Sie sind auf Seite 1von 56
CRD Computational Aeroelasticity The Cultural and Convention Center METU Inonu bulvari Ankara, Turkey Sponsored by:

CRD

Computational Aeroelasticity

The Cultural and Convention Center METU Inonu bulvari Ankara, Turkey

Sponsored by:

RTA-NATO The Applied Vehicle Technology Panel

presented by R.M. Kolonay Ph.D.

General Electric Corporate Research & Development Center

Ankara, Turkey Oct

1-5, 2001

CRD Presentation Outline • Introduction - Fluid-Structure Interactions •Aeroelasticity - Aeroelastic analysis/design

CRD

Presentation Outline

Introduction

- Fluid-Structure Interactions •Aeroelasticity

- Aeroelastic analysis/design in an MDA/MDO Environment

Static Aeroelasticity

Dynamic Aeroelasticity

Commercial Programs with Aeroelastic Analysis/Design Capabilities

CRD Introduction Fluid Structure Interaction - Any system where the fluid and structure cannot be

CRD

Introduction

Fluid Structure Interaction

- Any system where the fluid and structure cannot be considered independently to predict the response of the fluid, the structure, or both.

Some Fields of Application

Aerospace Vehicles

- Aircraft, Spacecraft, Rotorcraft, Compressors, Combustors, Turbines

Utilities

- Hydroturbines, Steamturbines, Gasturbines, Piping, Transmission Lines

Civil Structures

- Bridges, Buildings

Transportations

•Trains, Automobiles, Ships

CRD Introduction Fields of Application (Continued) • Medical - Blood flow in veins, arteries, and

CRD

Introduction

Fields of Application (Continued)

Medical

- Blood flow in veins, arteries, and heart

Marine

- Submarines, Off-shore Platforms, Docks, Piers

Computer Technology

- High velocity flexible storage devices

CRD Introduction Failure to recognize F-S Interaction Tacoma Narrows Bridge #1 (Galloping Girtie) - Chief

CRD

Introduction

Failure to recognize F-S Interaction

Tacoma Narrows Bridge #1 (Galloping Girtie)

- Chief Designer: Leon Moisseiff

- Length: 5,939 ft.

- 42 MPH winds induced vortical separated flow that lead to torsional flutter

- Piers used in second bridge

- 1992: National Historic Site (natural reef)

- Photos taken by Leonard Coatsworth

Piers used in second bridge - 1992: National Historic Site (natural reef) - Photos taken by
Piers used in second bridge - 1992: National Historic Site (natural reef) - Photos taken by
CRD Introduction Kolonay Aeroelasticity (sub-set of FS Int.) Aeroelasticity (British Engineers Cox and Pugsley credited

CRD

Introduction

Kolonay

Aeroelasticity (sub-set of FS Int.)

Aeroelasticity (British Engineers Cox and Pugsley credited with term) - Substantial inter- action among the aerodynamic, inertial, and structural forces that act upon and within the flight vehicle.

Aerodynamic Forces Dynamic Static Aero- Elasticity Stability Dynamic Aeroelasticity Inertial Forces Elastic Forces
Aerodynamic Forces
Dynamic
Static Aero-
Elasticity
Stability
Dynamic
Aeroelasticity
Inertial Forces
Elastic Forces
Mechanical
Vibration

6

CRD Introduction Early Aeroelastic Problems • S. P. Langley’s Aerodome (monoplane) - 1/2 scale flew

CRD

Introduction

Early Aeroelastic Problems S. P. Langley’s Aerodome (monoplane)

- 1/2 scale flew

- October, 1903: Full scale failed, possibly due to wing torsional divergence

- 1914 Curtis made some modification and flew successfully.

possibly due to wing torsional divergence - 1914 Curtis made some modification and flew successfully. Kolonay
possibly due to wing torsional divergence - 1914 Curtis made some modification and flew successfully. Kolonay
CRD Introduction After Langley’s failure the U.S. War Department reported - “We are still far

CRD

Introduction

After Langley’s failure the U.S. War Department reported -

“We are still far from the ultimate goal, and it would seem as if years of constant work would still be necessary before we can hope to produce an apparatus of practical utility on these lines.”

9 Days Later

CRD Introduction December 17, 1903 Kolonay 9

CRD

Introduction

December 17, 1903

CRD Introduction December 17, 1903 Kolonay 9
CRD Introduction Early Aeroelastic Problems • Hadley Page 0/400 bomber - Bi-plane tail flutter problems

CRD

Introduction

Early Aeroelastic Problems Hadley Page 0/400 bomber

- Bi-plane tail flutter problems (fuselage torsion coupled with elevators)

- DH-9 had similar problems

- Solution was to add torsional stiffness between right and left elevators.

