Parametric-study-of-a-fixed-wing-flutter-aeroelastic-

problem

Hazem Saad and Mohamed Khairy

And

Ahmed Nashaat and Ahmed Hashem and Ahmed Elghanam

In this project, a parametric study will be performed on the effect of

changing structural properties on the flutter speed and frequency. We have
chosen Euler beam to represent the structural model, and Theondorsen
theory for unsteady aerodynamics to represent the aerodynamic model. First,
we will start by explaining the details of mathematical derivations of a simple
2D airfoil model, followed by flutter speed and frequency calculations.

Nomenclature
a = the elastic location
b = half the chord
C(k) = theThenderson s function of the reduced frequency k
d = the distance between shear center and center of mass.
e = is distance between center of mass and elastic axis.
m = is mass per unit length.
S = em mass unbalance.
X = non-dimensional quantity

= mass density

I = polar moment of mass per unit length

T = kinetic energy
U = potential energy
v = freestream velocity
h = transverse motion
r = Radius of gyration
w = frequency of oscillation
w : = elastic deformation
wh
= the ratio between bending and torsion frequency
w

I. Introduction
Aeroelasticity is a branch of physics dealing with the mutual interaction between inertia,
aerodynamics and elasticity. Flutter is a dynamic instability aeroelastic problem that happens due
to the lack of sufficient damping in the system to pump out the extra energy in the structural
element. The flutter speed is the speed at which the system exhibits sustained oscillations with
zero damping. Beyond this point, the systems behavior becomes unstable and starts to diverge
exponentially. Many flutter instability models have been proposed in literature ranging from
1
Parametric study flutter problem
simple 2D airfoils having two degrees of freedom, to a full 3D wind exhibiting unsteady
aerodynamic loadings.

II. Literature review

The literature has a correlated progress in developing aerodynamic models, structural model
and coupling them in an aeroelastic model to extract the flutter speed and frequency. In 1918,
Blasius made simple calculations after the failure of the lower wing of Albatross D3 biplane,
but the lack of aerodynamic theories formulation for non-stationary airfoils prevented him
from getting the exact reason for the failure. In 1934, Theodorsen [1] formulated the governing
equations of oscillating airfoils and published it. After that, Smilg [2] discussed in details
several types of single degree of freedom flutter involving control surfaces. For supersonic
flight regimes, first order piston theory has been extensively used in literature to model the
pressure difference across moving plates in compressible flow. Engineers started to face flutter
problem in many applications including, Bridges, helicopter blades, wind turbines and
electricity transferring cables. As correlation with experiments was needed, Alvin and Paterson
[3] proposed a new technique to extract the mass and stiffness matrices from modal test data.
After the formulation of finite element solution became easy to understand, Euler beam has
been used instead of the simple 2D typical section model. Then, Due to the deviation of Euler
beam response with high frequencies, Timoshenko realized the source of error due to the
neglection of shear strain, its popularly known as Timoshenko beam. Reddy [4] has provided a
comprehensive way to formulate a finite element model for Timoshenko beam. The merging
between torsional and bending natural frequencies usually appears at the flutter point. Many
researchers have published different merging cases. After engineers and scientists understood
the physical interpretation of flutter problem and has the needed numerical schemes. Load
alleviation techniques have been proposed. The usage of active and passive dampers in certain
position along the wing span has led to excellent performance in delaying the flutter speed and
extending the flight regime. Smart materials have been used in literature. Makihara, Onoda and
Minisugi [5] have investigated the effect of attaching piezoelectric patches to plates moving in
supersonic flow regime on the flutter suppression. The critical pressure has been increased by
24% due to the existence patches.

2
Parametric study flutter problem
 III. Problem Definition

A. Typical section aeroelastic equations formulation

Structural model
The following figure represents a wing with two attached springs, one torsional spring and the
other one is longitudinal (transverse) spring. The h coordinate which represents the vertical
displacement is set to have its positive direction downwards. And x coordinate perpendicular to
it.
Using Hamilton Theory in order to derive the governing equation of the 2 DOFs.

