1

UNIT 4 Dynamic aeroelasticity

INTRODUCTION
Aeroelasticity
Aeroelasticity is an important subset of Fluid-Structure Interaction encompassing those physical
phenomena for which aerodynamic, elastic, and inertial forces influence each other and interact
in a significant way. Fluid-structure interaction is where a moving gas or fluid interacts with a
structure in such a way that the deformations induced by the medium are of a magnitude such
that the flow field is affected. Fluid Structure Interaction is usually a dynamic process. Modern
airplane structures are not completely rigid, and aeroelastic phenomena arise when structural
deformations induce changes on aerodynamic forces. The additional aerodynamic forces from
some sort of perturbation cause increase in the structural deformations, which lead to greater
aerodynamic forces. These interactions may become smaller until a condition of equilibrium is
reached, or may diverge catastrophically.
Aeroelasticity can generally be divided into two fields of study:

 Static aeroelasticity

 Dynamic aeroelasticity

Static aeroelasticity
Static aeroelasticity studies the interaction between aerodynamics and elastic forces on an elastic
structure. Mass properties are not significant in the calculations of this type of phenomena, since
inertial forces are completely excluded from such analysis.

Dynamic aeroelasticity
Dynamic aeroelasticity studies the interactions among unsteady aerodynamic, elastic, and inertial
forces.

1 Aeroelastic flutter
An example of dynamic aeroelastic phenomena is flutter, in which the flexibility and inertia of
the structure play an essential part in the dynamic stability of the total fluid-structure system. It
occurs when a structural system, under flow conditions beyond some threshold (critical) value of
the flow parameter (viz. critical dynamic pressure), is driven into unstable, and self-excited
oscillations due to unsteady aerodynamic forces from the flow.

Flutter is basically a phenomenon of unstable oscillations in a flexible structure. Beyond the

critical flow conditions, the onset of flutter instability is recognised by the exponential increase
in the vibration amplitudes of the structural system with time (Figure 1.1). Aircraft structures that
function as lifting surfaces are prone to flutter instability due to their interaction with the
aerodynamic flow.
 2

The critical flow condition that leads to the onset of flutter is called the ‘Flutter Boundary’ of the
structure. The flutter boundary of an aerospace vehicle is a characteristic design parameter that is
very important for practical design of its lifting surfaces.
The mechanism of flutter can be explained from the physics of energy flow in the total fluid-
structure system. Under sub-critical flow conditions, the structural oscillations in the

V  V f
Displacement

Converging oscillation

Time (i)

V  V f
Displacement

Time
(ii)
V∞  V f
Displacement

Time (iii)
 3

Figure 1. Nature of dynamic response (displacement) of a structural system subjected to aerodynamic

flow. For free stream flow velocities below a critical value, V∞  V f , the oscillations are stable, as shown
in (i). At the critical flow velocity, the oscillations are un-damped, as shown in (ii). For velocities above
this critical value, V∞  V f , the oscillations are unstable, as shown in (iii).

aerodynamic flow are stable, and thus damped out since the net aerodynamic power flow over
any oscillation cycle is less than what the structure actually dissipates out. At the flutter
boundary (of critical flow velocity), the aerodynamic power input equals the dissipated power,
and steady oscillations, of constant amplitudes, occur. Beyond this critical flow condition the
aerodynamic power input exceeds the dissipated power in each cycle, leading to increase of the
vibration amplitudes in time.

2 Prediction and cure

Besides aircraft structures, various other structural systems, like long span bridges, chimneys, tall
buildings etc. are prone to flutter instability. To ensure safety of these structures against
aerodynamic loads, it is necessary that they are designed to withstand severe wind conditions. It
is thus essential that the flutter boundaries of these structures are estimated, and it is ensured that
these are well above the worst aerodynamic loads that these structures are likely to encounter.
Prediction of the flutter boundary of a structure subjected to aerodynamic loads is essential to
ensure its safety against flutter. This involves making a mathematical model of the structure (say
an aircraft) with appropriate inertial and stiffness distributions. This idealized structure is then
analyzed with appropriate aerodynamic load simulations using various aerodynamic theories.

