Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
\
|
2
u
.......................... 5.3
X
Z
Y, q
N.m.g
e
d
. .
l
c c q
c
m(AC)
.c
2
.q
U
Reference Axis
(Elastic Axis)
Line of aerodynamic centers
Line of centers of
gravity
55
The boundary conditions are
( ) ( ) 0 0 = = l u u
&
We know that the torque deflection equation is given by,
( ) ( ) ( ) q q q u
uu
d t y C y
l
. . ,
0
}
= ...................................... 5.4
where,
uu
C = torsional deformation and influence function
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
}
}
> =
> =
q
uu
uu
q
q
q
q
0
0
, , ,
, , ,
y
GJ
d
y C
y
GJ
d
y C
y
.............................. 5.5
Figure 5.3: Deformation and influence function for a straight slender wing
It also noted that the bending deformation and influence function
( )
zz
C is given by,
Line of
Aerodynamic
Eccentricity
q
Chord
y
Elastic Axis
56
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
0 0
0 0
( )( )
, ,
( )( )
, ,
y y
zz
zz
y d
C y d y
EI GK
y d
C y d y
EI GK
q q
q
q q
q
q q
= + >
= + >
} }
} }
........... 5.6
The quantity EI and GK are bending and shear stiffness respectively. The
deflection problem to be solved in computing the torsional influence function is shown
in the above figure. A unit torque is applied at a distance q from the origin, and the
resulting angular displacement at y is denoted by the ( ) q
uu
, y C .
Thus,
( ) ( ) ( ) [ ] q q u
uu
d Nmgd q c c ecc y C y
l
mAC l
. . ,
0
2
}
+ = ................. 5.7
Boundary conditions on u are contained implicitly in the influence function and
need not be stated separately.
We can regard the total angle of attack as a superposition of a rigid angle and an
elastic twist,
( ) ( ) ( ) y y y
r
u o o + = ............................................. 5.8
and correspondingly the local lift co-efficient as a superposition of
( ) ( ) ( ) y c y c y c
e
l
r
l l
+ = ........................................... 5.9
where,
( ) y
r
o = Local angle of attack measured from zero lift, not including elastic twist and
spanwise aerodynamic induction effects. It may contain such terms such as
57
wing attitude, geometric twist, aerodynamic twist resulting from deflected
control surfaces, or induced angle of attack due to a gust
( ) y c
r
l
= Local lift co-efficient distribution resulting from rigid twist, ( ) y
r
o
( ) y c
e
l
= Local lift co-efficient distribution resulting from elastic twist, ( ) y u
Inserting equation (5.9) in equations (5.3) and (5.7), we get the following
alternative differential and integral equation,
Nmgd c qc qecc qecc
dy
d
GJ
dy
d
mAC
r
l
e
l
+ = +
|
|
.
|
\
|
2
u
..................... 5.10
and,
( ) ( ) ( ) y f d ecc y C q y
l
e
l
+ =
}
q q u
uu
0
. . , ................................. 5.11
where
( ) ( ) ( ) q q
uu
d Nmgd c qc qecc y C q y f
l
mAC
r
l
}
+ =
0
2
.. . , ........................ 5.12
In both the equations, ( ) y u and ( ) y c
e
l
are regarded as unknown functions, and
all other terms are assumed specified. This problem becomes mathematically
determinate as a soon as the second relation between the two unknowns is stated; this is
supplied by some appropriate choice of aerodynamics theory. As stated earlier, the
aerodynamic theory is assumed to have a linear relation between incidence and lift
distribution which can be represented symbolically by
( ) ( )
l
cc y = o .................................................... 5.13
58
where, is a linear operator which operates on the lift distribution ( ) y cc
l
to produce
the required incidence distribution ( ) y o . For example, in the case of strip theory, is
simply
c a
0
1
= ........................................................ 5.14
where,
0
a is the local two-dimensional slope of the lift co-efficient curve.
The torsional divergence speed of a three dimensional wing is determined from
the lowest eigenvalue of the dynamic pressure q obtained from the homogeneous
differential or integral equations of equilibrium. It thus represents the speed at which the
wing, arranged so that in the untwisted conditions it experiences no aerodynamic
moments whatever, is theoretically capable of assuming an arbitrary amount of twist
and remaining in neutral equilibrium there under the airloads due to the twist alone.