- DH-9 had similar problems - Solution was to add torsional stiffness between right and left
CRD Introduction Early Aeroelastic Problems • Fokker D-8 (credited with last official kill of WW

CRD

Introduction

Early Aeroelastic Problems Fokker D-8 (credited with last official kill of WW I)

- D8 had great performance but suffered from wing failures in steep dives

- Early monoplanes had insufficient torsional stiffness resulting in:

• wing flutter, wing-aileron flutter

• loss of aileron effectiveness

- Solution: Increase torsional stiffness, mass balancing

flutter • loss of aileron effectiveness - Solution: Increase torsional stiffness, mass balancing Kolonay 11
CRD Introduction Computational Aeroelasticity Early Theoretical Developments[1],[3]. • Wing divergence - Reissner

CRD

Introduction

Computational Aeroelasticity

Early Theoretical Developments[1],[3].

Wing divergence - Reissner (1926)

Wing flutter - Frazer and Duncan (1929)

Aileron reversal - Cox (1932)

Unsteady aerodynamics and flutter - Glauert, Frazer, Duncan, Kussner, Theodorsen (1935)

3 DOF wing aileron flutter - Smlig and Wasserman (1942)

By Early 1930’s Analytical methods existed to aid designers to consider both static and dynamic aeroelastic phenomena

CRD Introduction Computational Aeroelasticity Designs from the 40’s-70’s “designed out” Aeroelastic Effects •

CRD

Introduction

Computational Aeroelasticity

Designs from the 40’s-70’s “designed out” Aeroelastic Effects

Accomplished by increasing structural stiffness or mass bal- ancing (always at weight cost)

70’s & 80’s brought technology developments in three key areas

Structures, Controls, and Computational Methods

- Advanced composite materials enabled aeroelastic tailoring

- Fly By Wire and Digital Control Systems enabled statically unstable aircraft

- FEM, CFD, Optimization, Computational Power enabled advanced designs.

CRD Introduction Aeroelastic Successes • DARPA sponsored X-29 (First flight 1984) - Aeroelastic tailored (graphite

CRD

Introduction

Aeroelastic Successes

DARPA sponsored X-29 (First flight 1984)

- Aeroelastic tailored (graphite epoxy) forward swept wing

- Fly By Wire triple redundant digital and analog control system

- Germany proposed FSW designs (He 162) in WWII

By Wire triple redundant digital and analog control system - Germany proposed FSW designs (He 162)
CRD Introduction Aeroelastic Successes • Active Aeroelastic Wing USAF/NASA (AAW) - Use control surfaces (leading

CRD

Introduction

Aeroelastic Successes

Active Aeroelastic Wing USAF/NASA (AAW)

- Use control surfaces (leading and trailing edge) as tabs to twist the wing for maneuvers

- Use TE surfaces beyond reversal

- Produces lighter more maneuverable aircraft

twist the wing for maneuvers - Use TE surfaces beyond reversal - Produces lighter more maneuverable
CRD Introduction Product Structural Design in an MDA/MDO Environment Maintenance Structures Manufacture Acoustics

CRD

Introduction

Product Structural Design in an MDA/MDO Environment

Maintenance Structures Manufacture Acoustics Reliability Aerodynamics Dynamics MDA/MDO Distribution Producibility
Maintenance
Structures
Manufacture
Acoustics
Reliability
Aerodynamics
Dynamics
MDA/MDO
Distribution
Producibility
Heat Transfer
Controls
Sales
Robustness
Marketing
Electo-Magnetics
Cost
CRD Computational Aeroelasticity Goal of Computational Aeroelasticity To accurately predict static and dynamic

CRD

Computational Aeroelasticity

Goal of Computational Aeroelasticity

To accurately predict static and dynamic response/stability so that it can be accounted for (avoided or taken advantage of) early in the design process.

CRD Computational Aeroelasticity Aeroelastic Equations of Motion Mu ˙˙ + Bu ˙ + Ku =

CRD

Computational Aeroelasticity

Aeroelastic Equations of Motion

Mu˙˙ + Bu˙ + Ku = Fuu( ,,,˙ u˙˙ t )

K – Structural Stiffness B – Structural Damping M – Structural Mass Fuu( , ˙, u˙˙, t ) – External Aerodynamic Loads

CRD Computational Aeroelasticity Discretization of EOM • Structures KBM , , - Typically, although not

CRD

Computational Aeroelasticity

Discretization of EOM

Structures

KBM,

,

- Typically, although not necessarily, rep-

resented by Finite Elements in either physical or generalized coordinates. Derived in a Lagrangian frame of reference.