If a structural system is prone to flutter instability, or the safety margin is quite low, appropriate
cure for the problem can be prescribed through some ingenious redistribution of the inertial and
stiffness properties so that an increase in the flutter velocity can be achieved. This kind of
practice requires a reliable knowledge of the effects of changes of the various system properties
upon the flutter boundary.

Aeroelastic tailoring definition :“Aeroelastic tailoring is the embodiment of directional stiffness into an aircraft structural design to
control aeroelastic deformation, static or dynamic, in such a fashion as to affect
the aerodynamic and structural performance of that aircraft in a beneficial way.
 8

affirmative directions of generalized coordinates (heave h and pitch  ) and external generalized
forces (aerodynamic lift L and aerodynamic moment M ).. Another way of defining matrices are
through finite element formulation of a beam element with both bending and torsion degree of
freedom.

4.2 Formulation of equations of motion for a wide rectangular cantilever beam of

uniform cross section
The equation of motion of a uniform cantilever beam is derived using two approaches; 1)
through analytical Timoshenko beam formulation and 2) through finite element beam
formulation with bending and torsion degree of freedom. Figure 4.2 shows a uniform cantilever
beam.

Elastic axis and Inertia axis

V∞

Y w
t
l

X
Figure 4.2 Wide cantilever beam of uniform cross section
An un-swept cantilever wing having a straight elastic axis perpendicular to the fuselage, which is
assumed to be fixed in space, is considered. The wing deformation can be measured by a bending
deflection ‘h’ in Z-Y plane and a rotation ‘α’ about the elastic axis, h being positive upward and α
is assumed positive if the leading edge up. The chord wise displacement is neglected. The frame
of reference is chosen as shown in Figure 2.2, with the Y-axis coinciding with the elastic axis.
Let l be the semi-span of the wing, w be the width and t be the thickness of rectangular cross
section of the beam model. Let 𝑋𝜃 be the distance between the centre of mass and the elastic axis
at any section, positive if the former lies behind the latter (here, since the beam model cross
section is uniform throughout the span and it is rectangular in geometry, 𝑋𝜃 = 0 throughout the
semi-span). Let c be the chord length and 𝑋𝑂 be the distance of the elastic axis after the leading
edge. In a steady flow of speed V∞, the wing will have some elastic deformation, which is
however, of no concern to the problem of flutter.

4.3 Theodorsen’s function and the p-k method of analysis

The Jones formula [12] for the frequency dependent Theodorsen’s complex function C(k) is used here to
introduce the phase difference between the aerodynamic loading and the response. This is achieved by
updating the aerodynamic matrices [A] and [DA] by multiplying these by the function C(k),
0.165 0.0.335
𝐶 (𝑘) = 1 − 0.0455 − 0.3 (4.45)
1− 𝑖 1− 𝑖
𝑘 𝑘
 9

where 𝑘 = 𝑐𝜔⁄2𝑉∞ is the non-dimensional reduced frequency obtained from the imaginary part of the
eigenvalue  . Convergence in k values for each modal branch is achieved through an iterative method
for a given flow velocity. The flow chart for the above p-k algorithm is presented in Figure 4.4. Here the
updated aerodynamic matrix [𝐴]𝑢𝑝𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 and the updated aerodynamic damping matrix [𝐷𝐴 ]𝑢𝑝𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 are
given as

[𝐴]𝑢𝑝𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 𝐶(𝑘) × [𝐴] and [𝐷𝐴 ]𝑢𝑝𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 𝐶(𝑘) × [𝐷𝐴 ] (4.46)

4.4 Stability conditions

Case 1. At subcritical flow velocities in the presence of damping, all the eigenvalues are complex, λ = λr ±
iλi = (−𝜁𝜔𝑛 ± 𝑖𝜔𝑑 ), with negative real parts, λr < 0, indicating that the net effective damping 𝜁 is
positive, (since 𝜔𝑛 >0), leading to stable oscillations, characterized by decrease in amplitude with time.
The imaginary parts of the eigenvalues give the circular frequencies (λi=𝜔𝑑 in rad/s) of the associated
branches from the two modes, while the real parts give the time dependence of the amplitudes.

