Composite Structures 113 (2014) 118126

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Nonlinear aeroelastic analysis of a composite wing by nite element

method
Reza Koohi a,, Hossein Shahverdi b, Hassan Haddadpour c
a

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Center of Excellence in Computational Aerospace, Amirkabir University of Technology, 424 Hafez Avenue, Tehran 15875-4413, Iran
c
Aerospace Engineering Dept., Sharif University of Tech., Azadi Ave., PO Box 11155-8639, Tehran, Iran
b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Available online 17 March 2014
Keywords:
Aeroelasticity
Composite wing
FEM
Nonlinear utter
ONERA aerodynamic
VABS

a b s t r a c t
The aim of this paper is to develop a modied 1D structural dynamics model for aeroelastic analysis of a
composite wing under large deformations. To attain this goal, an accurate available mechanical beam
model of a composite wing was considered and improved to simulate large deformation behavior. Also,
in aerodynamic aspect of view, a semi-experimental unsteady aerodynamic (ONERA dynamic stall)
model has been incorporated to construct the aeroelastic model. To set up a utter determination tool
based on the eigenvalue analysis, Finite Element Method (FEM) has been implemented to discretize
the aeroelastic equations. Also, a nite element cross-sectional analysis code VABS (Variational Asymptotical Beam Sectional Analysis) has been applied to determine composite cross-sectional properties
across the wing span. Because of the existence of nonlinear terms in the aeroelastic equations, due to
the large deformation behavior, the perturbed dynamic equations have been established about the nonlinear static equilibrium to capture the utter boundaries. The obtained results are in good agreement
with the available experimental data. It is found that the present aeroelastic model is appropriate for
analysis of composite wings with arbitrary cross-sections.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Aeroelastic instability is an important concept in an air vehicle
design process that may be lead to a catastrophic failure. Many
accidents due to this phenomenon have been reported yet [1].
Nowadays, the demands for high maneuverability, performance
and speed air vehicles as well as agility are increasing with application of composite materials in aerospace industries. To meet the
above characteristics, lightweight and therefore more exible
structures have been developed. This will result in signicant
structural nonlinearity specically for wings.
In the structural dynamic and aeroelastic analyses of wings, for
sake of simplicity, 1D beam models are always used. In a 1D model,
the 3D problem is reduced to a set of variables that only depends on
the beam-axis coordinate. 1D structural elements (beams) are simpler and computationally more efcient than 2D (plate/shell) and
3D (solid) elements. This feature makes beam theories still very
attractive for the static, dynamic and aeroelastic analysis of structures. The famous classical beam models have been constructed
based on the EulerBernoulli or Timoshenko theory. But, they have
Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 3113660011.
E-mail addresses: koohi@iaukhsh.ac.ir (R. Koohi),
(H. Shahverdi), haddadpour@sharif.edu (H. Haddadpour).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.03.012
0263-8223/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

h_shahverdi@aut.ac.ir

some restrictions such as warping in and out of plane deformations.

Also, these models are implemented for investigation of linear
structural dynamic behaviors. It must be noted that moderate or
large deection behavior causes geometrical nonlinearity and using
nonlinear models are inevitable. For example, in a high aspect ratio
wing with long span, the stiffness and natural frequencies of the
wing may be changed due to large deections. Hence in the aeroelastic analysis of high aspect ratio wings, nonlinear models must
be used to predict the instability boundaries of the wing precisely.
Several attempts have been made to develop accurate nonlinear
structural models based on the 1D beam model. Hodges and Dowell
[2] provided nonlinear equations with quadratic nonlinearities for
isotropic rotor blades undergoing moderate deformations. In this
study the higher order terms associated with straindisplacement
relations are neglected using an ordering scheme. Rosen and Friedmann [3] presented more accurate system of equations than those
obtained by HodgesDowell. They considered additional higher order nonlinear terms and therefore their results were in better agreement with the experimental results presented by Dowell et al. [4].
Crespo and Glynn [5] applied the extended form of Hamiltons principle to develop a set of mathematically consistent nonlinear equations based on 1D beam model. Cubic terms were not shown
explicitly in their equations but these equations fully included the
contributions of nonlinear curvature and inertia terms. They used

R. Koohi et al. / Composite Structures 113 (2014) 118126

these equations for nonlinear analysis of a cantilevered beam [6].