External Loads

Fuu( , ˙, t)

- Aerodynamic loads. Representa-

tions range from Prandtl’s lifting line theory to full Navier- Stokes with turbulence modeling. Represented in physical and generalized coordinates in a (usually) Eulerian frame of refer- ence.

CRD Computational Aeroelasticity Fluid-Structural Coupling Requirements • Must ensure spatial compatibility - proper

CRD

Computational Aeroelasticity

Fluid-Structural Coupling Requirements

Must ensure spatial compatibility - proper energy exchange across the fluid-structural boundary

Time marching solutions require proper time synchronization between fluid and structural systems

For moving CFD meshes GCL[6] must be satisfied

If coupling requirements for time-accurate aeroelastic simula- tion are not met then dynamical equivalence cannot be achieved. That is, regardless of the fineness of the CFD/CSM meshes and the reduction of time step to 0, the scheme may con- verge to the “wrong” equilibrium/instability point.[5]

CRD Computational Aeroelasticity General Modeling Comments • Use appropriate theory to capture desired phenomena -

CRD

Computational Aeroelasticity

General Modeling Comments

Use appropriate theory to capture desired phenomena

- Fluids - Navier-Stokes vs. Prandtls’ lifting line theory

- Structures - Nonlinear FEM vs. Euler beam theory

Model the fluid and structure with a consistent fidelity

- For a wing don’t model the fluid with NS and the structure with beam theory

CRD Computational Aeroelasticity Aeroelastic Phenomena Static Aeroelastic Phenomena • Lift Effectiveness •

CRD

Computational Aeroelasticity

Aeroelastic Phenomena

Static Aeroelastic Phenomena

Lift Effectiveness

Divergence

Control Surface Effective- ness/Reversal

Aileron Effectiveness/ Reversal

Dynamic Aeroelastic Phenomena

Flutter

Gust Response

Buffet

Limit Cycle Oscillations (LCO)

Panel Flutter

Transient Maneuvers

Control Surface Buzz

CRD Static Aeroelasticity Static Aeroelastic Phenomena • Lift Effectiveness • Divergence • Control Surface

CRD

Static Aeroelasticity

Static Aeroelastic Phenomena

Lift Effectiveness

Divergence

Control Surface Effectiveness/Reversal

Aileron Effectiveness/Reversal

CRD Static Aeroelasticity Static Aeroelastic Effects • For trimmed flight aeroelastic effects change only load

CRD

Static Aeroelasticity

Static Aeroelastic Effects

For trimmed flight aeroelastic effects change only load distri- bution.

- Lift

- Drag

- Pitching Moment

- Rolling Moment

For constrained flight (wind tunnel models) aeroelastic effects change both magnitude and distribution of loads.

CRD Static Aeroelasticity Useful 2-D Section Definitions L Shear Center/Center of Twist M AC Aerodynamic

CRD

Static Aeroelasticity

Useful 2-D Section Definitions

L Shear Center/Center of Twist M AC Aerodynamic Center e
L
Shear Center/Center of Twist
M
AC
Aerodynamic Center
e

Shear Center/Center of Twist - Applied Shear force results in no moment or twist - Applied moment produces no shear force or bending

Aerodynamic Center - Pitching moment independent of angle of attack - 0.25c for subsonic, 0.5c for supersonic

Center of Pressure - Total Aerodynamic Moment equal zero (AC=SC for symm. airfoil)

e - Eccentricity

CRD Static Aeroelasticity Effect of Swept Wing Bending on Streamwise Aerodynamic Incidence Flexible Wing Rigid

CRD

Static Aeroelasticity

Effect of Swept Wing Bending on Streamwise Aerodynamic Incidence

Flexible Wing

Rigid Wing

“wash out”

A-A

Incidence Flexible Wing Rigid Wing “wash out” A-A U A A ASW “wash in” A-A Flexible
U A A ASW
U
A
A
ASW

“wash in”

A-A

Flexible Wing Rigid Wing “wash out” A-A U A A ASW “wash in” A-A Flexible Wing

Flexible Wing

Rigid Wing A A
Rigid Wing
A
A

FSW

CRD Linear Static Aeroelasticity { u ˙˙ } F ( u ) EOM [ K

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

{ u˙˙}

F(u)