Case 2. Beyond a critical velocity, (𝑉∞ > 𝑉𝑓 ), the real part of at least one of the complex eigenvalues, λ =
λr ± iλi = (−𝜁𝜔𝑛 ± 𝑖𝜔𝑑 ), becomes positive, i.e. λr =−𝜁𝜔𝑛 > 0. This indicates that beyond this critical
velocity, the net damping 𝜁 is negative, leading to unstable oscillations, characterized by increase in
amplitude with time. At the critical (flutter) velocity (𝑉∞ = 𝑉𝑓 ) i.e. at the flutter boundary, the real part of
the eigenvalues vanishes, (λr = 0), indicating purely simple harmonic motion, without any net damping at
all.

Case 3. Divergence is indicated by the condition that the imaginary part of λ vanishes, i.e. λi=𝜔𝑑 =0, when
the corresponding real part is positive.

Flutter Analysis: Algorithm for P-K Method

 10

Compute stiffness and mass matrices

Read current flow velocity

Modal branch for first root

Initialize Theodorsen’s function with C(k) = 1

Update aerodynamic matrix = C(k) x [A] and aerodynamic damping

matrix = C(k) x D A 

Find eigenvalues: 𝜆 = −𝜁𝜔𝑛 ± 𝑖𝜔𝑑

Find c c
p   pr  i  p r  ik
2V 2V

C(k) c
k for a given mode
2V

No
is k=k previous

Yes
Converged eigenvalues for mode at corresponding flow velocity

Go to next modal branch for convergence of next root

Updated flow velocity if all roots have converged

Figure 4.4 Algorithm for p-k-method.

 11

4.5 Flutter analysis of the wing:

Flutter analysis of the wing is also carried out using the same elementary beam model.
The quasi-steady aerodynamic theory is used to obtain the aerodynamic forces interacting with
the structure. First the problem is solved taking one bending mode and one torsion mode as a
first estimate and then the result has been improved taking higher modes.
The flutter speed obtained for the present configuration has shown to be very high and also that
the wing is very stiff. Hence the stiffness of the wing is reduced by reducing the modulus of
elasticity and correspondingly the modulus of rigidity. The results obtained for the wing with
reduced stiffness parameters are typical for subsonic flutter.

The eigenvalue  is a continuous function of the air speed U. When U is not zero, but
infinitesimally small, the exponent  is no longer pure imaginary but complex,  =  + i. Of
course, to investigate this case, we must return to the non-self adjoint system. It can be shown
that for sufficiently small U and for (dCL / d) < 2 , the wing is losing energy to the
surrounding air, so that the motion is damped oscillatory, and hence asymptotically stable. The
clear implication is that  is negative. As U increases,  can become positive, so that at the point
at which  changes sign, the motion ceases to be damped oscillatory and becomes unstable. The
air speed corresponding to  = 0 is known as critical speed and denoted by Ucr. There are many
critical values of U but, because in actual flight U increases from an initially zero value, the
lowest critical value is the most important. One can distinguish between two critical cases,
depending on the value of . When  = 0 and  = 0 the wing is said to be in critical divergent
condition. When  = 0 and   0 the wing is said to be in critical flutter condition.
The above qualitative discussion can be substantiated by a more quantitative analysis. To this
end, we must derive and solve the complete non-self adjoint eigenvalue problem.we obtain the
eigenvalue problem

[K + U2H +  UL +  2M ] a = 0 ----------(4.47)

, [ M ] , [L] , [𝐾 ] and [𝐻] represents generalized mass, aerodynamic damping, stiffness and
aerodynamic stiffness matrices respectively and {𝑞 } is the vector of the natural coordinates.
Suppose the generalized matrices are truncated to m modes. These expressions are substituted in
the eqn. (2.19) for flutter analysis of tapered beam
The chord length of the wing is assumed to be varying linearly along the length (i.e., from Root
to Tip). The chord length (cr) for each element is taken at the middle of each section). These
chord lengths are substituted in the above expressions, which are in turn substituted in Eqs
(4.47).