Figure structural model

Starting with the kinetic energy formulation

This integration results in

using Potential Energy formulation:

3
Parametric study flutter problem
 And External work formulation:

Applying the previous equations, we can get the final two coupled differential equation

Eliminating the coupling and setting the lift and moment to zero will lead to two
uncoupled differential equations. The uncoupled natural frequencies of bending and
torsion can be then extracted from the equations.

w h=
kh
m

w =
k
I

Now we need to substitute L and M y in the previous equation. Instead of using the
quasi-static aerodynamic theory that neglect a lot of the physical quantities that take place
especially in flutter. Well use unsteady aerodynamics theory called Theondersons
theorem. Note: the derivation of Theondersons theorem is omitted in this report because
its lengthy however itll be included in the final report in the appendix.

According to Thendersons theorem, the lift force and moment after being transformed in
frequency domain is as follows

4
Parametric study flutter problem
 Thenderson function can be approximated as the following:
ab 2 cd 2
(
C ( k )=1ac + 2 2 + 2 2 k 2 2 + 2 2 i
b + k d +k
ab
b +k) (( cd
)(
d +k ))
a=0.165;
b=0.0455;
c=0.335;
d=0.3;
The differential equations can be transformed to the frequency domain to study
the systems stability.

h( x , t)=h e jwt (x , t)= e jwt

After introducing those non-dimensional quantities,

5
Parametric study flutter problem
 After mathematical manipulation and simplification, we get the following eigen value
problem.

To get a non-trivial solution, the determinant has to be equal to zero. This is a very complex
set of equations and four unknowns ( w , , M k . If we solved the quadratic equation it
gives only two solutions. So, an initial guess for some parameters would help in solving this set
of complex equation to get the solution.
One of the most powerful methods that are used to solve such problem is called V-g method.
At the beginning, Engineers and scientist observed that, the structural damping is presented as
w 2 w 2
complex term as (
w( ) (1+ di) ) instead of (
w ( )
). Where d is the damping coefficient.
Hence if its included in the analysis, it would give other two equations because a quadratic
complex equation will be introduced with four solutions. Scanlan and Rosenbaum (1948)
suggested that if a fictitious structural damping is used say g for example. We will get the four
unknowns. And then we can set it to zero to determine the point of zero damping in which its the
flutter point.

Then the final set of equations will be as the following,

Finally, the solution procedures will be as follows:

1) Specify an initial guess for k, say 0.1, obtain all the constants.
w 2
2) Solve the quadratic equation to get two values for ( )
w1,2
( 1+ g1,2 ) .
w 2
3) Set ( )
w1,2
( 1+ g1,2 ) =X 1,2 +Y 1,2 i .

6
Parametric study flutter problem
 w w
4) We get w 1= , w2= .
X1 X2
Y1 Y2
5) We get g1 = , g2 =
X1 X2
A curve called V-g curve is plotted between the nondementia free stream
speed with the artificial damping introduced in the system, flutter happens when the
artificial damping equals the actual system damping, in most cases it is zero.

B. Euler beam aeroelastic formulation

Using a similar procedure with the one followed in developing the structural model, here are the
two coupled differential equations representing the problem

Where X cm X 0 is the distance between the elastic axis and center of gravity, m is the
mass of the beam, I is the polar moment of inertia about the elastic axis, EI and GJ are the
flexural and torsional rigidity, respectively, h and represent the two degrees of freedom, the
generalized coordinates, L and M are the applied moment and lift distribution along the beam.
FEM has to be used to solve the problem, Galarkin technique will be applied to discretize
the domain spatially. Free vibration problem will be solved to obtain the natural frequencies of
the beam, bending and torsional natural frequencies will be obtained, then the flutter speed is to
be determined by transforming the time domain equations to frequency domain to start capturing
the eigen values of the problem. Another way to solve the problem is to use extended
hamiltons principle to start formulating the finite element model using system energy, and
here is the full formulation:
t2