EOM [ K ] { u } + [ M ] { u˙˙}

=

{ F ( u ) }

- rigid body accelerations only, used for inertial relief and trim - Steady aerodynamic forces can be represented as

F(u)

=

T

q[G]

S

+

[AIC] G

[

]{u}

q[G]

or

(u)

=

q[AICS]{u}

+

q

[

P

T [AIRFRC]{ }

a

]{

Now (1) can be written as

[ K qAICS ] { u } + [ M ] { u˙˙}

=

qP

[

a ]{ }

(1)

(2)

For Linear Aerodynamics [AIC] & [AIRFRC] depend only on Mach Number (M)

CRD Linear Static Aeroelasticity Steady Aerodynamic Loads F ( u ) = T q [

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

Steady Aerodynamic Loads

F(u)

=

T

q[G]

s

+

[AIC] G

[

]{u}

q[G]

T [AIRFRC]{ }

q = Free stream dynamic pressure

[G] T

- Spline matrix which transforms forces from Aerodynamic DOF (ADOF) to

Structural DOF (SDOF).

{

F

s

}

=

[G]

T {

F

a

}

[

{

G

s

]

a

}

- Spline matrix which transforms SDOF (displacements) to ADOF (panel slopes)

=

[

G

s

]{u}

[AIC]

- Aerodynamic Influence Coefficient Matrix. Relates forces on ADOF (panels)

due to unit perturbations of the ADOF (slopes)

[]AIRFRC

- Unit Rigid body aerodynamic load vectors. One vector for each

i

{

- Vector of aerodynamic configuration parameters (angle of attack, elevator angle, aileron deflection, roll rate, pitch rate etc.)

}

CRD Linear Static Aeroelasticity Aeroelastic Effects on Swept Wing Forces and Moments 0.12 0.12 0.11

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

Aeroelastic Effects on Swept Wing Forces and Moments 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.1 0.1 0.09 0.08
Aeroelastic Effects on Swept Wing Forces and
Moments
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.1
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.04
Rigid ASW
0.04
0.03
Flex ASW
Rigid FSW
0.02
0.02
0.01
Flex FSW
0
2
0
2
4
6
8
0.002
0.001
0
-0.001
0
2
0
2
4
6
8
-0.01
-0.02
-0.02
-0.03
Angle of Attack
Induced Drag C D
Pitching Moment C M
Coefficient of Lift C L
CRD Linear Static Aeroelasticity Divergence of a Constrained Vehicle • When the aerodynamic stiffness qAICS

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

Divergence of a Constrained Vehicle

When the aerodynamic stiffness

qAICS

becomes greater than

the structural stiffness

K , the structure fails or diverges.

The divergence dynamic pressure for a restrained vehicle can be found by solving the eigenvalue problem (static stability)

[K qAICS]{u} = {0}

Lowest eigenvalue

pressure

q D

represents the divergence dynamic

The eigenvector

Divergence is independent of initial angle of attack

{

}

represents the divergent shape

u

D

(3)

CRD Linear Static Aeroelasticity Affect of Sweep on Lift Effectiveness (M=0.7) ASW 1 0.9 0.8

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

Affect of Sweep on Lift Effectiveness

(M=0.7)

ASW

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 5 10 C
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
5
10
C L
Eq. (20)

Dynamic Pressure (psi)

FSW 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
FSW
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6 0.8

Dynamic Pressure (psi)

q D

CRD Linear Static Aeroelasticity Static Aeroelastic Trim Equations Writing equation (2) in the f-set (Reference

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

Static Aeroelastic Trim Equations

Writing equation (2) in the f-set (Reference Appendix A) yields

[

K

ff

qAICS]u f +

or

M

a

K ff u f

+

M

ff

u˙˙

f

ff

=

u˙˙

f

P

a

f

=

P

a

f

(4)

Using the procedure in Appendix A for Guyan reduction equation (4) can be cast in the a- set as

M aa

K

a

aa u a

+

M aa u˙˙ a

with

=

a

P a

=

a

in the a- set as M aa K a aa u a + M a a

T

M

a

oo G o

(5)

CRD Linear Static Aeroelasticity Equation (5) can now be partitioned into the r-set and the

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

Equation (5) can now be partitioned into the r-set and the l-set to

a u lr l a u r rr
a
u
lr
l
a
u
r
rr

a

ll

a

rl

ll M lr rl M rr = Du˙˙ r
ll M lr
rl M rr
=
Du˙˙
r
a u˙˙ l P l = u˙˙ r a P l
a
u˙˙ l
P
l
=
u˙˙ r
a
P
l