Pai and Nayfeh [7] extended these equations to the case of composite beams. Hodges [8] developed a nonlinear beam model in which
the assumption of moderate rotations is removed. This model is
subsequently used as the theoretical basis of the beam element used
in the computer program GRASP. Hodges [9,10] presented a general
beam theory based on a nonlinear intrinsic formulation for the
dynamics of initially curved and twisted beams in a moving frame.
This beam model is valid for both isotropic and orthotropic materials. Librescu [11] presented a general 1D composite beam model
that includes the non-classical effects such as transverse shear
and warping constraint for a thin-walled composite section. Shi
et al. [12] presented a third-order shear deformable composite
beam element. Also, Tauk et al. [13] developed a linear composite
beam element with arbitrary cross-section. Lee [14] presented an
analytical model for exural analysis of I-shaped laminated composite beams based on the rst-order shear deformable theory.
In recent years, many studies have been performed in aeroelastic analysis of composite wings or blades with the increasing use of
composite materials in aerospace industries. For example, Cesnik
et al. [15] investigated aeroelastic instability of a composite wing
based on geometrically-exact nonlinear structural equations [9].
It must be noted that, their model could not considered warping
and shear deformations. Xie et al. [16,17] investigated aeroelastic
analysis of a HALE composite wing with large deections using
NASTRAN FEM. They perturbed the aeroelastic equations about
the nonlinear static deections and showed the necessity of using
nonlinear aeroelastic analysis instead of linear analysis. Haddadpour et al. [18] and Qin and Librescu [19] studied the aeroelastic
instability of a single-cell composite box beam using Librescus
thin-walled composite beam model [11]. Flutter analysis of composite wings by the 1D Carrera unied formulation was conducted
by Petrolo [20]. Zhao and Hu [21] studied aeroelastic analysis of
composite wings as thin-walled closed-cross-section beams. Yuan
and Friedmann [22] performed nonlinear aeroelastic analysis of a
composite rotor blade undergoing moderate deection using
FEM. Their beam model is similar to Rosen and Friedmann [3] with
some modications to consider the effects of shear and warping.
The simplication of moderate deection is justied for composite
helicopter rotor blade analysis since the rotor blades are designed
for low stress and high-cycle fatigue point of view [22]. Also in
some studies, aeroelastic behavior of a wing has been simulated
by using a composite plate model [23,24].
While composite materials are considered in aeroelastic analyses based on 1D beam models, the computation of the cross-sectional properties are vital and also so complex. One way to
overcome this problem is to utilize the Variational Asymptotical
Beam Sectional Analysis Code (VABS). This code has been developed based on the 2D nite element method. VABS can be applied
to determine all structural stiffness and inertial coefcients of the
wing cross-section with all details of the cross-sectional geometry
and material properties [25]. Thus, using this software, one can reduce the dimension of a 3D composite wing from a 3D elasticity
problem to 1D continuum beam model. VABS is based on the Hodges equations [26] and is suitable for application of composite
materials. VABS also has been used to calculate the cross-sectional
properties needed as inputs for other rotorcraft analysis codes [27].
Friedmann et al. combined their previous work [22] with VABS and
called their model as YF/VABS [28]. YF/VABS model accounts for
arbitrary cross-sectional warping, shear strains, in-plane stresses,
and moderate deections.
Another aspect of establishing a starting point for analysis of
aeroelastic problem is to select a suitable aerodynamic model. In
order to construct a proper nonlinear aeroelastic system, an
appropriate aerodynamic model is required as well as a nonlinear
beam model. In this regards some analytical and semi-empirical

119

models have been developed and utilized for aeroelastic analyses.

For instance, Tang and Dowell [29,30] studied the aeroelastic response of a high-aspect ratio wing. In this study, the beam equations developed by HodgesDowell [2] were used to model the
structural nonlinearity and the ONERA stall aerodynamic model
[31] was used to describe the nonlinear aerodynamic loading. Patil
and Hodges [3234] investigated the nonlinear aeroelastic behavior of a complete aircraft with high aspect-ratio wings based on
geometrically-exact nonlinear beam theory [9] and the nite-state
aerodynamic theory of Peters [35] along with the ONERA dynamic
stall model. Shams et al. [36,37] studied the aeroelastic response of
slender isotropic wings using a second order [2] and third-order [5]
form of the EulerBernoulli beam model respectively and an unsteady linear aerodynamic model based on the Wagner function.
There are too much works which are concerning about nonlinear
aeroelastic analyses in the two last decades.
In nonlinear aeroelastic analysis, the aeroelastic system can be
simulated in time domain or in frequency domain. In the time domain method, aeroelastic system is marched in time for various initial conditions and its response is gained in the form of timevarying curves or phase planes. However, if the air speed reaches
a critical value, instability occurs. In this case, the trajectories tend
to a limit cycle oscillations (LCO). But, in the frequency domain
method, the perturbed dynamic equations of the aeroelastic system
are linearized about their nonlinear static equilibrium conditions to
determine the stability boundaries through an eigenvalue analysis.
In the present study, a nite element code is developed to
determine the nonlinear utter instability of a composite wing
with arbitrary sections through eigenvalue analysis. In this regard,
a nonlinear 1D beam model is used to simulate wings structural
dynamics behavior and cross-sectional properties are determined
by VABS. Structural model is selected based on the YF/VABS equations that presented by Friedmann et al. [28], of course with some
modications. It should be noted that the YF/VABS equations have
been developed for rotary wings with moderate deections. However, in this study, these equations have been modied for case of
xed wings with large deections. To overcome the large deformation modeling weakness of the YF/VABS, some important higher
order terms are incorporated into the original model. Also, the unsteady aerodynamic model states based on the Joness approximation and ONERA dynamic stall is implemented for constructing an
appropriate aeroelastic tool. Finally, the aeroelastic analyses for
certain test cases are performed and the obtained results are compared and validated with those available in the literature.
2. Structural dynamics simulation
To simulate the structural dynamic behavior of a composite
wing by FEM, the wing must be discretized by utilizing several
beam type elements along its elastic axis. It is assumed that the
cross-section of the composite wing has a general shape. The effect
of angle of attack and pre-twist are also included in the wing structural dynamics model. The nonlinear straindisplacement relations
are developed from a moderate deection theory (small strains and
moderate rotations) along with some important large deection
terms. Nonlinear equations of motion for each beam element are
derived based on the Hamiltons principle.
2.1. Coordinate systems
Several coordinate systems are required to describe deformation of the wing as shown in Figs. 1 and 2. The rst two systems,
^
ex ; ^ey ; ^ez and ^
ex ; ^
eg ; ^
ef , respectively, are used to determine the
position and orientation of each beam element relative to the wing
root in the unreformed conguration. The vector ^
ex is aligned with
the beam element elastic axis, and the vectors ^ey and ^ez are dened

