Supersonic flows cause thin panels to flutter, which is characterized by high-amplitude self-sustained oscillations, increasing the risk of fatigue failure. Flutter is known to be exacerbated when a shock wave impinges on the panel, creating a shock wave/boundary-layer interaction (SWBLI) which promotes separation of flow and leads to increased aerodynamic and thermal loading on the panel. This novel fluid-structure interaction (FSI), known as shock-induced panel flutter, poses a risk to the structural integrity of components used in high-speed aerial vehicles, such as rocket nozzles and supersonic engine inlets.

Due to the complex coupled interaction between flow and structural dynamics in flutter, experiments provide a better option to investigate the underlying physical mechanisms, rather than computational studies, which usually have to compromise between computational cost and resultant accuracy. The ST-15 supersonic wind tunnel facility at TU Delft is employed to conduct experimental measurements of shock-induced panel flutter, using high-speed Schlieren imaging to capture flow structures and stereographic Digital Image Correlation (DIC) to record panel displacements in separate campaigns. Tests are done at Mach 2 with fully-clamped thin panels, and the flutter response is excited using different shock strengths and impingement locations.

In both campaigns, accelerometers are used to measure spurious vibrations around the wind tunnel test section. This helps reveal the existence of external vibrations inherent to the facility, which are also found to drive the frequency of the panel flutter: at 760-770 Hz without an impinging shock, and 605-640 Hz with an impinging shock. The latter frequency is detected in both - shock motion and panel displacements – which establishes coupling between flow and structure despite measurements being non-simultaneous. Changing the shock impingement location does not have a significant effect on the degree of flow separation caused over the thin fluttering panel, which is always higher than the separation on a rigid plate at the same shock strength, thus proving that fluttering panels are not viable means of shock-induced separation control. A stronger impinging shock produces increased shock-induced flow separation but results in less energetic panel flutter, which is attributed to the higher post-shock pressure rise suppressing the panel. Flutter is found to be most energetic, and consequently, the panel is most susceptible to fatigue failure, when the shock impinges at 60% of the panel length.