D

K

K

K

M

+

(6)

M

K

is the rigid body transfor-

mation matrix. To produce stability derivatives that are independent of the r-set (i.e. sup- port point) an orthogonality condition is imposed in the form

As with the inertial relief formulation

u˙˙ l

where

M u ll M lr l = 0 (7) D T I M u rl
M
u
ll M lr
l
=
0
(7)
D T I
M
u
rl M rr
r
Using the orthogonality condition and
u˙˙ l
= Du˙˙ r
equation (6) can be cast in the fol-

lowing form

CRD Linear Static Aeroelasticity a K ll K a rl + D T M ll

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

CRD Linear Static Aeroelasticity a K ll K a rl + D T M ll M
CRD Linear Static Aeroelasticity a K ll K a rl + D T M ll M

a

K ll

K a

rl

+

D T M ll

M rl

a

K lr

K

M ll D

a

rr M rl D

+

+

D T M lr

+

M 0

rr

M

M

lr u l u r rr u˙˙ r
lr
u
l
u
r
rr
u˙˙
r

=

 

a

P

l

P

a

r

0

(8)

D T

Equation (8) can be solved by multiplying the first row by

row. The new second row is interchanged with the third equation to yield the following system of equations.

and adding it to the second

following system of equations. and adding it to the second a K ll + D T
following system of equations. and adding it to the second a K ll + D T

a

K ll

+

D T M ll

a

ll

D T K

+

M rl

K

a

rl

a

K lr

M ll D

+

D T M lr

+

M 0

rr

D T K

a

lr

+ K

a

rr

m r

D + D T M lr + M 0 rr D T K a lr +
D + D T M lr + M 0 rr D T K a lr +

M lr

u

u

u˙˙

=

a P l 0 a D T P + P l
a
P
l
0
a
D T P
+ P
l

r

a

(9)

CRD Linear Static Aeroelasticity T T D M M rr Where matrix. Using a simplifying

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

T

T

D

M

M rr

Where

matrix. Using a simplifying notation equation (9) becomes

m r

D

+

D

M

=

+

is defined as the rigid body mass

ll

lr

a R u P 11 R 12 R 13 l l R u = 0
a
R
u
P
11 R 12
R 13
l
l
R
u
=
0
(10)
21 R 22
R 23
r
a
a
R
u˙˙
31 R 32
R 33
r
D T P
+ P
l
r
Solving the first row of equation (10) for
we obtain the trim equations in the form
and substituting in the second and third rows
u l
K
u
P
11 K 12
1
1
=
{
}
(11)
K
u
21 K 22
2
P 2

with

CRD Linear Static Aeroelasticity K K K K 11 12 21 22 P 1 P

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

K

K

K

K

11

12

21

22

P 1

P 2

u

u

1

2

Solving equation (11) for respectively yields

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

u 1

R

R

R

R

22

1 R 12

R 21 R 11

23

1 R 13

R 21 R 11

32

1 R 12

R 31 R 11

33

1 R 13

R 31 R 11

1 P l R 21 R 11

a

a

T

D

P

a

l

+

P

r

1 P l R 31 R 11

a

(12)

u r

u˙˙ r

and

u 2

the rigid body displacements and accelerations

CRD Linear Static Aeroelasticity [ K 22 – K u 1 21 K = –

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

[

K

22

K

u 1

21

K

=

1

11

–1

11

K

[

]u 2

P

K

12

1

=

[

K

12

u

2

P

2

K

]

21

K

1

11

P

1

]

(13)

[LHSA] u

{

[L]

{

u

2

2

}

}

or

=

or

=

[RHSA]{ }

[R]{ }

(14)

Equation (14) is the basic equation for static aeroelastic trim analysis. There is one equa-

tion for each rigid body degree of freedom (6 DOF trim).

{

}

u

is the vector of structural

2

accelerations at the support point and

equation (14) into free or unknown (subscripts f,u) values and known or set (subscripts k,s) values and gathering all unknown values to the left yields

{

}

is a vector of trim parameters. Partitioning

Note: System can be over-specified producing trim optimization problem.