(uT w ) dt=0
t1
1
dT = dm v 2
2
v =w+ x

7
Parametric study flutter problem
Kinetic energy:
1 2
dT = ( w + y ) dm
2
1 2 1 2 2
T = w dm + y dm+ w ydm
2 2

1 1
y 2 2 dm =
2 y 2 2 ( dxdydz)
2 v

2 ( x , t ) y 2 ( dydz ) dx
2 dx dz
I L 2
dx
2 0
L

w ydm= w y dxdydz= w y dydydx=em w dx

m v A 0
L

w ydm=s w dx
m 0
L L L L L
dx + s w dx +s w
T = w w dx+ s w dx + I dx
0 0 0 0 0

Potential energy:
L 2 L
d2w 2
1
U= EI
2 0 d x2 ( )
dx+
1
2
GJ x dx
0
( )
L L
d2w d2 w
U =EI
0 dx 2 ( )(
dx 2
dx+GJ

0 x
) ( )( x )dx
Finite element formulation

{}
w1
w1
w ( x ,t )= [ N 1 N 2 N 3 N 4 ] 1 =N I w (t)
w2
w 12

{}
1

( x , t )=[ N 5 N 6 0 0 ] 2 =N II (t )
0
0

8
Parametric study flutter problem
 [ ]
3 x2 2 x3
1 + 3

[]
l2 l x
1
2 x x3
2
x + 3 h
l l x
NI= N II =
3x 2x2 3
h
3
l2 l 0
x x2
3 0

l2 l

t2 t2 t2

U dt= U 1 dt + U 2 dt
t1 t1 t1
t2 t2 L 2 2
U 1 dt = EI
t1 t1 0
( )( d w
d x2
d w
d x2 )
dx dt
t2 L
d 2 ( N I w) d 2 ( N I w)
EI
t1
t2
0
L
( d x2 )(
d x2
dx dt )
EI w ( t ) N x x N x x w ( t ) 4 x 1 dx dt
4 x1 1x4
t1 0
t2

[ w ( t ) ]1 x 4 [ k b ]4 x 4 [ w ( t ) ]4 x 1 dt
t1
t2 L t2 L t2

GJ
t1 0
( )( )
x x
dx dt= GJ ( t ) N x4 x 4 N x1 x 4 [ ] 4 x1 dx= ( t ) K ( t ) dt
t1 0 t1

t2 t2 L L L L L
dx + s w dx +s w
Tdt = w w dx + s w dx + I dx
t1 t1 0 0 0 0 0
Integration by parts:
w w

t2
t1

L

0
Since the end conditions are known, the variation at those temporal points becomes zero

w w
L
|
t2
t1
+ s w
t1 | t1 |
t 2 + s w t 2 + I t 2 =0
t1 |
w wdx= [w] M b [ w]
0

9
Parametric study flutter problem
 N
[ I ]
{N I } dx

L

M e =
0

[ ]
156 22 l 54 13 l
l 22 l 4 l 2 13 l 3l 2
M e=
420 54 13 l 156 22l
13 l 3l 2 22 l 4 l 2
L

I dx= [ ] M { }
0
I h 1 2
M = [ ]
6 2 1
L L
d2( N I w)
s w dx =
0
L
0
( dt2 )( N II ) dx

s [ ] N II 4 x 1 N I dx w o
1 x4
0
[ ] M coupled [ w]
L
M coupled = N II4 x1 N I dx 1x 4
0
l
s w dx= [ w ] M coupled [ ]
0
t2 t2

U dt= Tdt
t1 t1

[ w ] K b [ w ] 4 x 1+ [ ] K [ ] + [ w ] M b [ w ] + [ ] M [ ] + w M coupled [ ] + [ ] M coupled [ w ] =0