Since the solution to a non-homogeneous equation becomes infinite for the eigenvalues
of the corresponding homogeneous equation, we may conclude that an actual wing
(which can never be adjusted so that the rigid airloads are exactly zero) would twist off
and be destroyed as its divergence speed. Following are the homogeneous forms of
equations (5.10) and (5.11) are
0 = +
|
|
.
|
\
|
e
l
qecc
dy
d
GJ
dy
d u
.................................. 5.15
( ) ( ) q q u
uu
d ecc y C q y
l
e
l
}
=
0
. . , .................................. 5.16
Equations (5.15) or (5.16) could be alternatively used along with equation (5.13)
to compute the divergence speed. They are satisfied by the same infinite set of
59
eigenvalues and eigenfunctions. The lowest eigenvalue is the dynamic pressure,
D
q ,
corresponding to torsional divergence. The corresponding eigenfunctions ( ) y
D
u is the
spanwise twist distribution at the divergence speed.
When treating practical airplane problems where assured accuracy is required, it
is usually necessary to employ numerical solutions. Applying strip theory, equation
(5.16) has the form,
( ) ( ) q q u
o
uu
d ecc y C q y
d dC
c
l
e
l
L
e
l
}
=
0
. . , ............................ 5.17
Here, it is to be noted that ( ) y a
0
has been replaced by o d dC
L
, the effective
lift-curve slope corrected for aspect ratio. The matrix equation for equation (5.17) can
be written as follows
[ ] } { [ ] } {
e
l
e
l
c c E q c c A = .......................................... 5.18
where,
[ ]
1
1
L
A c
dC do
( =
O
O
.........................................5.19.a
[ ]
E C e W
uu
(
( ( =
(
O
O
O
O
........................................5.19.b
The basic requirement of a non-zero solution is the vanishing of the determinant
of the co-efficients of
e
l
cc .
[ ] [ ] 0 = E q A ................................................... 5.20
60
This determinant, when expanded, yields a polynomial in q , the smallest root of
which corresponds to the divergence condition,
D
q . The divergence speed is then
obtained by,
2
D
D
q
U = ................................................... 5.21
Figure 5.4: Plan-view of the unextended wing configuration
The above figure shows the planview of the morphing wing. The line
containing the centers of gravity is not straight. Also, by observation, we notice that for
this multi-material, non-uniform structure the modulus of elasticity, shear modulus,
area, area moment of inertia (I
yy
), torsional moment of inertia and shear form factor, all
would be a function of span. Thus, the torsional deformation and influence function
would also be a function of the span.
The following plots show the location of the center of gravity over the span for
the unextended wing configuration. This data has been obtained from CATIA V5. The
61
wing was divided by 17 planes i.e. 16-element model. The planes were chosen under
the assumption that we would have a constant area and least amount of change in the
geometry in-between the planes. This model is assumed to be the truth model capturing
almost all the structural properties of the wing.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
0 5 10 15 20 25
Span (in)
C
.
G
.
(
Y
-
A
X
I
S
)
(
i
n
)
Figure 5.5: Side-view of the C.G. locations over the span for unextended configuration
0.58
0.582
0.584
0.586
0.588
0.59
0.592
0.594
0.596
0.598
0.6
0.602
0 5 10 15 20 25
Span (in)
C
.
G
.
(
Z
-
A
X
I
S
)
(
i
n
)
Figure 5.6: Top-view of the C.G. locations over the span for unextended configuration
The following plot shows the area moment of inertia about the bending axis
(I
YY
) for the 16-element representation of the wing in the unextended configuration.
62
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000
Span(in)
I
y
y
(
i
n
^
4
)
.
Figure 5.7: Variation of the area moment of inertia about the (y-axis) as a function of
span for unextended configuration
The following sections discuss a systematic procedure to calculate the bending
and torsional stiffness as well as the torsional deformation and influence functions
required in the further calculations for the divergence speed. Here, we also calculate the
bending deformation and influence function which would be required for the study of
the dynamic aeroelastic problems which forms a part of the future study for this
morphable wing.
5.3 Bending and Torsion Theory
24
In this section, we discuss the Euler-Bernoulli beam theory as well as the
Timoshenko beam theory and state the equations for the bending and rotation of beams
under the influence of an end load applied to a cantilever beam. Further, we also discuss
the torsion theory.
Euler-Bernoulli beam theory or just beam theory is a simplification of the linear
isotropic theory of elasticity which provides a means of calculating the load-carrying
and deflection characteristics of beams.
63
The full theory of elasticity is too complicated for routine design work. To
simplify it, Euler-Bernoulli beam theory makes the following assumptions which are
approximately true for most beams:
1. The beam is long and slender.
length >> width
length >> depth
therefore, tensile/compressive stresses perpendicular to the beam
are much smaller than tensile/compressive stresses parallel to the
beam.