120

R. Koohi et al. / Composite Structures 113 (2014) 118126

where v, w, / are out of plane and in-plane deection and twist at

xg ; c
xf can be
the elastic axis, respectively (Figs. 1 and 2) and exx ; c
shown to be the axial and the transverse shear strains, respectively,
at the elastic axis.
2.3. Constitutive relations
The constitutive relations are dened based on the assumptions
of the linear elastic orthotropic model and the zero stress components within the cross-section (rgg = rff = rgf = 0). Using these
assumptions the constitutive relations will be

3 2
rxx
Q 11
6
6
r Q e ) 4 rxf 7

5 4 Q 15
rxg
Q 16

Fig. 1. Wing coordinate systems and deections.

Q 15
Q 55
Q 56

Q 16

32

exx

76
7
Q 56 54 cxf 5
cxg
Q 66

where Q is the reduced beam material stiffness matrix.

2.4. Strain energy
The variational form of the strain energy is dened by

dU

Z
0

le

8
9T 2
ZZ >
< dexx >
= Q 11
6
dcxf
4 Q 15
A>
: dc >
;
Q 16
xg

Q 15
Q 55

32
3
exx
Q 16
76
7
Q 56 54 cxf 5dgdfdx:

Q 56

Q 66

cxg

The small angle assumption for / yields:

cosh0 / cosh0  / sinh0

sinh0 / sinh0 / cosh0

Thus, the variation of the left hand side of Eq. (4) is:

dcosh0 / d/sinh0 / d/sinh0 / cosh0

dsinh0 / d/cosh0 / d/cosh0  / sinh0

However, the variation of the right hand side of Eq. (4) is

dcosh0  / sinh0 d/ sinh0 ;

Fig. 2. Wing cross-section before and after deections.

in the cross-section plane of the beam. The wing pre-twist angle

and angle of attack have been taken into account by h0 as shown
in Fig. 1. This angle is dened as the change in the orientation of
^eg ; ^ef with respect to ^
ey ; ^ez . The vectors ^eg and ^ef are assigned parallel to the modulus weighted principal axes of the cross-section.
The beam element straindisplacement relations are derived in
^
ex ; ^
eg ; ^
ef system. However, ^e0x ; ^
e0g ; ^
e0f coordinate system is used
to state the orientation of the local wing geometry after deformation. The orientation of ^e0x ; ^
e0g ; ^e0f is obtained by rotating ^
ex ; ^eg ; ^
ef
coordinate system through three Euler angles in the order of hf, hg,
hx about ^
ef , rotated ^
eg and rotated ^
ex , respectively. This sequence
was chosen to agree the work of previous authors.
2.2. Strain relations
In this study, the nonlinear kinematics of deformation is based
on the mechanics of curved rods [22]. The kinematical assumptions
used in [22] are: (1) the deformations of the cross-section in its own
plane are neglected and (2) the strain components are small compared to unity. But in the present study, besides of the mentioned
assumptions, the axial and warping terms are also neglected.
The strain components after applying the ordering scheme become

exx exx  v ;xx g cosh0 /  f sinh0 / gcxg;x  s0 cxf

xf;x s0 c
xg  w;xx g sinh0 / f cosh0 /
fc
1
g2 f2 /;x 2
2
xg  f/;x /0
c

cxg
cxf cxf g/;x /0

dsinh0 / cosh0 d/ cosh0

The main deference between the present study and Ref. [22], is that
in the present study, Eq. (4) is implemented after taking variation of
axial strain, exx , that results in Eq. (5) and keeps higher order terms,
which is important in large deection computations, but in Ref. [22]
these terms did not appear because Eq. (4) has been used before
taking variation of exx that yields to Eq. (6).
Integrating Eq. (3) over the cross-section gives the modulus
weighted section constants, which are presented in Ref [22]. These
section constants can be calculated using a separate, two-dimensional linear FEM analysis of an arbitrarily shaped composite crosssection which is decoupled from the nonlinear, one-dimensional global analysis for the beam. However, in this study, an improved nite
element cross-sectional analysis code (VABS) [25] is used. Heres
how to use it to provide the required cross-sectional properties for
the beam analysis. The proper usage of VABS outputs in the structural
model is explained here concisely (for more details see Ref. [28]).
From Ref. [26], the VABS strain energy is given by