K b [ w ] + M b [ w ] + M coupled [ ] =0

K [ ] + M [ ] + M coupled [ w ] =0

[ Mb
M coupled M ][ ] [
M coupled w K b 0
+
0 K
=0
0 ][]
[ M ] { x }+ [ k ] { x }=[0]
For a single element with two nodes, there will be 3 degrees of freedom at each node as
the following:
w1, w1, 1 w2, w2, 2
10
Parametric study flutter problem
 The displacement vector of an element will be as the following:

{}
h1
h' 1
u = 1
e

h2
h' 2
2

The mass and stiffness matrices will be of size 6X6 as 4 degrees of freedom are coming due to
bending and two are coming due to torsion. The mass and stiffness matrices coming from torsion
and bending uncoupled, respectively are as the following:

GJ 1 1
k etortion = (
h 1 1 )
Ih 2 1
metortion= ( )
6 1 2

[ ]
12 6 h 12 6 h
h 6h
3 4 h 6 h 2 h2
12 6 h 12 6 h
2 2
6 h 2h 6 h 4 h
EI
k ebend i ng=

[ ]
156 22 h 54 h 13 h
Ah 22 h 4 h2 13h 3 h2
mebending=
420 4 h2 13 h 156 22 h
13 h 156 6 h 4 h2

Aerodynamics Stifness & damping matrices:

11
Parametric study flutter problem
 0
0
h

0 0 0 dxh
0 0 0 0
h

A aerodynamics =0.25 V 2 ChordCl=

[ ]
7h 3h
20 20
h2 h2
mcoupled =em 20 30
3h 7h
20 20
h2 h2
30 20

Where:
e : mass offset.
M : mass per unit length

IV. Results and further analysis of effects of various parameters.

A benchmark problem has been solved to determine the critical flutter speed [10].

0.03
x 0.1 m

12
Parametric study flutter problem
 Numerical values of structural and aerodynamic properties are mentioned in the next table:

Calculated natural frequencies and flutter speed at different elements number is presented in
the following tables, quasi steady aerodynamic theory is applied in this case to simplify the
analysis procedure.:

Current study

Number of elements 10 20 40
First bending (Hz) 9.89886894165 Hz 9.89886100932 Hz 9.8988605366 Hz
Second bending (Hz) 62.03715294508 Hz 62.03522981038 Hz 62.0351078464 Hz
First torsion (Hz) 92.75324 Hz 92.78324 Hz 92.75924 Hz
Second torsion (Hz) 280.56455 Hz 280.56755 Hz 280.55455 Hz
Flutter speed m/s 150 150.2 150.4

Previous study [6]

Number of elements 10 20 40
First bending (Hz) 9.898798 Hz 9.898791 Hz 9.898791 Hz
Second bending (Hz) 62.03404 Hz 62.03219 Hz 62.03209 Hz
First torsion (Hz) 92.75845 Hz 92.68698 Hz 92.67375 Hz
Second torsion (Hz) 280.5683 Hz 278.633 Hz 278.2754 Hz
Flutter speed m/s 146.806 147.057 ----------------

length 0.5 m
Also, a code for 2D width 0.1 m airfoil is used to
predict the flutter thickness 0.003 m speed using simple V-g
curve and applying E 71 GPa Theondorsen theory
for unsteady G 25 GPa aerodynamics.
Material density 2722.7 kg/m^3
Fig 1. V-g curve Air density 1.225 kg/m^3 representing the
relationship between Shear offset 0 airspeed and system
damping

13
Parametric study flutter problem
 The predicted flutter speed using v-g curve is 123 m/s.

Second, an actual wing of SARAS aircraft is used to determine the critical flutter speed.

Fig 2. Plan view of SARAS wing

Geometric and aerodynamic characteristics of the wing are found in [7].

Here is a comparison between actual wing parameters and reduced parameters as well
flutter speed calculation.