CRD Linear Static Aeroelasticity L L ff R fu kf – u 2 f –

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

L

L

ff R fu kf – u 2 f – u R ku
ff
R fu
kf
– u 2 f
– u
R ku

=

–L fk – u 2k R fs –L kk – R ks s
–L fk
– u 2k
R fs
–L kk
– R ks
s

Potential values for

u 2k and

are given in equation (16)

u 2

values for u 2 k and are given in equation (16) u 2 NX - longitudinal
values for u 2 k and are given in equation (16) u 2 NX - longitudinal
values for u 2 k and are given in equation (16) u 2 NX - longitudinal
values for u 2 k and are given in equation (16) u 2 NX - longitudinal

NX - longitudinal acceleration NY - lateral acceleration NZ - vertical acceleration PACCEL - roll acceleration QACCEL - pitch acceleration RACCEL - yaw acceleration

BASE - reference state ALPHA - angle of attack BETA - yaw angle PRATE -
BASE - reference state
ALPHA - angle of attack
BETA - yaw angle
PRATE - roll rate
QRATE - pitch rate
RRATE - yaw rate
{
}- symmetric surfaces
sym
{
}- antisymmetric surfaces
anti
{
}- asymmetric surfaces
asym

(15)

(16)

CRD Linear Static Aeroelasticity Rigid Trim Equations From equation (9) considering only rigid body accelerations

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity Rigid Trim Equations

From equation (9) considering only rigid body accelerations and loads yields

LHSA rigid

RHSA rigid and the rigid trim equations as

=

[

LHSA

rigid

]

{

u˙˙

r

}

=

R

P

2 =

33

=

D T P

m r

a

l

+ P

a

r

=

[

RHSA

rigid

]{ }

(17)

(18)

CRD Linear Static Aeroelasticity Stability Derivatives Using equation (14) and using an identity vector for

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

Stability Derivatives

Using equation (14) and using an identity vector for

employing the rigid body mass matrix

eter values can be determined as

{

}

and

forces due to unit param-

m r

F

=

m r

[

K

22

F

] 1

K 21 K 1 K 12

11

F x F y F z = M x M y M z
F
x
F
y
F
z
=
M
x
M
y
M
z
[ P 2 Thrust/Drag Side Force Lift Roll Moment Pitch Moment Yaw Moment
[
P
2
Thrust/Drag
Side Force
Lift
Roll Moment
Pitch Moment
Yaw Moment

K

21

K

1

11

P

1

]

(17)

(18)

CRD Linear Static Aeroelasticity Stability Derivatives Based on equation (18) non-dimensional stability derivatives are

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

Stability Derivatives

Based on equation (18) non-dimensional stability derivatives are

Surface Parameters

C

D

C

C

S

L

C

l

C m

C

y

------ F x qS

=

Parameters C D C C S L C l C m C y ------ F x

=

=

=

y

------

qS

z

------

qS

x

---------

qSb

y

= ---------

qSc

=

z

---------

qSb

Rate Parameters

C

D

C

C

S

L

C

l

C

m

C

y

F

x

=

---------

=

=

=

=

Parameters C D C C S L C l C m C y F x =

M

qSc

F

y

---------

qSb

z

F

---------

qSc

M

------------ x

qSb 2

M

qSc 2

z

------------

qSb 2

y

= ------------

(19)

Note: These are “unrestrained” stability derivatives (free-free)

CRD Linear Static Aeroelasticity Example Stability Derivatives for From equations (14) and (17)   F

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

Example Stability Derivatives for

From equations (14) and (17)

 

F

x

F

y

F

z

M

x

M

y

M

z

Yielding

C D

,

= 0 0 = 1.0 = 0 0 = [ m ][LHSA] –1 [RHSA] PRATE
=
0
0
=
1.0
=
0
0
=
[
m
][LHSA] –1 [RHSA]
PRATE =
r
0
QRATE =
=
0
RRATE
=
{ } surface
0
C
C
,,
C
etc.
S ,
L
l
C M

(20)

CRD Linear Static Aeroelasticity Stability Derivative Types • There are four varieties of flexible stability

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

Stability Derivative Types

There are four varieties of flexible stability derivatives

- Unrestrained (orthogonality and inertia relief included) - Restrained (orthogonality, no inertial relief)

- Supported (no orthogonality, but inertial relief)

- Fixed (no orthogonality, no inertial relief)

For wind tunnel comparison use either Restrained or Fixed

Make sure you know which type of stability derivatives a given program produces

CRD Linear Static Aeroelasticity Lift Trim Analysis • For straight and level flight i.e. {

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

Lift Trim Analysis

For straight and level flight i.e.