2. The beam cross-section is constant along its axis.
3. The beam is loaded in its plane of symmetry.
4. Plane sections of the beam remain plane.
approximately true for most solid beam forms
not necessarily true for a truss-beam
this was Bernoulli's critical contribution
Figure 5.8: Euler-Bernoulli Bending Theory (pure bending moment)
64
Form the above figure,
( )
z
u w x = = vertical deflection of the neutral axis, and............................................ 5.22
( ) .
x
u z x = .................................................. 5.23
If the plane AB remains perpendicular to CD, then
dw
dx
= ....................................................... 5.24
x
dw
u z
dx
= .................................................... 5.25
Solving, the stress-strain relations, we get the moment as
2
2
.
d w
M E I
dx
= ............................................... 5.26
where,
E = Elastic Modulus of Elasticity
I = Area Moment of Inertia
Figure 5.9: Test Problem Structure with geometric and material properties as a
function of length L
u
x
dx
dw
z
65
From Euler-Bernoulli bending theory, we get the following results
1. when a load P is applied,
Figure 5.10: Beam subjected to an end shear load P
EI
PL
2
2
= u ........................................................... 5.27
EI
PL
3
3
= o .......................................................... 5.28
2. when a moment M is applied
Figure 5.11: Beam subjected to an end moment M
EI
ML
2
2
= u ........................................................ 5.29
EI
ML
2
2
= o ....................................................... 5.30
66
From the above results, for the first segment in figure 5.8
Figure 5.12: Element 1 of the test problem
( )
1 1
2
1 1
1 1
3
1
1
2 3 I E
L L L F
I E
FL
+ = o ....................................... 5.31
( )
1 1
1 1
1 1
2
1
1
2 I E
L L L F
I E
FL
+ = u ....................................... 5.32
and, second segment in figure 5.8
Figure 5.13: Deflections and rotations of the elements due to the end shear force applied
to the test problem
( )
2 2
2
2 2 1
2 2
3
2
2 1 1 2
2 3 I E
L L L L F
I E
FL
L
+ + + = u o o ............................. 5.33
( )
2 2
2 2 1
2 2
2
2
1 2
2 I E
L L L L F
I E
FL
+ + = u u ................................... 5.34
L
2
L
1
u
2
u
1
o
2
o
1
67
Thus, by forward substitution, we can generalize the above procedure for n
segments.
Real-life structures never meet these assumptions exactly, but often approximate
them well enough for the theory to make useful predictions. The
Timoshenko beam
theory is an extension of the Euler-Bernoulli beam
theory to allow for the effect of
transverse shear deformation.
This more refined beam theory relaxes the normality
assumption of
plane sections that remain plane and normal to the deformed
centerline.
The relaxation takes the form of allowing an additional
rotation to the bending slope,
and thus admits a nonzero
shear strain.
Here, we consider
1. The beam to be short and stubbed
2. The load applied at the shear center
3. Plane sections of the beam do not remain plane.
Figure 5.14: Timoshenko Bending Theory (pure bending moment)
dx
dw
68
Form the above figure,
( ) .
x
u z x = .................................................... 5.35
dw
dx
= ......................................................... 5.36
Thus the difference between the Timoshenko beam and the Euler-Bernoulli
beam is that the former includes the effect of the shear stresses on the deformation. A
constant shear over the beam height is assumed.
( )
dw
x
dx
u = + ................................................... 5.37
Setting the shear angle, , to zero leads to the Bernoulli beam theory. Then the
slope of the centre axis, w' , is the same as the rotation, u , of the cross-section.
.
xx
d
E z
dx
o = (4.38)
( )
x z
xz
u u dw
G G x
z x dx
o
c c | | | |
= + = +
| |
c c
\ . \ .
(4.39)
This equation is better than Euler-Bernoulli equation but still it is a constant
shear across the cross-section. Hence, we introduce a form factor
2
k .
( )
2
xz
dw
G x
dx
o k
| |
= +
|
\ .
............................................ 5.40
Integrating the stress over the cross-sectional area, we get moment as,
.
d
M E I
dx
= .................................................... 5.41
and shear force as,
69
( )
2
dw
V G x
dx
k
| |
= +
|
\ .
