublisherDOI

Frequent coauthors

• Guang-Yaw Hwang

  California State University Los Angeles

  10 shared

• Peretz P. Friedmann

  University of Michigan–Ann Arbor

  5 shared

• Kevin Roughen

  5 shared

• S. LUST

  Michael Baker International (United States)

  5 shared

• P. FRIEDMANN

  University of California, Los Angeles

  4 shared

• Kenneth A. Kousen

  Hartford Financial Services (United States)

  4 shared

• Gary A. Davis

  4 shared

• Güçlü Seber

  Virginia Tech

  3 shared