{

u

2

}

= NZ

equation (14)

produces a single equation with one free parameter (say

LHSA

NZ = RHSA

= ---------------------------------- (LHSA RHSA NZ)

)

or in terms of stability derivatives

m r

NZ

RHSA NZ ) ) or in terms of stability derivatives m r NZ qSC L qSC

qSC L

qSC L

NZ)

( m

= --------------------------

CRD Linear Static Aeroelasticity Aeroelastic and Rigid Trimmed Pressures (M = 0.7, q = Aeroelastic

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

Aeroelastic and Rigid Trimmed Pressures

(M = 0.7, q =
(M =
0.7, q
=

Aeroelastic Trim (

= 2.61) Eq. (14)

5.04 psi, nz = 1g )

Aeroelastic Trim ( = 2.61 ∞ ) Eq. (14) 5.04 psi, nz = 1g ) R

Rigid Trim (

= 1.29) Eq. (18)

Pressure (psi)

Pressure (psi) CRD Linear Static Aeroelasticity Rigid and Aeroelastic Trim Pressures vs. Span Kolonay ( M

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

Rigid and Aeroelastic Trim Pressures vs. Span

Kolonay

(M =

0.7, q

=

5.04 psi, nz = 1g )

2.5

0.25 0.5 0.75 1
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0 0
0
0

Rigid Trim 0% chord Rigid Trim 50% chord Aeroelastic Trim 0% chord 0% span Aeroelastic Trim 50% chord

2
2

1.5

1
1

0.5

Non-Dimensional Semi-Span

46

Relative Twist Angle (deg.)

Relative Twist Angle (deg.) CRD Linear Static Aeroelasticity Spanwise Twist Due to Swept Wing Deformations 2

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

Spanwise Twist Due to Swept Wing Deformations

2 (M = 0.7, q = 5.04 psi, nz = 1g ) 1 0 0.25
2
(M
=
0.7, q
=
5.04 psi, nz = 1g )
1
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0
-1
-2
Flex Trim
-3
Rigid Trim
Rigid
-4

% Semi-Span

CRD Linear Static Aeroelasticity Swept Wing Aeroelastic Effects on Trimmed Displacements m a x z

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

Swept Wing Aeroelastic Effects on Trimmed Displacements

max z-disp. = 5.4 in.

m a x z - d i s p . = 5 . 4 i n

Aeroelastic Trimmed Displacements

max z-disp. = 11.4 in.

= 5 . 4 i n . Aeroelastic Trimmed Displacements max z-disp. = 11.4 in. Rigid

Rigid Trimmed Displacements

CRD Static Aeroelasticity Control Surface Effects Incremental Moment Incremental Lift 0 0 Kolonay 49

CRD

Static Aeroelasticity

Control Surface Effects

CRD Static Aeroelasticity Control Surface Effects Incremental Moment Incremental Lift 0 0 Kolonay 49

Incremental Moment

Incremental Lift

CRD Static Aeroelasticity Control Surface Effects Incremental Moment Incremental Lift 0 0 Kolonay 49

0

0

CRD Linear Static Aeroelasticity Roll Trim Analysis (wing with aileron) Steady state roll (PACCEL =

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

Roll Trim Analysis (wing with aileron)

Steady state roll (PACCEL = 0) for given

(aileron deflection)

LHSA 44 PACCEL

RHSA

RHSA

=

+

RHSA 43 = ------------------------------- RHSA 44

43

PRATE

or in stability derivative form

44 PRATE

qSb + C PRATE = l I roll C l pb ------- 2V for steady
qSb
+
C
PRATE
=
l
I roll
C l
pb
-------
2V
for steady roll and a given
C
PRATE
= ------------- l

C l pb

-------

2V

PACCEL

CRD Linear Static Aeroelasticity Roll Rate vs. Dynamic Pressure for = 1.0 ∞ 70 50

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

Roll Rate vs. Dynamic Pressure for

= 1.0

70 50 30 10 0 0.5 1 1.5 -10 q R ASW_TE -30 q R
70
50
30
10
0
0.5
1
1.5
-10
q
R ASW_TE
-30
q
R FSW_TE
-50
Dynamic Pressure (psi)
Roll Rate (deg/sec)

Rigid TECS ASW

Flex TECS ASW

Rigid TECS FSW

Flex TECS FSW

Rigid LECS ASW

Flex LECS ASW

Rigid LECS FSW

Flex LECS FSW

CRD Static Aeroelasticity Aileron Effectiveness Dynamic Pressure (psi) 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.15 vs. V

CRD

Static Aeroelasticity

Aileron Effectiveness

Dynamic Pressure (psi)