Current study

G (modulus of rigidity) E (modulus of elasticity) Flutter speed m/sec

27.6109 7210 9 680 m/s
9 9
13.3510 3.610 480 m/s
2.76109 7.210 9 220 m/s

Previous study

G (modulus of rigidity) E (modulus of elasticity) Flutter speed m/sec

9 9
27.610 7210 635 m/s
13.3510 9 3.6109 ------------------------------------
9 9
2.7610 7.210 201 m/s

Effect of various parameters on flutter speed

1. Effect of modulus of rigidity

14
Parametric study flutter problem
 Relationship between freestream velocity and G(all other parameters are fixed)
600

500 f(x) = 0x + 176.67

Modulus of rigidity

400

300

200

100

0
2.00E+09 4.00E+09 6.00E+09 8.00E+09 1.00E+10 1.20E+10 1.40E+10 1.60E+10 1.80E+10
Freestream speed

Fig 3. Relationship between freestream speed and G.

Relationship between modulus of rigity ratios and freestream velocity ratios (All other parameters are fixed)
1.6
1.4
1.2 f(x) = 0.34x + 0.7
Modulus of rigidity ratio

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1.10E+00 1.20E+00 1.30E+00 1.40E+00 1.50E+00 1.60E+00 1.70E+00 1.80E+00 1.90E+00 2.00E+00 2.10E+00
Freestream speed ratio

Fig 3. Relationship between modulus of rigidity ratios and velocity ratios.

From the above relations, we can inspect that the increase of modulus of rigidity by factor
n, increases the flutter speed by factor by about n , this is consistent with what is mentioned
in literature. According to [7] the flutter speed increases by n when the torsional rigidity
increases by factor n.

2. Effect of modulus elasticity E

15
Parametric study flutter problem
 Relationship between freestream velocity and E(all other parameters are fixed)
222.5
222
221.5
221

Modulus of elasticity
220.5
220
219.5
219
218.5
0.00E+00 1.00E+00 2.00E+00 3.00E+00 4.00E+00 5.00E+00 6.00E+00 7.00E+00
Freestream speed

Fig 3. Relationship between freestream velocity and modulus of elasticity.

As can be observed from the graph, the influence of modulus of elasticity in flutter speed
in very small and this can be also observed in reference [7], almost negligible in design
considerations.

V. Conclusion
From the above data, some important design characteristics can be interpreted such as the
following:

1. The effect of torsional rigidity is important in designing structures that can sustain safe
flight operations without hitting the flutter speed.
2. The effect of modulus of elasticity is small.
3. The effect of shear offset is important design parameter as it affects the value of torsional
frequency.
.

Future research
The field of aeroelasticity is an active one and many problems are appearing everyday due to
the high demand on designing low weight structures with prescribed structural properties using
composite materials. The following ideas can be addressed in the future.

1. Determination of flutter speed calculations for composite structures.

2. Designing composite structures according to prescribed structural properties that maintain
a safe flight regime.
3. Assessing the effect of rotation in flutter speed calculations.
4. Solving coupled flutter-buckling problem for new generation of 10MW+ wind turbines to
identify the critical region.

16
Parametric study flutter problem
 References
1. Theodorsen T. General theory of aerodynamic instability and the mechanism of
flutter. NACA Report 496, Washington, D.C., 1935.
2. Smilg, B.: The Instability of Pitching Oscillations of an Airfoil in Subsonic
Incompressible Potential Flow. J.Aeronaut.Sci.16,691-696 (Nov.1949).
3. D.J.Evins, Modal Testing: Theory and Practice, Research and Study Press Ltd. John
Wiley and Sons Inc,1986.
4. Reddy J N 1993 An introduction to the finite element method 2nd edn (New York:
McGraw-Hill) pp. 177-187
5. Makihara, K., Onoda, J. and Minesugi, K. (2006). Flutter Suppression of Cantilevered
Plate Wing using Piezoelectric Materials. International Journal of Aeronautical and
Space Sciences, 7(2), pp.70-85.
6. A theoretical formulation of flutter analysis of a typical subsonic aircraft wing SARS
using quasi steady aerodynamic theory, report.
7. Fung, Y. (2008). An introduction to the theory of aeroelasticity. 1st ed. Mineola, N.Y.:
Dover Publications.

17
Parametric study flutter problem