8  9T 2
exx 9
exx > S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S16 38
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
c > 6 S21 S22 S23 S24 S25 S26 7>
c >
>
>
Z le >
< xg >
< xg >
= 6
=
7>
c
S
S
S
S
S
S
c
6 31
V
xf
32
33
34
35
36 7
xf
2U
dx
7
6
S41 S42 S43 S44 S45 S46 7>
jx >
0 >
> jx >
> 6
>
>
>
>
>
5>
4
>
>
>
>
j
S
S
S
S
S
S
j
>
>
>
>
51
52
53
54
55
56 : g ;
: g;
jf
jf
S61 S62 S63 S64 S65 S66
8  9T
8 9
exx >
exx >
>
Z le >
< =
jx e A j B j C j D< jx =dx
2
xx
x
g
f
>
0 >
: jg >
: jg >
;
;

jf

jf

121

R. Koohi et al. / Composite Structures 113 (2014) 118126

where the elastic twist is given by jx, while jg and jf are the moment strains corresponding to bending. The S, A, B, C, and D matrices are in the output list of VABS.
Using the strain energy relations given in Eq. (3) for the present
formulation, and the corresponding Eq. (7) for VABS, a direct comparison of the cross-sectional constants associated with both equations can be conducted. In order to couple VABS to the present
model, the cross-sectional parameters in the present strain energy
formulation are replaced with their VABS counterparts. Instead
VABS accounts for in-plane stresses and out-of-plane warping in
the H, A, B, C, and D matrices and so this hybrid strain energy will
be accurate for modeling of composite beams (for more details see
Ref. [28]).

2.7. Aerodynamic modeling

For a two-dimensional airfoil undergoing sinusoidal motion in
pulsating incompressible ow, Based on the Greenbergs extension
of Theodorsens theory and using the Jones approximation unsteady aerodynamics theory [35], the unsteady aerodynamic lift (L) and
pitching moment (M) per unit span (Fig. 3) about the elastic axis
can be expressed as

n
o
2
L 0:5aqA b U_ f0  xA  0:5bh aqA bU g0
(
)
n
X
_
 U f0 h 0:5U f0 b  xA h 
c Bi
i

i1

2.5. Kinetic energy

M 0:5aqA b

xA  0:5bU_ f0 0:5bU g0  U f0 hh_

The variation of the kinetic energy for each beam element is

dT

le

ZZ

qV  dVdgdfdx

V R_

The position vector, R, of a point on the deformed beam is written in

the following form

R he x^ex v ^ey w^ez g^e0g f^e0f

10

All the terms in the velocity vector were transformed to the

^ex ; ^ey ; ^ez coordinate system by

^e0x

^e0g

^e0f

T


Tde  ^ex

^ey

^ez

1=8b xA  0:5bh

aqA bxA U g0

(
_ 
 U f0 h 0:5U f0 b  xA h

where the velocity vector, V, is obtained by

)
2

T

11

where the transformation matrix Tde  is expressed as

n
X

ci Bi

Also, the prole drag per unit span is dened as

2

D C d qA bU R C d qA bU 2g0 U 2f0

v ;x

w;x

where

13

Integrating Eq. (8) over the cross-section provides mass weighted

section constants about the shear center and are taken directly from
the VABS outputs (for more details see Refs. [22,28]).
2.6. External work contributions
Using the principle of virtual work, the effects of the non-conservative distributed loads are involved. The virtual work on each
beam element is dened as

dW e

le

P  du Q  d~
hdx

14

where P and Q are the distributed aerodynamic force and moment

vectors along the elastic axis; du and d~
h are the virtual displacement
and rotation vectors, respectively, of a point on the deformed elastic
axis.

17

6
7
cosh0 /
sinh0 /
Tde  4 v ;x cosh0 /  w;x sinh0 /
5
0
0
v ;x sinh0 /  w;x cosh0 /  sinh0 / sc cosh0 cosh0 / sc sinh0

s0c v ;x sin h0  w;x cos h0 v ;x cos h0 w;x sin h0

16

where UR is the resultant airfoil velocity relative to air (Fig. 3), a is

the lift curve slope of the wing section; b is the semi-chord; qA is air
density; h is the pitch angle with respect to free-stream and xA is the
non-dimensional distance between the aerodynamic center and
elastic axis of the airfoil cross-section, positive for aerodynamic
center ahead of the elastic axis. The velocity vector of a point on
the wing elastic axis relative to the air is

U VEA  VA U x0 ^ex0 U g0 ^eg0 U f0 ^ef0

15

i1

Fig. 3. Components of aerodynamic force acting on the wing.