0 0.5 1 1.5 0.15 vs. V vs. q 0.1 ( C ) f l
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.15
vs. V
vs. q
0.1
(
C
) f
l
–-------------------------
f
0.05
C
l
pb
-------
2V
0
-0.05
Reversal q
-0.1
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000

Velocity (in/sec)

Reversal V

CRD Linear Static Aeroelasticity Aeroelastic Effects on Roll Rate Pressures = 0.28 (psi) p q

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

Aeroelastic Effects on Roll Rate Pressures

= 0.28 (psi) p q 0.012 0.010 0.009 0.007 0.006 0.004 0.002 0.001 -0.001 -0.002
=
0.28 (psi)
p q
0.012
0.010
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.001
-0.001
-0.002
-0.004
-0.006
-0.007
-0.009
-0.010

q rigid = 27 (deg/sec)

-0.007 -0.009 -0.010 q r i g i d = 27 (deg/sec) Kolonay q r i

Kolonay

q rigid = 16 (deg/sec)

q = 0.78 (psi) p 0.032 0.028 0.024 0.020 0.015 0.011 0.007 0.003 -0.001 -0.005
q
=
0.78 (psi)
p
0.032
0.028
0.024
0.020
0.015
0.011
0.007
0.003
-0.001
-0.005
-0.010
-0.014
-0.018
-0.022
-0.026

q rigid = 46 (deg/sec)

q = 1.5 (psi) p 0.052 0.046 0.039 0.033 0.026 0.019 0.013 0.006 0.000 -0.007
q
=
1.5 (psi)
p
0.052
0.046
0.039
0.033
0.026
0.019
0.013
0.006
0.000
-0.007
-0.014
-0.020
-0.027
-0.033
-0.040

q rigid = 59 (deg/sec)

M=0.7 = 0 (deg/sec) q = -28 (deg/sec) q rigid rigid 53
M=0.7
= 0 (deg/sec)
q
= -28 (deg/sec)
q rigid
rigid
53
CRD Linear Static Aeroelasticity Rolling Wing Deformations M = 0.7 , q = 1.5 psi

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

Rolling Wing Deformations

M

=

0.7, q

= 1.5 psi

CRD Linear Static Aeroelasticity Rolling Wing Deformations M = 0.7 , q = 1.5 psi Kolonay
CRD References 1. Bisplinghoff, Ashley and Halfman “Aeroelasticity”, Dover Publications, Addison-Wes- ley Publishing

CRD

References

1. Bisplinghoff, Ashley and Halfman “Aeroelasticity”, Dover Publications, Addison-Wes-

ley Publishing Company, Inc., 1995.

2. Weisshaar, “Fundamentals of Static and Dynamic Aeroelasticity”, Purdue University

School of Aeronautics and Astronautics, West Lafayette, IN 1992.

3. Smilg, B. and Wasserman, L. S., “Application of Three Dimensional Flutter Theory to

Aircraft Structures”, USAAF TR 4798, 1942.

4. Neill, D.J., Herendeen, D.L., Venkayya, V.B., “ASTROS Enhancements, Vol III-

ASTROS Theoretical Manual”, WL-TR-95-3006.

5. Bendiksen, Oddvar O., “Fluid-Structure Coupling Requirements for Time-Accurate

Aeroelastic Simulations”, AD-Vol.53-3, Fluid-Structure Interaction, Aeroelasticity, Flow-

Induced Vibration and Noise, Volume III ASME, 1997.

6. Farhat, C., “Special course on Parallel Computing in CFD”, AGARD-R807, October

1995.

7. MacNeal, R. H., “The NASTRAN Theoretical Manual,” NASA-SP-221(01), April,

1971.

8. I.E. Garrick and W.H. Reed, III “Historical Development of Aircraft Flutter,” Journal of

Aircraft, Vol. 18, No. 11, November 1981.

CRD References 9. Grumman Aerospace Corporation, “An Automated Procedure for Flutter and Strength Analysis and

CRD

References

9. Grumman Aerospace Corporation, “An Automated Procedure for Flutter and Strength Analysis and Optimization of Aerospace Vehicles Volume I. Theory and Application,”,

AFFDL-TR-75-137.

10. Hassig, H.J., “An Approximate True Damping Solution of the Flutter Equation by

Determinant Iteration,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 8, No. 11, November 1971, pp. 885-889.

11. Neill, D.J., “MSC/Flight Loads and Dynamics Training,”, The MacNeal-Schwendler

Corporation, 815 Colorado Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA, August 1999.