........................................... 5.42
From Timoshenko bending theory, we get the following results, when a load P
is applied to beam with cross-sectional area A,
Figure 5.15: Beam subjected to an end shear load P
2
2
2
PL P
EI GA
u
k
= + ............................................... 5.43
3
2
3
PL PL
EI GA
o
k
= + ................................................ 5.44
Combining equations (5.33), (5.34), (5.43) and (5.44) for a beam with n
elements, then the generalized equation for the i
th
element could be written as
Figure 5.16: Test Problem Structure with geometric and material properties as a
function of length L
3 2
1 1 1
1 1 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 2
i i i
i i i i
i i i i i i i
FL ML FL
L
E I E I G A
o o u
k
+ + +
+ +
+ + + + + + +
= + + + + ............................. 5.45
E
1
I
1
E
2
I
2
E
3
I
3
L
1
L
2
L
3
L
F, end load
70
2
1 1
1 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2
i i
i i
i i i i i i i
FL ML F
E I E I G A
u u
k
+ +
+
+ + + + + + +
= + + + ................................ 5.46
where, the moment is
1
i
j
j
M F L L
=
| |
=
|
\ .
................................................. 5.47
Figure 5.17: Wing subjected to an end moment T
For small angles,
( )
12 11
11
. 1 x c x c
o o
| = =
............................................. 5.48
( )
12
11 12
x
c
o
o o
=
+
............................................ 5.49
and similarly,
( )
22 21
22
. 1 x c x c
o o
| = =
........................................... 5.50
Now, from the solid mechanics results, we know that
T
o
21
o
22
o
11
o
12
c
|
11
|
22
x
L
2
Y
Z
X
71
T G
J L
|
= .................................................... 5.51
where,
| = angle of twist
Here, we assume that the structural and geometric properties of the wing remain
constant over the length L
2
i.e. over the second element
2 2
2 2
G T
J L
|
= .................................................. 5.52
where,
2 22 11
| | | = = the total twist
The generalized equation for the i
th
element could be written as
i i
i i
G T
J L
|
= ................................................. 5.53
5.4 Wing divergence of Morphable Wing
We will use equations (5.45), (5.46), (5.47) and (5.53) to calculate the stiffness
and their respective deformation and influence functions. But, before we could use
them, the minimum numbers of stations or elements are required to be identified, which
divide the wing with an assumption that the structural and geometric properties remain
constant over the span of each element.
The following figure shows that the wing has been divided in 5 elements. And
the subsequent figure shows the 2D representation of the above figure. This is cantilever
beam model created in ANSYS Classic. The model is loaded at the free end as shown
by the red arrow.
72
Figure 5.18: Plan-view of the unextended wing configuration divided into 5-segments
Figure 5.19: 2D Beam 5-element model of the wing in unextended wing configuration
The element used is BEAM3. This is a uniaxial element with tension,
compression, and bending capabilities. The element has three degrees of freedom at
each node: translations in the nodal x and y directions and rotation about the nodal z-
axis.
1 2 3 4 5 6
X
Y
F
1 2 3 4 5 6
73
The real constant sets contain the area, area moment of inertia about the y-axis,
and height of the element in the z-direction. These values are obtained from CATIA V5.
A uniform material (steel) has been assumed for the initial analysis.
The deflections at each node are noted. The analysis is repeated several times
with different number of elements.
-2.50E-07
-2.00E-07
-1.50E-07
-1.00E-07
-5.00E-08
0.00E+00
5.00E-08
0 5 10 15 20 25
Span (in)
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
d
u
e
t
o
s
h
e
a
r
l
o
a
d
(
1
l
b
f
)
.
.
.
.
1 - Element
2 - Elements
4 - Elements
6 - Elements
16 - Elements
5 - Elements
Figure 5.20: Deflections measured on the 2D beam model of various elements when
subjected to an end shear load of 1 lbf
The above plot shows the deflections noted at each node due an applied shear
force of 1 lbf. It is to be noted that when the entire wing is assumed to have the same
geometric properties (averaged over the entire span into a single element) shows a
deflection which is distinctly different from the wing which is divided into 16 elements
having varying geometric properties over the span (but constant for each element) as
calculated from CATIA V5. It is also to be noted that when the wing was approximated
as a 5-element structure as shown in figure 5.17, the above figure shows that the
74
deflections are in close correspondence to the deflections shown by a 16-element wing
structure. Hence, the wing could be safely assumed to be a 5-element structure when
analyzing the unextended wing configuration.
