DYNAMIC AEROELASTICITY FLUTTER - 2

AEROELASTICITY
EAS 3406
2ND Semester 2015/2016

Aims of this Lecture

Understanding of the concept in:

Aeroelastic behaviour of multi mode aircraft model
Divergence of aeroelastic systems
Aeroelastic systems with the Inclusion of Unsteady
reduced frequency effect
Control surface flutter

DEPARTMENT OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING

Aeroelastic Behaviour of Multi-Mode

Aircraft Model

Full Aircraft Model

Two frequencies couple

together to cause flutter
instability

Frequency (Hz)

8
6
4
2

Damping Ratio (%)

More complicated
behaviour involving many
more modes but trends
are similar

10

20

40

60

80

100
120
Speed (m/s)

140

160

180

200

-2
0

20

40

60

80

100
120
Speed (m/s)

140

160

180

200

4
2
0

Divergence of Aeroelastic Systems

Divergence of Dynamic Aeroelastic Systems (1)

Possible to have flutter that

contains a rigid body mode

10

Real

Freq (Hz)

10

0
-10
-20

50
100
Air-Speed (m/s)

150

100

100

50

50

Imag

Divergence (static instability)

occurs when real root has
positive real part

15

Damping Ratio(%)

Non-oscillatory behaviour when

complex part of roots are zero

0
-50

50
100
Air-Speed (m/s)

150

50
100
Air-Speed (m/s)

150

0
-50

-100
50
100
Air-Speed (m/s)

150

-100

Divergence of Dynamic Aeroelastic Systems (2)

V C + E q = 0
2

Divergence occurs when

V C + E 0
2

Imaginary Part of Eigenvalue

Root Locus shows eigenvalue

behaviour
Static behaviour of system with
fixed wing root

80
B

60
40

C
20
0

C
-40

-80
-20

V C + E q = V Cq
2

-20

-60

Static deflections

-15

-10

-5
0
Real Part of Eigenvalue

10

15

Inclusion of Unsteady Reduced Frequency

Effects

Inclusion of Reduced Frequency Effects

In practice, B and C matrices are

frequency dependent
Frequency matching problem
Need B and C matrices to find
frequencies from eigenvalue
problem
But need frequencies to
determine B and C

Aq + (VB + D)q + (V 2C + E)q = 0

B and C are f(k) where k

b
V

Number of ad-hoc approaches to

solve this problem

k Method (1)

Include structural damping

in aeroelastic model
Assume harmonic solution
Eigenproblem

hence

Aq + (VB + D)q + (V 2C + E)q = 0

D = igE
2

1 ig

b
b
E q0 0
A i B C
2
k
k

1 ig
b
b
(F - E)q0 = 0 where F = A - i B - C and
2
k
k

1
Re

g 2

Im

Re

c
2k

10

k Method (2)
At each reduced frequency
Calculate B and C
Solve complex eigenvalues
Determine frequencies and
dampings
Relate to airspeed via reduced
frequency definition
Consider all k values
Join up frequencies and
corresponding damping ratios
Damping values can fold back
Gives damping required to give zero overall damping (flutter occurs for
positive required damping) hence Vg plot for flutter

11

p-k Method

10

Frequency (Hz)

At each speed
For each mode
Guess initial frequency
Determine B and C
matrices
Solve eigenvalues
Take frequency closest to
the initial guess
Repeat until convergence
occurs
Plot frequency and damping values
k and p-k methods give same
flutter speed but different sub-critical
behaviour

p-k

4
0

Damping Ratio (%)

20

40

60

80
100
Velocity m/s

120

140

160

20

40

60

80
100
Velocity m/s

120

140

160

4
2
0
-2

12

Control Surface Flutter

13

Control Surface Flutter (1)

More common than wing bending torsion flutter

Vertical deflection
z y x x f x x

Same form of equations

I
I

I
I
I

cs3a w

6
I
cs 2 b w

I V
4

I
cs 2 c w

cs 2 a w

0
4

csb w

v 2 0
2

0 csc w

cs 2a c

4 K

csbc

0
2
0
cscc

2

c M
0
8

2
c M
0

0
0 0

K 0 0
0 K 0

14

Control Surface Flutter (2)

Flutter caused by interaction

of two modes
Control / torsion
Control / bending
Bending / torsion

25

Frequency (Hz)

Similar frequency and

damping trends

pitch

20
15
10

control

5
0

flap
0

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

180

200

control

20
10

pitch

0
flap

-10
0

20

30

Damping

20

40

60

80
100
120
Velocity (m/s)

140

160

Mass balancing sometimes employed to eliminate control surface

flutter alternatively increase control stiffness

15

Other Aspects of Flutter

16

Inclusion of Rigid Body Modes

Historically, fixed wing-alone flutter has been considered

however, it is currently normal practice to consider the whole
free-free aircraft and to include both flexible and rigid body
modes in the flutter calculation
Rigid body / flexible mode coupling can occur when
frequencies very close so inclusion of rigid body modes can
alter flutter and divergence behaviour
Whole flexible aircraft is also considered for equilibrium,
dynamic and ground manoeuvres as well as gust / turbulence
encounters

17

Flutter in Transonic Regime

Flutter mechanism is the same

Shock waves present upon
wings
Flutter speed drops as Mach
number increases
flutter dip (bucket)
Need to model transonic
aerodynamics correctly in order
to predict flutter accurately

18

Non-Linearities

Structural
Non-uniform stiffness
Joints / freeplay / friction
Aerodynamic
Shock wave motion
Stall flutter
Control
Deflection and rate limits
Actuation mechanism
Control laws

Structural nonlinearities

19

Limit Cycle Oscillations (LCO)

Due to nonlinear aeroelastic

systems

Flutter behaviour is bounded

Onset depends upon type of

nonlinearity

20

Summary

Need to use unsteady aerodynamics to model dynamic

aeroelastic systems accurately
Flutter, an unstable vibration is the most dangerous aeroelastic
phenomenon
Most flutter mechanisms are binary
Interaction of two modes
Flutter model is usually for the whole aircraft and will therefore
include rigid body modes
Flutter speed reduces in transonic region
Nonlinearities can bound flutter
Limit cycle oscillations

21

Certification Summary
Aircraft must be free from aeroelastic instability for all normal
configurations and conditions within aeroelastic flight envelope
(standard VD / MD envelope enlarged by 15% in EAS at both constant
Mach No and constant altitude so provides margin of safety)
demonstrate by calculation and test
Freedom from flutter for a range of failure conditions, for example
Critical fuel loading
Engine failure
Ice accumulation
Component failure / damage
Failure of flutter control system
Control system failure / freeplay etc.
Freedom from aeroservoelastic instability
Prediction of aeroelastic phenomena with non-linearity
22