12

122

R. Koohi et al. / Composite Structures 113 (2014) 118126

8
9 8 9
EA
>
> >0>
>
<Vx >
= < =
v_ ;
V EA
y
>
>
> >
>
: EA >
; :w
_;
Vz

quadratic polynomials for / and the transverse shears at the elastic

axis.

8 9 8
8
9
8
9
9
A
EA
A
>
>
> > 0 >
>
>
>
>
< U x0 >
<Vx >
<Vx  Vx >
=
=
= <
=
A
U g0 Tde  V EA
and
V Ay V F

V
y
y
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
: 0;
>
>
>
: A>
: EA
; : 0 ;
;
Uf
Vz
V z  V Az

v fUc gT fVg;
18

where VF is the free-stream velocity. Also, Bi is the aerodynamic

state according to the Jones approximate unsteady aerodynamics
theory [35] which satises

B_ i bi V F =bBi U f0  b  xA h_

19

where ci = VFbiai/b.
The constants ai and bi are the coefcients used in the quasipolynomial approximation of the Wagner function that for the rst
and second states are

a1 0:165; a2 0:335; b1 0:0455; b2 0:3

The aerodynamics can be extended to include dynamic stall effects
by complementation with the ONERA stall model [38]. So that

LT L Lstall ;

Lstall bqu2 C L2
2

M T M M stall ; M stall 2b qu2 C M2 Lstall xA

L2 at s C_ L2 rC L2
t 2s C

21

where ts = b/U.
The parameters DCL and DCM are the deviation from the extended linear force curve (Fig. 4). Nonlinearity in the ONERA model
arises from Eq. (21) due to the dependence of its coefcients
(a, r, e) on DCL. These parameters must be identied for a special
airfoil.
3. Solution methodology
As it mentioned before the nite element method is implemented in this study for solving the system of aeroelastic equations. Therefore, the wing is divided into several beam elements.
The discretized form of the Hamiltons principle is written as
t2

t1

n
X
dU i  dT i  dW ei dt 0

cxg fUq g fCg g; cxf fUq g fCf g

23

Each beam element consists of two end nodes and one internal node
at its mid-point, which results in 17 nodal degrees of freedom, as
shown in Fig. 5. Thus,
T
T
fVg V 1 V 1;x V 2 V 2;x  ; fWg W 1 W 1;x W 2 W 2;x  ; fUg /1 /2 /3 T

xg1
fCg g c

cxg2 cxg3 ; fCf g cxf1 cxf2 cxf3 

24

The vector of element nodal degrees of freedom, q, can be dened as

h
q fVgT

fWgT

fUgT

fCg gT

fCf gT

iT

25

Since
the
variation
of
the
generalized
coordinates
xg ; dc
xf are arbitrary over the time interval, therefore
dv ; dw; d/; dc
dq is also arbitrary; and this results in the nite element equations
of motion for the ith beam element, which is written as

g Ki fqg fFi g 0
Mi fq

C M2 DC M

/ fUq gT fUg

20

where CL2 and CM2 are additional 2-dimensional lift and moment
coefcients due to stall which satisfy



@ DC L
r DC L t s e
a_
@a

w fUc gT fWg;

22

i1

where n is the total number of beam elements and dU, dT and dWe
are the variation of strain energy, kinetic energy, and virtual work of
external loads, respectively. The Hermitian shape functions are used
to discretize the space dependence: cubic polynomials for v and w;

26

where [M] is the structural mass matrix, [K] is the stiffness matrix
including linear structural stiffness matrix, nonlinear structural
stiffness matrix and the nonlinear aerodynamic stiffness matrix that
also is a function of the aerodynamic states. Also, the applied aerodynamic force vector, {F} is a nonlinear function of deections and
theirs derivatives with respect to time. So, it includes the aerodynamic damping terms.
After computing and assembling the mass, stiffness matrices
and force vector, the natural frequencies and related mode shapes
of the wing are rstly calculated. Hence, for the free vibration analysis, the equations of motion for total elements are

KS q 0
Mq

27

The superscript s denotes the linear structural matrix used in the

free vibration analysis. After imposing the boundary conditions, a
standard eigenvalue procedure is implemented to nd the natural
frequencies and related mode shapes of the wing. In order to reduce
the computational size of the problem, a modal coordinate transformation is then applied. For the ith element, the modal coordinate
transformation has the following form

qi Q i y

28

The new unknowns of the problem, y, is the vector of the generalized modal coordinates and has a size of Nm, where Nm is the number of modes used to perform the modal coordinate transformation.
The columns of [Qi] correspond to the portions of the normal mode
eigenvectors for the ith element. The assembled matrices and load
vector of the wing are obtained as follows:

K

n
X

Q i T Ki Q i ;

C

n
X
Q i T Ci Q i ;

i1

M

n
X
Q i T Mi Q i ;
i1

29

i1

F

n
X

Q i T Fi ;

i1

After applying this transformation to Eq. (26) and introducing the

aerodynamic states, a set of nonlinear, coupled, ordinary differential
equations containing multiple variables is obtained as follows

Keq fXg fFeq g 0

f Meq fXg
Fig. 4. Schematic of DCL.

where

30

123

R. Koohi et al. / Composite Structures 113 (2014) 118126

Fig. 5. Wing nite element model and related nodal degrees of freedom.

fCg fC 1L2 C 2L2 . . . C nL2 g

33

{FB} is the additional force vector for modeling the unsteady aerodynamic (Eq. (19)) and stall aerodynamic (Eq. (21)) .The solutions of
Eq. (30) can be expressed in the form

X X 0 DX

34

where X0 denotes steady-state condition and DX denotes the small

perturbation on it. The static equilibrium position, X0, is obtained
0 and solving the resulting nonlinfrom Eq. (30) by setting X_ X
ear algebraic equations using the iterative NewtonRaphson method. Subsequently, Eq. (30) can be linearized about the nonlinear
static equilibrium position X0, to yield:

CX0 DX_ KX0 DX H:O:T 0

MX0 DX

Fig. 6. Wing construction and specimen dimensions.


Meq 

My 0
0
(

1emfFeq g


;

"
Keq 

_
_ y
; B; B
Ky; y;
0

_
_ y
; B; B
Fy; y;
_ C

_ C; C;
_ B; B;
FB y; y;

where

M @f=@ X
X0 ;0;0

;
31

B C gT

fBg

K @f=@XX0 ;0;0

36

Eq. (35), can be expressed in the rst order state variable form after
neglecting the higher order terms by

37

where the state vector z is dened as

32
z

Here, {B} is the Jones approximate unsteady aerodynamic states

that has a size of 2n and is dened as

fB11 B12 B21 B22

_
C @f=@ X
X0 ;0;0

z_ Az

The new unknowns generalized modal coordinate vector is

fXg f y

35

and {C} is the ONERA stall aerodynamic states that has a size of n
and is dened as


38

and the system matrix A has the following form

"

T
. . . Bn1 Bn2 g

DX
DX_

0
1

I
1

M K M C

Fig. 7. Meshed cross-section wing as VABS input.

#
39

124

R. Koohi et al. / Composite Structures 113 (2014) 118126

Table 1
Material Properties [39].

4. Results and discussion

Parameter

Graphite/Epoxy

Styrofoam

EL, longitudinal modulus

ET, transverse modulus
GLT, shear modulus
mLT, Poissons ratio
q, density
t, ply thickness

97.3 Gpa
6.3 Gpa
5.3 Gpa
0.28
1540 kg/m3
0.135 mm

15 MPa
15 MPa
8 MPa
0.28
35 kg/m3

The stability of the system can be investigated through the eigenvalue analysis of A. Of course, these eigenvalues are complex conjugate pairs

kj fj  ixj ;

j 1; . . . ; Nm

40

The wing is stable if all eigenvalues have the negative real parts.

Two test cases including [03/90]S and [152/02]S Graphite/Epoxy

laminates with NACA 0012 Styrofoam fairings from Ref. [39] are
considered here to validate the present aeroelastic model. The relative wing characteristics are shown in Figs. 6 and 7 and Table 1. To
obtain the cross- sectional stiffness and mass properties of the
wing by using the VABS, the wing cross-section is meshed by 2D
elements as shown in Fig. 7. For numerical simulation, the wing
is discretized using 11 spanwise beam elements and the rst 20
structural eigenmodes are retained in the aeroelastic analysis
(nm = 20).
4.1. Linear results
In this section the linear aeroelastic behavior of the present
model is validated. Table 2 presents the computed [03/90]S and
[152/02]S wings natural frequencies by neglecting all nonlinear
effects. They are compared against the reported numerical and

Table 2
Comparison of the linear modal frequencies (Hz).
Composite layup

Mode number

Experiment [39]

Present analysis

Ref. [39]

Value

% Error with experiment

Value

% Error with experiment

FEM (NASTRAN)

[03/90]S

1st Bending
2nd Bending
1st Torsion

4.0
27.1
21.4

4.2
27.3
20.1

5.0
0.7
6.1

4.3
27.2
24.6

7.5
0.4
15

4.2
26.7
21.8

[152/02]S

1st Bending
2nd Bending
1st Torsion

3.6
27.1
22.7

3.8
27.4
21.8

5.5
1.1
4.0

3.9
28.6
23.5

8.3
5.5
3.5

3.8
26.0
22.0

Table 3
Comparison of linear aeroelastic results.
Composite layup

Instability speed and frequency

Present analysis

Ref. [39]

% Error

[03/90]S

Flutter speed (m/s)

Flutter frequency (Hz)
Divergence speed (m/s)

28.40
11.21
28.45

28.2
11.86
28.20

0.5
5.5
0.9

[152/02]S

Flutter speed (m/s)

Flutter frequency (Hz)

28.32
12.52

26.89
11.64

5.3
7.5

Fig. 8. [03/90]S Wing static deection results.