The 3D wing model is subjected to an end shear load and then the free end is
twisted by applying a moment. From ANSYS, the deflections are noted at the nodes
shown in figure 5.18, for both the cases of applied loading. And using equations (5.45),
(5.46), (5.47) and (5.53)), the following torsional moment of inertias and form factors
are obtained for the two different materials that were used in the analysis
Table 5.1: Comparison between the torsional stiffness and the form factor of the same
structure but different materials
Nodes Element Torsional Stiffness (in-lb/rad.) (J) Form Factor (k )
Steel Balsa Wood Steel Balsa Wood
1-2 1 19.28 18.49 16.9594 16.5157
2-3 2 2.98 2.90 0.0197 0.0193
3-4 3 5.84 5.79 0.0188 0.0185
4-5 4 12.45 13.04 0.0118 0.0116
5-6 5 1.45 1.38 0.0127 0.0124
Here, in the above table 5.1, we show that by using two different materials for
the wing structure, we have obtained similar values for the torsional stiffness and the
form factor. These properties are a function of the geometry of the structure and not the
material. Thus the above method has been verified.
The following flowchart figure 5.20 explains the procedure followed to
calculate the stiffness of the structure as a function of the span.
75
Figure 5.21: The flowchart to calculate the approximate stiffness of a structure
Start
Calculate the required number of stations
Calculate the Area Moment of Inertia and the Area from the 3D Model
Assume Material Properties, E and G
Input Directional Deformation Measurements from ANSYS Simulation
results due to Point Load at the Shear Center and use,
3 2
1 1 1
1 1 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 2
i i i
i i i i
i i i i i i i
FL ML FL
L
E I E I G A
o o u
k
+ + +
+ +
+ + + + + + +
= + + + +
2
1 1
1 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2
i i
i i
i i i i i i i
FL ML F
E I E I G A
u u
k
+ +
+
+ + + + + + +
= + + +
1
i
j
j
M F L L
=
| |
=
|
\ .
Thus calculate
2
k as a function of Span
Verify J and
2
k to be a constant function
of span
Repeat above for a Multi-Material Structure, and thus calculate the EI, GJ and
GK properties as a function of Span to be used for SWD speed calculations
End
Repeat once for another material properties, E and G
NO
YES
Input Angular Deflection Measurements from ANSYS
Simulation results due to Torsional Loading and use,
i i
i i
G T
J L
|
=
Thus calculate J as a function of Span
76
We observe a higher value of the form factor for the first element since this
element undergoes the least shear deformation. And, since more material is located
away from the elastic axis; this element also shows a high torsional stiffness. The
element 4 also shows a higher value of the torsional stiffness which results due to the
overlapping of the extendible wing inside the main outer wing.
With the confirmation of similar values for the torsional stiffness and the form
factor, the analysis is repeated for the original multi-material wing structure. The
equations (5.45), (5.46), (5.47) and (5.53) are used again. Now, the geometric properties
of the structure i.e. the values for area, area moment of inertia, torsional area moment of
inertia and form factor are know. And, the material properties i.e. the modulus of
elasticity and the shear modulus of elasticity and thus the bending and torsional stiffness
are unknown. The deflections are obtained from ANSYS simulations. By forward
substitution process, the stiffness are obtained as a function of span.
The entire process is repeated for an extension of 2.5, 5.0 and 7.5 (100%) inches
and, the bending and torsional stiffness are calculated as shown in the subsequent
graphs.
With the knowledge of these stiffness as a function of span, the bending
deformation and influence function (equation (5.5)), and torsional deformation and
influence function equation (5.6)) can be calculated. The bending deformation and
influence function is required for the study of the dynamic aeroelastic problems; the
future study for this morphable wing.
77
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
0 10 20 30
Span (in)
T
o
r
s
i
o
n
a
l
S
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s
(
l
b
f
-
i
n
/
r
a
d
)
.
Extension = 0
Extension = 2.5
Extension = 5.0
Extension = 7.4
Figure 5.22: Plot showing the variation in torsional stiffness as a function of span for
various values of extensions
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
0 10 20 30
Span (in)
B
e
n
d
i
n
g
S
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s
(
l
b
f
/
i
n
)
.
Extension = 0
Extension = 2.5
Extension = 5.0
Extension = 7.4
Figure 5.23: Plot showing the variation in bending stiffness as a function of span for
various values of extensions
Using equations (5.18), (5.19), (5.20) and (5.21) the divergence speed is
calculated for the aforementioned extensions. Following is an example calculation for
the unextended case has been shown
78
Based on the torsional stiffness information obtained from the above flowchart,
using equation 5.5
0.000142657 0.000118095 7.72944E-05 4.19197E-06 0
0.000118095 0.000118095 7.72944E-05 4.19197E-06 0
C = 7.72944E-05 7.72944E-05 7.72944E-05 4.19197E-06 0
4.19197E-06 4.19197E-06 4.19197E-06 4.19197E-06 0
0 0 0 0 0
uu
(
(
(
(
(
(
(