R. Koohi et al. / Composite Structures 113 (2014) 118126

125

Fig. 9. [152/02]S Wing static deection results.

Fig. 11. Variation of utter speed with root angle of attack for [03/90]S wing.

Fig. 10. [03/90]S Wing torsional natural frequencies versus tip displacement.

experimental results in Ref. [39] and the nite element results obtained by NASTRAN. The obtained results, including the natural
frequencies of the rst two out of plane bending modes and the
rst torsion mode, show good agreement in comparison with available experimental data and FEM (NASTRAN). Table 3 compares the
obtained results for linear aeroelastic analysis including utter
speed, utter frequency and divergence speed with those exist in
Ref. [39]. It should be noted that the reported results in Ref. [39]
were obtained by applying the HodgesDowell structural model
with three bending and three torsion beam mode shapes and
implementation of the unsteady ONERA aerodynamic model.
4.2. Nonlinear results
To construct the eigenvalue analysis of the considered nonlinear aeroelastic model, in the rst stage a concentrated force and
moment is applied to the tip of the each aforementioned composite

wing which causes deformation of the wing. The deformation results have been shown in Figs. 8 and 9.
Fig. 10 reveals that the rst three torsional natural frequencies
obtained at these deformations for [03/90]S wing. In the second
stage, a steady angle of attack is added to the root of [03/90]S and
[152/02]S wings which causes deformation of the wings due to
aerodynamic loads. Thus, the aeroelastic system can be expressed
in the perturbed form about this deformation state (linearization
method). The favorite results, including nonlinear utter speed of
aeroelastic model obtained by the solution of the perturbed eigenvalue problem, are shown in Figs. 11 and 12. In order to comparison, the reported results by Dunn and Dugundji [39] are also
presented in these gures. It should be noted that Dunn and
Dugundji [39] used the HodgesDowell [2] equations that did
not include transverse shear deformations and some anisotropic
material coupling terms. These gures show good agreement
between present analysis and experiment results by [39]. Figs. 9
and 10 also show a better agreement between the present result
and the experimental data than that for Ref. [39]. It can be noted
that the effects of transverse shear deformations and composite

126

R. Koohi et al. / Composite Structures 113 (2014) 118126

Fig. 12. Variation of utter speed with root angle of attack for [152/02]S wing.

material coupling terms (except for 0/90 lay-up) in aeroelastic

analysis play an important role.
5. Concluding remarks
A modied aeroelastic model with the capability of calculating
the stability of a composite wing was developed based on the
Hamiltons principle and using a nite element formulation. The
obtained results including the natural frequencies and aeroelastic
stability of the selected wing congurations were presented and
compared with those available in the literature. This study reveals
that the present method has better agreement in accordance with
the experimental data.
The following remarks are also obtained:
 Incorporating Jones approximate unsteady aerodynamic along
with ONERA stall model with the modied YF/VABS structural
model leads to an alternative applicable aeroelastic model for
real composite wing analysis with arbitrary cross-section.
 It is important to consider shear deformation and composite
material coupling terms in the structural equations of motion
for composite wings specically except for 0/90 lay-ups.

References
[1] Hodges DH, Pierce GA. Introduction to structural dynamics and aeroelasticity,
Cambridge aerospace series book; 2011.
[2] Hodges DH, Dowell E. Nonlinear equations of motion for the elastic bending
and torsion of twisted non uniform rotor blades. NASA TN D-7818; 1974.
[3] Rosen A, Friedmann PP. The nonlinear behavior of elastic slender straight
beams undergoing small strains and moderate rotations. J Appl Mech
1979;46:1618.
[4] Dowell E, Traybar J, Hodges DH. An experimentaltheoretical correlation study
of nonlinear bending and torsion deformations of a cantilever beam. J Sound
Vib 1977;50:53344.

[5] Crespo da Silva M, Glynn C. Nonlinear exuralexuraltorsional dynamics of

inextensional bea ms-I. Equations of motions. J Struct Mech 1978;6(4):43748.
[6] Crespo da Silva M, Glynn C. Nonlinear exuralexuraltorsional dynamics of
inextensional beams-I. Forced motions. J Struct Mech 1978;6(4):44961.
[7] Pai P, Nayfeh A. Three-dimensional nonlinear vibrations of composite beams-I.
Equations of motion. Nonlin Dynam 1990;1:477502.
[8] Hodges DH. Nonlinear equations for dynamics of pretwisted beams
undergoing small strains and large rotations. NASA TP 2470; 1985.
[9] Hodges DH. A mixed variational formulation based on exact intrinsic equations
for dynamics of moving beams. Int J Solids Struct 1990;26(11):125373.
[10] Hodges DH. Geometrically exact, intrinsic theory for dynamics of curved and
twisted anisotropic beams. AIAA J 2003;41(6):11317.
[11] Librescu L. Thin-walled composite beams. Solid mechanics and its
applications. Springer Book; 2006. p. 131.
[12] Shi G, Lam KY, Tay TE. On efcient nite element modeling of composite
beams and plates using higher-order theories and an accurate composite beam
element. Compos Struct 1998;41:15965.
[13] Tauk A, Barrau JJ, Lorin F. Composite beam analysis with arbitrary crosssection. Compos Struct 1999;44:18994.
[14] Lee J. Flexural analysis of thin-walled composite beams using sheardeformable beam theory. Compos Struct 2005;70(2):21222.
[15] Cesnik CES, Hodges DH, Patil MJ. Aeroelastic analysis of composite wings. AIAA
paper; 1996. p. 111323.
[16] Xie CC, Leng JZ, Yang C. Geometrical nonlinear aeroelastic stability analysis of a
composite high-aspect ratio wing. J Shock Vib 2008;15(3).
[17] Xie CC, Yang C. Linearization method of nonlinear aeroelastic stability for
complete aircraft with high-aspect ratio wings. Sci China 2011;54(2):40311.
[18] Haddadpour H, Kouchakzadeh MA, Shadmehri F. Aeroelastic instability of
aircraft composite wings in an incompressible ow. Compos Struct
2008;83(1):939.
[19] Librescu L, Qin Z. Aeroelastic instability of aircraft wings modelled as
anisotropic composite thin-walled beams in incompressible ow. J Fluids
Struct 2003;18(1):4361.
[20] Petrolo M. Flutter analysis of composite lifting surfaces by the 1D Carrera
unied formulation and the doublet lattice method. Compos Struct
2013;95:53946.
[21] Zhao YH, Hu HY. Structural modeling and aeroelastic analysis of high-aspectratio composite wings. Chin J Aeronaut 2005;18:2530.
[22] Yuan KA, Friedmann PP. Aeroelasticity and structural optimization of
composite helicopter rotor blades with swept tips. NASA CR 4665; 1995.
[23] Song ZG, Li FM. Active aeroelastic utter analysis and vibration control of
supersonic composite laminated plate. Compos Struct 2012;94:70213.
[24] Stodieck O, Cooper JE, Paul M, Weaver PM, Kealy P. Improved aeroelastic
tailoring using tow-steered composites. Compos Struct 2013;106:70315.
[25] Yu W. VABS manual for users; 2010.
[26] Hodges DH. Nonlinear composite beam theory. Reston (VA): AIAA; 2006.
[27] Hodges DH, Yu W. A rigorous, engineer-friendly approach for modeling
realistic, composite rotor blades. Wind Energy 2007;10:17993.
[28] Friedmann PP, Glaz B, Palacios R. A moderate deection composite helicopter
rotor blade model with an improved cross-sectional analysis. Int J Solids Struct
2009;46:2186200.
[29] Tang D, Dowell E. Experimental and theoretical study on aeroelastic response
of high-aspect-ratio wings. AIAA J 2001;39(8):143041.
[30] Tang D, Dowell E. Effects of geometric structural nonlinearity on utter and
limit cycle oscillations of high-aspect-ratio wings. J Fluid Struct
2004;19:291306.
[31] Tran CT, Petot D. Semi-empirical model for the dynamic stall of airfoils in view
to the application to the calculation of responses of a helicopter blade in
forward ight. Vertica 1981;5:3553.
[32] Patil MJ, Hodges DH, Cesnik CES. Nonlinear aeroelasticity and ight dynamics
of high-altitude, long-endurance aircraft. J Aircr 2001;38(1):8894.
[33] Patil MJ, Hodges DH, Cesnik CES. Nonlinear aeroelastic analysis of complete
aircraft in subsonic ow. J Aircr 2000;37(5):75360.
[34] Patil MJ, Hodges DH. Limit-cycle oscillations in high-aspect-ratio wings. J
Fluids Struct 2001;15:10732.
[35] Peters DA, Cao WM. Finite state induced ow models part I: two dimensional
thin airfoil. J Aircr 1995;32(2):31322.
[36] Shams Sh, Sadr Lahidjani MH, Haddadpour H. Nonlinear aeroelastic response
of slender wings based on Wagner function. Thin-Wall Struct
2008;46:1192203.
[37] Shams S, Sadr Lahidji MH, Haddadpour H. An efcient method for nonlinear
aeroelasticy of Slender Wings. Nonlin Dynam 2012;67:65981.
[38] Jaworski JW, Dowell E. Comparison of theoretical structural models with
experiment
for
a
high-aspect-ratio
aeroelastic
wing.
J
Aircr
2009;46(2):70813.
[39] Dunn PE, Dugundji J. Nonlinear stall and divergence analysis of cantilevered
graphite/epoxy wing. AIAA J 1992;30(1):15362.